Anne Barnard and the recycled story about Syrian regime's complicity with ISIS

My favorite part of her article (which was prompted by tweets by US embassy in Damascus--kid you not) is this: "Neither American officials nor Syrian insurgents have provided proof of such direct coordination".  So she is saying: even if there is no proof, she will go ahead and write this story knowing that the paper will publish it. Imagine if this story (without proof) is about Israeli complicity with Nusrah Front (which in fact has proof).  She reiles in rumors that have been circulating for months but without evidence. But what she does not tell you is this: 1) that there is a far common view in the Arab world that the US is directly responsible for the creationg of ISIS.  2) that the Syrian regime in fact is military engaged against ISIS in more than one spot, from Tadmur to Qalamun.  3) that Syrian regime is often accused of not bombing ISIS, but when it does, it is accused of slaughtering Sunnis. You may see that kind of spin in Saudi and Qatari Arab media.  4) Nusrah Front (the real force for what the Western media calls "moderate Syrian armed groups) needs to promote this view in order to explain the rise of ISIS. 5) the remnants of what used to be called Free Syrian Army needs this story in order to explain their demise and their significance.  6) but there is ISIS in more  than one country: did the Syrian regime also conspire to create ISIS in Libya, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia? 7) this is classic dumb journalism. 8) it is certain that neither the US nor the Syrian regime created ISIS, and that Gulf regimes are probably the biggest factor in the creation of ISIS.  8) this is yet another expample of how Western correspondents take their marching orders from US embassies.