It is both irresponsible and factually wrong to claim that the Shia lebanese Hezbollah introduced sectarianism into Syrias civil war by taking side with the regime and later entering the battlefield.

In order to prove why the sectarian claims of the syrian rebels and their arab and euro.american backers are utter nonsense its important to keep the following facts in mind.
For a long time (long before any Hezbollah fighter entered Syria), the rebels – motivated by takfiri ideology and paid and instigated by wahhabi/Salafi backers from the Persian Gulf monarchies – were regularly involved in:

– sectarian anti-Shia slogans

– kidnapping non-syrian Shia pilgrims on several occasions

– besieging and attacking shiite villages in Syria (e.g. Nubbul and Zahra)

– kidnapping and killing (often beheading or otherwise executing) Shia civilians by alleging that they are Shabiha or even worse simply „accusing“ them of rejectionism (Rafidha) and „apostasy“ (Irtidaad)

– targeted destruction of Shia mosques and shrines, vandalization of Shia graves

More and more radical Sunni clerics, among them top-notch influential preachers such as Yousef al Qaradawi started to openly attack the Shia as a faith and community. This is of course the same fascist, anti-human polemic talk that the Nazis used against Jews, but the west prefers to ignore this. While this kind of hate speech has already led to the killings (by the rebels) of Sunni clerics because of their good relations with the Assad regime or with Hezbollah, the rebels western supporters seem to not care for this as long as „arch enemy“ Irans ally Syria is the target and is getting weakened.

On the other side not a single Shia statesman or top-level Shia cleric (in Iran, Iraq or Lebanon) has attacked the rebels for being Sunnis or has used the term „Sunni“ in connection with denouncing the rebels faith. „Sunni“ has not been used as insult or otherwise derogatory against the rebels or the states supporting them. Hezbollah leader Nasrallah clearly used the word „Takfiri“ to attack the rebels and in the same speech said that when he says „Muslims“ he is addressing not only Shias, but also Sunnis, Alawis and others, thus making crystal clear that he is not attacking Sunnis or doubting their islamic belief and loyalty.

Even while reporting a „massacre“ on 60 Shiite villagers in eastern Syria by the rebels, the same BBC article mentions the increased desire of France to arm the rebels. The underlying „logic“ (which is an insult to this words real meaning) is to make the syrian conflict more „balanced“, pointing out that the syrian army has an airforce which the rebels don´t have.

Maybe the rest of the world should use the same flawed logic to arm the Islamists in Mali. After all the French special troops are much better armed. Or „we“ should consider arming the Taliban to make the war in Afghanistan more „balanced“ and „fair“, since the Taliban have no drones. This is of course a fiction scenario but the grotesque analogy should open the eyes of those people who prefer to strengthen the syrian rebels by further (and better) arming them instead of putting them under pressure to enter serious peace talks with the syrian government without demanding brazen preconditions which are solely aimed at sabotaging any negotiations.