Arango and Barnard's account of Sunni-Shi'ite strife in the New York Times

There is a hilariously comical but typically propagandistic account of the sectarian war in the Middle East.  I dont know the background of Arango but I know that Ms. Barnard has no background whatsoever in the Middle East-and it shows daily-which makes her for two reason easily susceptible to Syrian armed opposition propaganda.  Barnard and Arango think that the sectarian conflict began with the Syrian war and they don't know that Saudi Arabia has invested heavily in secarian hatred against Shi'ites for decades-nay centuries ever since Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahab led his band of Jihadis northward to kill Shi'ites and to destroy their holy sites.  Barnard and Arango don't even mention that sectarianism was a deliberate policy of American occupiers.  They then want to convince readers that the blatant sectarianism of the armed and exile opposition was due to Hizbullah intervention in Qusayr as if it didnt begin even before the uprising given the past sectarian hatred of the Muslim Brotherhood and its sponsors: " He was visiting Lebanon from a rebel-held Syrian town, Qusayr, where his brother died Tuesday battling Shiite guerrillas from the Lebanese militia Hezbollah. “People lost brothers, sons, and they’re angry,” he said.". Notice that all Zionist media strive to provide rationalizations for Sunni sectarianism.  In fact, Shimon Peres has all but declared his conversion to Sunni Islam.  but the fallacies of this article are thus revealed: " The Syrian civil war is setting off a contagious sectarian conflict beyond the country’s borders.". This is what happens when people without depth or training write about the Middle East.  In fact, it is the other way round:  the secarian regional conflict instigated by Saudi Arabia triggered the war (I am not talking here about the popular uprising which all but died) in Syria. And the article cite the authority of Saudi propagandists even among an Iranian token voice: " “Nothing has helped make the Sunni-Shia narrative stick on a popular level more than the images of Assad — with Iranian help — butchering Sunnis in Syria,”". Notice that Bahrain and Saudi sectarian military intervention there is mentioned not once there.  It just didnt happen because it disturbs the Saudi Ikhwan narrative of this silly article.  So it is not only ignorance that drive the thrust of the article but also malfeasance.  Here the duo in the article present the aims of rebel commanders: " Rebel leaders say their only aim is to depose a dictator.".  They deliberately disregard the blatantly sectarian discourse of rebel commanders and even of liberal opposition leaders including threats to incinerate all Alawites or to grind them. And here you get an idiotic account of the rise of Jihadi sectarian groups: " With the West hesitant to fully support the opposition, rebels accepted help from Al Qaeda in Iraq," Here Arango anc Barnard all but call for arming of the rebels. So the rebels were secular liberals but only turned toward sectarian and Jihadi ideologies because the West didn't arm them. So are they saying that those are mere mercenaries who adopt the ideology of whoever assist them? But the duo felt compelled to grudgingly admit the obvious: " Sunni rebels and gangs have been accused of kidnapping Shiites. Sunni fighters call Shiites “filth” and “dogs.” Rebel commanders have begun to refer to Hezbollah, whose name means party of God, as the “party of the devil.”" But notice that they made it sound as if this sectarianism is new when the term Party of Satan has been applied by Wahhabis for over a decade.  But then the duo want to provide balance and want to report on anti-Sunni sectarianism: " Government supporters call rebels “rats” and paint them with a broad brush as Bedouins and Wahhabis — a puritanical strain of Sunni Islam from Saudi Arabia. Fadil Mutar, an Iraqi Shiite, said at the funeral of his son, who was killed in Syria, that he died fighting Wahhabis, “those vile people.”". You are kidding me.  Describing rebels as rats is secarian?  And opposition and even hostility to Wahhabiyyah which is an ideology and not religion or sect is bigotry?  All Sunnis until the appearance of oil money were vocally opposed to wahhabiyyah so that makes Sunnis sectarian anti-Sunnis?  And why the NYT duo didnt chronicle all the sectarian killings by the armed opposition?  Bashshar is a bloody tyrant but like Saddam he is non-sectarian in repression (Alawites were singled out for worst torture in Asad jails) and in rewards despite the sectarian base of the regime which was expanded under Bashshar. You think the regime would have lasted for two years if it was truly supported only by Alawites?  But to bolster their silly sectarian claims they cite the authority of "Abu Ali", a student in Najaf.  When they get silly like that I feel compelled to not be dragged inti silliness. But they are right in the reference to the discourse by those who support the regime (Sunnis, Shi'ites, Christisns, and seculars) to their enemies as bedouins. It is true. That is classist and regionalist but hardly sectarian and I have spoken out against what appear as racism against people in the Gulf. If I am grading this article I would have givrn it a D- at best.