Well this post became far lengthier than I intended and I'm fairly certain you will just ignore it and jump around to other topics like you did with my previous post, but maybe it will help someone else:
You didn't mention the war crimes by the Army of Conquest, which is a coalition of Sunni rebel groups. Are we to believe that these Sunni rebels have not killed non-combatants?
Non-combatants have died at the hands of rebels but they were not generally deliberately targeted. And when they have been, and it was clear that any of the rebels were the culprits, the rebels have condemned it and/or taken action against the perpetrators, which is unlike what the regime or allies do.
Or just that they don't have the firepower to do more damage..?
1.) If the rebels we are referring to are religious Sunnis, then why do you think they would abandon the clear principle in Islaam of never intentionally targeting non-combatants?
2.) The majority of the country is anti-regime and Sunni. If they really wanted to, they could've inflicted a lot more damage against non-combatants. But most of those who have died at the rebels' hands have been combatants whereas most of the dead at the hands of the regime are non-combatants. So if it was an issue of firepower and not of principle, that would be reflected in the figures of the types of people dead.
3.) The rebels have had many opportunities to commit massacres, yet they generally do not. When this article was written, there were "
56 major massacres displaying obvious sectarian or ethnic cleansing traits. Of these 49 were carried out by Syrian government forces or local and foreign militia allies of President Bashar al-Assad" A Damning Indictment of Syrian President Assad’s Systematic Massacres
49/56 involved the regime/allies and 4/56 involved rebels. Keep in mind most of the country is anti-regime...yet they inflicted the least damage. So the minority and its supporters have killed the vast majority of non-combatants and committed the vast majority of sectarian massacres. They have been the cause of the most death, destruction, and misery in Syria. But for some baffling reason, you continue to only care about what the rebels did.
4.) Look at the
infographic from a few posts ago and direct your attention to Fateh al Sham (now disbanded and merged into another group though I think some still specifically track them or refer to them - before they were Nusra but they, too, disbanded). They are a significant fighting force and among the most sophisticated among the rebels militarily, but in 6 years, they were responsible for less than 400 non-combatants dead.
5.) Consider the following infographics. Compare those who were detained with those who were killed under torture. Assuming that those who were killed under torture are included in the figures of the first infographic, then the percentage of the detainees killed under torture is at 13.85% by the regime. It is less than 1.2% for everyone else, even ISIS. So if it was really a question of firepower, the rebels should have had percentages similar to the regime's. And generally, most of those imprisoned by the rebels are combatants whereas the regime killed a 13-year-old boy for attending a protest. Before they killed him, they smashed his knees, broke his jaw, cut off his penis, electrocuted him, and burned him with cigarettes.
On 11 June 2016, the al-Nusra Front killed at least 20 Druze villagers in Qalb Lawzeh in Idlib province.
2015. It was a case rooted in land dispute, not religious affiliation though the killed were all Druze. And this was condemned by Nusra, saying it was an unjustified error taken without the leadership's knowledge, and said this would be reviewed in court and action would be taken. They said they only raise their arms against the regime, ISIS, and corrupt gangs. In court, they ordered blood money be paid to the victims' families.
And the wider rebel groups also condemned what had happened there.
On 12 May 2016, rebels led by al-Nusra Front and Ahrar ash-Sham massacred 42 civilians and seven NDF militiamen while kidnapping up to 70 people after taking control of the Alawite village of Zara'a in Southern Hama.
The ones killed were mainly shabiha (pro-Assad gangs/militia), not civilians. The 2 women killed were armed and shot at the rebels, killing one of them. When Leith Fadel or Assad-allied sources write about the rebels, take it with a grain of salt since most of them lie or rely upon government reports (which are filled with lies). Fyi, many civilians remained in al-Zara when the rebels captured it and only fled when the regime started raining bombs down on the village.
On 30 October 2016, 38 people, including 14 children, were killed by rebel rocket fire on government-held district of Aleppo.
I don't know about that figure (since the sources reporting this are either pro-Assad or have shown themselves to lie in favor of Assad even when trying to portray themselves as neutral or even pro-rebel) killed in rocket attacks targeting the regime....the same regime which had them besieged. But let's assume it's true. What do you expect them to do? Lay down their arms and not even attempt to fight back when they were being massacred? They weren't targeting civilians; rather, they were targeting regime positions.
Now how about you mention how the regime and allies repeatedly target hospitals, marketplaces, and residential buildings. They deliberately target civilians.
...Seems Alawites and Druze were considered "apostates", or at least, close enough.
They're not Muslims to begin with.
