The Economist's hilarious account of sectarianism in the Middle East

"The most egregious of these arsonists is Syria’s Mr Assad. When his regime, led largely by fellow members of the minority Alawite sect, responded to initially peaceful protests with extreme brutality it was on the pretext that its foes were Sunni fanatics bent on destroying the country’s complex social mosaic. It went on to release hundreds of jihadists from prison and to instigate attacks on Christians and other minorities to make its case convincing—and thus brought the reality about". Excuse me but how did this happen? And did the Syrian regime ever resort to sectarian rhetoric compared to the blatantly sectarian rhetoric of Syrian exile opposition and the Syrian armed groups and their sponsors in GCC countries? Not a word in this article about the sectarian war launched and spearheaded by Saudi regime. Not one word.  And excuse me: but when did the Asad regime "instigate" attacks on Christians and how did that happen? And if that is the case, how come Syrian Christians are overwhelmingly supportive of the regime and not of the Syrian exile opposition? They all have the wrong information and impression while the Economist knows better. It is sad that even the Economist on Syria resorts to the same cliches of Saudi and Qatari media that are reproduced daily in Western media.  And the present of Jihadi Takfiri groups preceded the Syrian uprising: why do Western media conveniently ignore that Jihadi takfiri groups prepared to proclaim an Emirate in Diniyyah in Lebanon in 1999 which led to a war with the Lebanese army?  And is the contention of the Economist that the likes of the various Jihadi and Takfiri and Ikhwan groups (leaders and members) were all secular but the repression of the regime turned them into sectarians?  This is really propaganda and not analysis.