Notice the difference in tone when reporting about Arab vs.Arab violence compared to Arab vs. Non-Muslim violence?

The fact that civilians were wounded is not give the usual 'outrage' had the clash been with infidels. Why is that? Is it because AlJazeera hypes stories just like the Western Media.

Also note the following light treatment, or actually a gross distortion of the facts in the following:

A human rights activist said a Syrian court sentenced a man earlier on Sunday to 12 years in jail for belonging to a banned Islamist group.
"The court issued a death sentence against Omar Darwish for belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood organisation in line with decree 49 of 1980 but reduced the ruling to 12 years in jail," activist and lawyer Anwar al-Bunni said in a statement.
In the early 1980s, Syria crushed an Islamist revolt which led to the death or imprisonment of thousands and drove the Muslim Brotherhood into exile. Bunni said Darwish returned from Iraq in 2003 after living there for 28 years.
Security forces have clashed with militants several times in recent months, chiefly during raids to arrest them.
In October, Syria arrested a group of militants who it said planned to launch attacks inside the country.
Security forces killed a Muslim militant in September and arrested two in another clash in northeast Syria. A week before, the forces killed five members of an Islamist group in a gunbattle in the northwest of the country and discovered a cache of weapons.

This is a reference to the Hama city massacre in which between 20,000 to 40,000 unarmed civilians were killed in cold blood. The town was shelled by the Syrian military. Chemical weapons were even used. You would be hard pressed to glean that from their description of the event.