Look at this sentence: "The Army of Islam is regarded by the Syrian government and its most powerful ally, Russia, as a sectarian". So she is saying that the man who called for the extermination of Shi`ites and Alawites is not really sectarian but is unfairly regarded as sectarian by the Syrian and Russian regimes. 2) She then implies that by dispatching a delegation to Saudi Arabia, his patron, it means that he is indeed moderate and secular just like the Saudi regime: "The Army of Islam sent members to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, this month for talks among opposition groups". 3) She then tells readers that while it is true that he has engaged in kidnapping and murder but he is is willing to talk: "Mr. Alloush and his faction had not been universally accepted in the Syrian opposition — they are widely blamed for the disappearance of four secular opposition activists from the Damascus suburb of Douma. But unlike harder-line armed groups, the Army of Islam has shown a recent interest in taking part in politics". 4) She then cites the opinion about Alloush by a correspondent for the mouthpiece of Prince Khalid bin Sultan, Al-Hayat, but identifies Al-Hayat thus: "a Syrian correspondent for Al Hayat, a pan-Arab newspaper.". The word Saudi does not even appear in her identification of the "pan-Arab" newspaper, and I don't know why American pro-Saudi regime media now habitually refer to Saudi newspaper as "pan-Arab". Imagine how Nasser would have reacted to that designation. 5) She then cites the opinion of someone saying that Alloush fought with ISIS, as if fighting with ISIS is a sign of moderation when Al-Qa`idah in Syria has in fact also fought with ISIS: "“to systematically fight ISIS & its cells.”". 6) She then asks readers to disregard the sectarianly genocidal calls of Alloush: "Mr. Alloush, a religiously conservative Sunni Muslim, had a history of making sectarian statements. But after having met with American officials recently, he softened his tone."