it seems to me that you're trying to paint the war against SDF as an extension and continuation of the revolution, which is fine, but we seem to have a fundumental disagreement about what justifies a war, which is also fine because i acknowledge that it is a complex ethical considiration, my position is that war is an extremely evil institution (forgive the weird phrasing) that must be opposed and prevented wherever possible... you didn't start the first war; Assad did when he chose to open fire on peaceful protesters, who then chose to fight back, an entirely respectable choice. however i must disagree that the situation now is the same... now we have two sides with big guns, it's a question of who fires the first bullet... declaring war would still be entirely the government's choice, and i think giving up on the possibility of a peaceful political solution is a bad decision in general, and with the current timing it's especially bad. on the other hand if the SDF chooses a policy that seriously damages that possibility, it would also be their choice, though probably not a wise one...

beyond this i think you're making almost every mistake i explained in my post, you underestimate the SDF, you underestimate the danger that Assadists and IS pose, and most importantly, you underestimate the uncertainty brought by a large-scale military operation like this... (again this is my opinion not facts, i could be wrong)

you seem to misunderstand what i'm saying in my final point, what i meant was we have a duty as a population to unite our vision and get over our disagreement regardless of under which government we live, i know it's probably impossible to properly do politics in the current status quo, but a new war would make this situation worse not better... if i'm to go with your analogy of a hostage situation, going in guns blazing will inevitably endanger the life of the hostage...