Bearing Arms or Seeking Peace?

There are two groups calling for a peaceful resolution in Syria: Those who champion freedom and human rights and fully understand that a peaceful end is the shortest distance to achieve both and those who seek to install another autocracy led by extremist Sunnis and can only achieve it by stopping Assad from killing. 

Exclusivity aside, there are also two groups calling for Syrians to bear arms: Those who champion self-defense bearing in mind a quick end to the suffering of the Syrian people and those who are pursuing a policy of scorched earth revenge against the Alawite minorities.

Within the framework of the latter group, there are those who adhere to neither the installation of another dictatorship nor to revenge against the minorities of Syria. In order to dictate their rules, they have to control those who control the weapons; a near impossibility given that the US and Europe have outsourced Syria’s future to the Arab League.

Any wonder why the minorities of Syria are fighting with Assad? By empowering the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama provided Assad with a gift.

A westerner could be confused for what Syrians stand for if the follow-up questions are not asked. It’s wrong to seek a peaceful resolution if your aim is to install another dictatorship (Arab League in cohort with the SNC) and it is as wrong to seek an armed struggle if your aim is revenge (Salafists).

Alternatively, it’s not wrong to seek peace if you are certain to secure freedom and human rights for all Syrians and it’s not wrong to bear arms to shorten the conflict and the suffering.

The distinction lies in understanding the ultimate goal and not just the simple rhetoric.