It's Latin, not greek, from a roman work, though granted it may have been inspired by Plato.
Do you also speak for everyone in your nation?
An impressive rhetorical question and non sequitur. What do you think?
On another note, it was by disarming people that caused the Srebrenica massacre to be as bloody as it was.
Maybe, I'm inclined to be skeptical though, since historical causes of events are rarely simple, unequivocal and uncontroversial, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. People like Josip Reihl-Kir, might have stemmed much slaughter, maybe before many groups were marshalled, armed and outfitted and could instigated violence, if he'd had adequate support, local or international. I don't deny there's been massacres for battles, because arms and supplies, even just humanitarian, for a group to survive and defend themselves, were wanting, maybe the Warsaw Ghetto for example, but it (fortunately) doesn't seem a terribly common occurrence, even they managed to improvise. Holding such beliefs, one might easily argue the embargo against the Houthis is such a case, depriving a persecuted minority, in favor of a dictator and his oppressive government, and Saudi Arabia, but I repeat myself.
The Genocides in Rwanda, Indonesia, Cambodia, partition during Indian Independence and several Balkan conflicts (probably since before their wars of Independence), were all bloody because influential cabals decided to arm and paramilitarize populations to further cultural and political agendas and prey on others, because of race, ideology or historical antagonism. It was precisely the excuse the Turks used to wipe out the armenians, on the pretext of a '5th Column'. Your position seems a suggestion something like the Tutsis wouldn't have been massacred if they had somehow armed themselves and fought back in self defence, but that presupposes the threat of violence was credible, overt and imminent. It was a massacre precisely because it came as an almost complete surprise. Coup plotters, rebels, insurgents, special ops teams, terrorists, and criminals sadly generally all work covertly unless they have wide public support. Most countries don't arm school children just in the case of the one in several million chances that it could somehow alter tragic and unpredictable events. It shouldn't be controversial that the wide availability, and indiscriminate distribution of cheap and potent arms has, and will always lead to a greater risk of violence and tragedy, ceteris paribus. The 'argument' here seems to be whether the Houthis are more like Armenians and Tutsis, or instead a group like Sinn Fein and Eta, obviously a politically colored issue, but IMO it's fairly clear for honest disinterested third parties.