See, for example:
"... confirm that Syria is being ravaged by a civil war deliberately promoted by Western powers to destabilize the country and prepare it for regime change."
This would be slightly easier to accept if what was happening in Syria a) wasn't part of a wider pattern in the Arab world, and b) if the Syrian regime was benevolent and lovely and the Syrian people had nothing to protest about.
I think there's also c) 'regime change' - to what? Destabilising Syria surely runs the risk, from the point of view of the Western powers, of ending up with the Muslim Brotherhood. If Asad was a real thorn in their side (from whatever angle), I suppose it might be worth the risk. But why risk it now? (Of course, things have got so bad they reckon Asad needs to go, and they'd rather have some control over who replaces him. But that's not at all the same as 'deliberately promoting' the crisis in the first place).