As the warn turns bloodier in Syria, now talks about interfering in its domestic affairs and supporting armed rebels has become a catchphrase. Now all know that countries were involved in arming and

providing support to rebellion groups since the very start of armed struggle more than two years ago. Indeed, it was clear to reach to such a result with a very naïve calculation. How it is possible that

small number of untrained civilians with a glimpse of eyes becomes strong enough to stand against one of the powerful army in the region.

The ex-president, the father of President Assad, Hafiz Al-Assad could easily suppress an uprising which was comparatively larger than the one started two years ago in the country. But since then, President

has largely worked on the security establishments and armed conventional arms far equipped in comparison to military under the leadership of his father.

Presently, regional countries do not consider it important to hide their previously military and financial support to armed opposition of Syrian government. Rebellions are trained in neighboring countries on

wide range of issues such as use of conventional arms and insurgency war.

Rebellions and regional countries have been asking for support of Western countries. Till now USA and European countries have not reached to a conclusion to arm rebellions, fearing of Islamist rise in the future but many countries stepped ahead and started campaign to win the consent of other countries for arming rebellions and ending the government of President Assad.

On Thursday, The United States said it was taking a fresh look at whether to arm Syria’s rebels as the Damascus regime pressed an assault on opposition forces in the embattled city of Homs. After having rejected the idea previously, President Barack Obama’s deputies were weighing the option of providing weapons to Syria’s outgunned opposition, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told reporters.

Asked whether the US government was rethinking its opposition to arming the rebels, Hagel replied with a firm “Yes.” But he said no decision had been reached and also declined to offer his own view on the matter, saying he was in favor of exploring options and seeing what was the best option in coordination with their international partners.

Meanwhile, President in a press conference in Mexico told, “As we’ve seen evidence of further bloodshed, potential use of chemical weapons inside of Syria, what I’ve said is that we’re going to look at all options”.

“We want to make sure that we look before we leap and that what we’re doing is actually helpful to the situation, as opposed to making it more deadly or more complex”, he added.

But the question is Western countries are ignoring the possible rise of insurgent groups who are closely linked with Al-Qaeda. However, presently only Al-Nusra front is known for its terrorist activities but it is not clear how much other groups who are doing far well then the groups bargaining at the international level at the ground against the military support Islamic ideology.

Previously, a high Iraqi al-Qaeda figure once told that members of network had gone to Syria to wage Jihad. The fighters are trying to highlight the religious issue to justify their violence against government. However, the regime is secular and different sects are part of the government, but now it is labeled as Shiite government which is indeed strange. The regime does not necessarily represent Shiite. Alawis, who just accept three Shiite Imams were introduced as Shiite by Ayatullah Khomeini, the founder of Islamic Republic three decades ago. The Fetwa was a political one rather than a religious one because many believe that the similarity between Alawaites and Sunni is far lager then that of Shiite and Alawites. Any how I am not trying to prove whether Alawites are Shiite or not, neither supporting President Assad to step down. The important issue is this that irrespective of whether the Syrian

government is a Shiite a government or not, but presently part of rebellions is motivating people to fight in line with Islamic Shariah.

According to groups like Al-Nusra seculars and Shiite fall at the same wing. So, they are fighting to remove seculars and Shiite in order to establish a Taliban like government in Syria. Unfortunately, the antagonism with President Assad’s regime has made many countries to take decision without considering the possible consequences. It is highly hard to pour weapon in the country and

meanwhile ensure that they do not end up to hands of Islamists who presently have large say in the battle ground. In addition, many regional countries also do not agree on whom to be supported to take

power after the collapse of the government. Western weapons should also go through the channels of these countries which also likely strengthen radical groups.

Secondly, what is important to be noticed is that those who are killing government supporters, followers of particular sects for the sake of God, and chanting “Allaho Akbar” will not establish a democratic government which is essentially secular and based on religious pluralism. Why we should close our eyes and hope a miracle happen and with glance of eyes they change from Jihadist to peaceful citizens meanwhile, no one cannot reject the influence of foreign factors and new global democratic environment. Indeed, nobody knows how the Western democracy this time aligned with Islamist Radicals. If the regional and global powers do something to set the next establishment on the path of democracy, but with current rebellions Syria will not reach to democracy.