The practical usefulness of violent strife, the conventional purpose achieved by it throughout modern history, is that it creates such savage misery and despair and so totally exhausts the population, that it allows for heinous political settlements which the people would never accept except as a way to rescue them from the seemingly endless bloody turmoil of violence. That is how it usually plays out in history.
Paramilitaries, death squads, rebel militias, etc, with dubious sources of funding and sponsorship always emerge to wreak havoc under the banner of some noble cause, and promise decisive victories which, of course, never materialize. There are brutal battles, atrocities, and hellish terror for a number of years, until, ultimately, political figures decide that the time is ripe for negotiations, and a deal is made.
Whoever goes to the negotiating table to represent the rebel factions then becomes responsible for imposing the deal on any faction that does not agree with it and wishes to continue fighting; and they are usually even more brutal and effective against their former comrades than their former opponents were.
This is what ultimately happened in Ireland; it happened in Chechnya, the Philippines, and over and over again in country after country. This is what you can expect in Syria as well.
When any party leader calls for violent revolution, he is essentially announcing that he hopes to be the one eventually summoned to the negotiating table to cut a deal with power.