This article about the killing of christian Syrians in Damascus does everything to not denounce the rebels:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23086213

Look at this:
First it says „Rebel sources confirmed the number of dead, but said the attack was caused by a mortar bomb.“
Then: „No-one has claimed responsibility for the attack.“

So, what does this article want to tell us? That their are any serious doubts about the rebels being responsible for this killing? That the regime „staged“ this?

Nowhere in the report a syrian government is quoted. Neither is a Christian is quoted while one could assume that any Christian being interviewed would have very probably blamed the western-backed rebels.

It gets „better“: „There have been consistent but unverified reports of violence directed against Christians in Syria..“
The word „unverified“ is used to put doubt on any reports of anti-christian violence. Plus, the text deliberately avoids to associate this violence to the rebels, creating the impression that the government could have been behind the reported cases of anti-christian violence as well.

The last text passageis the highlight: „They were at first reluctant to take sides in the rebellion against President Bashar al-Assad but have gradually been drawn into the conflict on both sides.“
So, one could assume the rebels have no more committed violence against the Christians than the government, which is of course utter nonsense since the mostly better-off Christians had little reason to side with Islamists trying to topple a secular arab government.