“The Syrian people took up arms only to defend themselves after violent repression from the government against their peaceful protests; they never thought it would lead to a devastating civil war. You should read about the events that led to the armed uprising”
That is the official rebel narrative, and I am quite familiar with it, as are we all. Since it is the only narrative we hear. But of course, it is an over-simplification, and it also requires us to suppose that the rebels were themselves completely unfamiliar with the nature of the regime. We are to believe simultaneously that they fought the regime because it is violent and brutal, but also that they did not know it was violent and brutal. We are to believe that it was a shock when the regime responded to armed opposition with intensified violence, although, obviously anyone would expect that from a government that responded brutally to nonviolent protest.
Like all the best propaganda, it is essentially true, but is deceptive in its simplification. Armed revolt was encouraged by the US, weapons were facilitated, and the FSA was established by officers from the regime itself; supported (if not organized) by the United States in the hopes of setting up a client regime.
The original reform demands were replaced with a call for regime change; jihadis entered the fray and called for an Islamic state, and so on. “Defending” the victims of Assad’s brutal crackdown created more victims, and more, and more. Rebel factions spent a great deal of time fighting each other (which is rather hard to explain as “defending the Syrian people”), and grabbing territory and control over resources.
So no, the narrative is not quite as straightforward as we imagine.