According to the Voice of America website ships with weapons have been intercepted on their way to Syria. The Lebanese government claims that these weapons were headed to the "rebel" forces in Syria. It is important to note that these so called rebels are only reacting to the violent response Assad had to their request for reforms. The "rebels" are also claiming that the minority leader (Shiite) is perpetrating ethnic cleansing against the Sunni majority.
This disarming technique is not new however when it comes to the outside world's reaction to genocides that mask themselves with civil war or political conflicts. In Rwanda the UN pushed to have the Tutsi disarmed while failing to stop the massing of weapons by Hutu militias. The result was a horrific blood bath in which the bullets ran out and the machetes came out. All the world could do was stand by and watch (while still enforcing the disarmament of the victims even as they were being slaughtered).
In Bosnia the United Nations decided it was "imperative" that the Muslim population be banned from having access to any form of weapons. The only weapons coming into Bosnia were the ones strapped to the backs of the Serbs. In doing this the UN made the Serbs' goals far easier to achieve. Meanwhile Bosnian victims were lucky to have even a knife to fight back with.
While the Janjaweed pillage Darfur it has been the UN's mission to provide camps for refugees while denying any effort to protect or arm the victims of the Muslim aggressors. Under aerial bombardment the victims have no place to hide when the trucks and horses come rolling in behind the government planes. This is a genocide in which the attackers are using Hitler's blitzkrieg. Yet the United Nations fails to see the only solution to this sort of SS style genocide.
If the world is to ever stop the barbarism of those who promote or perpetrate genocide than we must accept the fact that outside intervention must occur. In addition to the use of armed forces from outside countries we must also allow the victims the right to arm themselves. Those being persecuted must be allowed to fight back and even at times "hunt the hunters".
When we allow the aggressors to be the only armed presence in the hostile region we allow a situation in which the genocide simply goes underground. The attackers in Darfur are known to raid camps as long as the UN sponsored tents are "too close to the border". And thus the victims remain helpless while UN troops traditional incompetence is clearly displayed to the attackers (in Rwanda the attackers killed just 10 Belgian UN troops when the UN withdrew from the killing fields).
If the victims in Syria were allowed to have access to weapons (like we did in Libya) there is at the very least the option of defense. And yes, there is the opportunity for more bloodshed and higher death tolls. But at the very least the civilians in Syria would have the ability to hold their ground or die with a rifle in hand instead of on their knees.
Sources Used (note not all sources used are shown)
Voice of America (voanews.com)