Al-Hassan bin Ali relinquished for Mu'awiya and made peace with him, that happened at a time where he had enough armies and allies which would allowed him to continued fighting. Al-Hussain bin Ali came out to war despite the small number of his followers at a time when he could have made peace. This tells us that one of them was right and the other was wrong because:
If Al-Hassan's concession with the ability to fight was right, then Al-Hussain's war with lack of means was wrong.
If Al-Hussain's war with lack of means was right, then Al-Hassan's concession with the ability to fight was wrong.
And this puts you in a place where no one can envy you. Because if you say that both of them are right, you agree to two opposite things and this destroys your roots and logic.
So if you say that Al-Hussain's action was wrong then you have to believe in the falsehood of his leadership "Imamah" and the falsehood of the leadership of his father and his infallibility. Because he was given a trust and the infallible leader does not give the trust to anyone but an infallible like him. And if you say that Al-Hassan's action was wrong then you have to believe in the falsehood of his leadership "Imamah" and the falsehood of the leadership of his children and progeny because he is the root of their leadership and through him came the leadership. And if the root is wrong, then the branches are all wrong.
And we say to every Shia:
Regardless of what you answer to this conundrum, your answer is not convincing for this reason:
You would believe that Ali accepted to himself what the low Bedouins of the Arabs would not accept for themselves and he is from the Prophet's family? And I repeat the question to you, if Umar's shortcomings are like what you describe then how would Ali accept him as a husband to his daughter? So do the Shia put Ali in a class that's lower than the Bedouins (since Bedouins won't accept this shame for themselves)? And would Al-Hussain accept this? Or would Al-Hasan accept this?
And if you accept that, then they are less class than the Bedouin of Arabs! and that is not acceptable to us. The issue is that you make up accusations against Umar bin Al-Khattab and then you want us to accept an excuse which is worse than the sin itself. And your excuse is Taqiyya. So was it for Taqiyya that Ali married his daughter off to Umar? You curse Umar, make up bad things about him, and allege that he was an apostate, then after all that you want to claim that Ali was a coward too? This is not acceptable to us for Umar nor for Ali. And if Umar in your opinion is an Infidel and you claim that Ali knew that, then why did he marry him off to his daughter?!
The whole thing is illogical completely. If the Sahaba (companions of the Prophet) were really apostates, as you claim, then did Ali use Taqiyyah instead of fighting them? If using Taqiyyah is the right thing to do, then why did Ali fight the infidels during the time of the Prophet instead of using Taqiyyah to end the matter? If the Kuffar's land was a land of war (Dar Harb), then the Muslim land -under Abu Bakr and Umar- is for sure a land of war as well. In the land of the Kuffar, the infidels used to be fought and calls for war were called. And in the Muslim land under Abu Bakr and Umar, as you claim it to be a land of war, you consider the Rightly Guided Khalifas infidels just like you consider Yazeed and even worse. Don't you consider them Murtadeen (apostates)? Then what is Ali's duty? To get along with this one and be submissive to others? Would the Imam Ali submit to an infidel (as you claim) who took the mother of Mohammad bin Al-Hanafiyah (the son of Imam Ali bin Abi Talib) as a woman prisoner during the time of Abu Bakr (who in your opinion is an unfair oppressor)? According to Shia Fiqh, everything that an oppressor does and all his rulings are invalid. So why did Imam Ali take that woman and have a child from her? This is an insult to the Imam form your side.
If you compare Ali with Ammar, then you should remember that Ali's class is much higher than Ammar's since Ali's position to the Prophet was like the status of Haroon to Musa, isn't that what you say? Then how do you compare this to that? And despite all that, it was an exception for Ammar to be used only in times of necessity. But for you, it is a religion and a creed. It is a profession rather than a hobby. Doesn't one of your sayings say "Taqiyya is my religion and the religion of my fathers and grandfathers"? Then it is a religion and not an exception. It is a creed and a root and not a special case. So would Ali submit to the infidels? and would he marry his daughter off to an infidel? and would Ali accept to himself what the lowest of Arabs would never accept? And is there an insult worse than submitting to the infidels? And is there is any more humiliation than marrying his daughter off to a pervert who allegedly hit and caused his wife, Fatimah, to miscarriage? Wouldn't you declare war against him? And you also claim that Umar used to drink Alcohol? And you curse him and accuse him of more insults than that but you still expect Ali to submit to him?
Then why did Imam Ali go to war against the Kuffar if he was going to submit to the alleged apostates? Then who is supposed to fight against the oppressors and the apostates? And you say that Ammar was given an excuse by the messenger? There were no Ayahs from the Quran about Ammar's leadership as you claim for Ali. And he will not be considered an Imam by you at any case. And he does not carry a responsibly like the responsibility of Ali as you say. This is because Ammar was led but did not lead. And Ali lead, but you claim that he cannot be lead. He was a leader, not a follower. However, he submitted once to Abu Bakr, once to Umar, and once to Uthman and they were all apostates as you claim! Your Taqiyya is a rubber that extends here and shrinks there! You give it to Ammar when he was under torture while it was an exception for one time only. And for Imam Ali, the free man and the brave war hero, you used it to justify his submission to Abu Bakr and then his submission to Umar. Then you used it again to explain his submission to Uthman. Then once again, it was used as a justification for him marrying his daughter Umm Kulthoom to Umar. And again it was used to justify Ali taking Umm Mohammad bin Al-Hanafyeh even though she was a war prisoner and the ruler was an oppressor. This is not allowed in Shia Jurisprudence at all. So it is actually an admittance of the leadership of Abu Bakr. Then what was Ali's duty in the first place if he did not fight oppression and injustice? This is basically the truth of your words.
Shia References:
1- Ya'qooby's History, Volume 2, page 149-150
2- Al-Forroh min Al-Kafy, the book of Al-Nikah, Chapter of The Marriage of Umm Kulthoom. Volume 5, Page 346.
3- Tahzeeb Al-Ahkam, the book of inheritance, the chapter of inheritance from the drowned and the ones who die under collapsed buildings. Volume 9, Page 115-116.
4- Al-Shafi by Mr. Murtada Alam Al-Huda, Page 116 and his book "Tanzeeh Al-Anbya" page 141, Tahran Issue.
5- Ibn Shaher Ashob in his book "Manaqeb Aal Ali bin Abi Talib" volume 3 page 162.
6- Ibn Aby Al-Hadeed in his commentary on "Nahj Albalagha" volume 3 page 124