By denying the external assault , this narrative, of war on Terror probably suggested by Putin, consecrates the thugs as a local Syrian constituent instead of a tool for western powers and puts the regime in direct aggressive confrontation with this constituent that assumed the role of an opposition . This narrative puts the rule in a vicious circle whereby it has to fight the opposition that is labeled as Terror but has to sit with it on the negotiation table as an opposition .
Today, in Geneva , the tribune of Ryad said clearly that the progress in Jobar was in self defense against an attack by the rule on different fronts, and due to this , the UN and de Mistura could not condemn the escalation in Jobar and al Qaboon and Hama or consider it as a terrorist attack .
The narrative of the rule is controversial . If those are terrorists so why sit with them at the negotiation table ? And since we are sitting with them at the negotiation table why consider them as as terrorists ? Therefore , what is required is to change the narrative otherwise one would have to stop fighting Terror and stop progressing in Aleppo and Tadmur and consecrate the state of things and generalize the `cease fire to include al Nusrat and consider that there is only an opposition that is not terrorist and reach a settlement regarding this state of things . This is the place where the world powers and war belligerents are taking Syria