Shabiha of the Syrian regime: The perpetrator of the solidarity massacre is a national hero
After days of silence, the pages loyal to the Syrian regime started talking about the horrific videos in which the British newspaper “The Guardian” revealed last week a massacre committed against civilians in the Tadamon neighborhood, south of the capital, Damascus.
It seems that the intelligence pages waited for official instructions for days of circulating the video, which recalled the various massacres of the Syrian regime since 2011.
However, the pumping began on Saturday evening with the sayings that the perpetrator of the massacre, Amjad Yousef, is not a criminal, but rather a hero who resisted ISIS terrorism. Without him and his ilk, “black flags would have been flying in the sky of Damascus”, with the saying that he was brave and did his duty and did not flee the country in “minor” in reference to the refugees. Syrians who fled with their lives from the scorched earth policy.
The victims appear in the clip as they fall into a mass grave in a massacre believed to have included “hundreds of civilians.” US State Department spokesman Ned Price confirmed that the clip documenting the 2013 massacre in the Tadamon neighborhood indicates “additional evidence of war crimes committed by the Assad regime.” It is “another horrific example of the atrocities that the Syrian people have suffered for over a decade.”
A loyal actor, Maan Abdel Haq, posted comments on “Facebook” in which he said that the clips do not show members of the Syrian army, but rather in the “auxiliary forces”, a term used to refer to the armed militias and shabiha groups that were formed after the Syrian revolution by the regime. This narrative was prevalent among loyalists, with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad calling for those who appeared in the video to be held accountable.
In the same way, Haidara Suleiman, the son of the former Syrian ambassador to Jordan Bahjat Suleiman, wrote in comments that the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Defense are following up on the matter before retracting that tone, on Saturday, with publications in which he threatened sympathizers with the victims of the solidarity massacre because they are “members of ISIS” even though they are in Actually civilians.
The loyal pages have become reminiscent of previous massacres committed by opposition forces against loyal civilians in the Syrian coast and the countryside of Damascus, while saying that what the Guardian newspaper had done in revealing the solidarity massacre is part of the global war and that it comes in a “suspicious” context, describing the massacre as a massacre. Stupid” because the “smart” massacre is not revealed so easily in terms of the presence of videos documenting it!
The loyalists’ proof of this was that the researchers Ansar Chahoud and Ugur Umit Ungor, who worked to uncover the massacre, worked at the Center for the Holocaust and Genocide at the University of Amsterdam. Various publications said that the name of the center means that it is a “Zionist” name and does not try to hide that, which sparked widespread ridicule.
According to “Gharidan”, a war crime was committed by one of the most famous branches of the Syrian regime, Branch 227, which is known as the region branch of the Military Intelligence, where groups of civilians were arrested, and they were blindfolded, handcuffed, and walked towards the execution pit, unaware They are about to be shot dead. When the killings ended, at least 41 men died in the mass grave in solidarity, their killers doused with fuel and ignited with laughter as they covered up a war crime.
Despite all this, loyal journalists working in the official media wrote that we should not be drawn into Western attempts to distort the image of the army, and that “we must understand as Syrians that our army is our last hope for Syria’s unity and safety and the return to normalcy.” While others admitted that the massacre was “cruel”, they called To “tolerance” instead of “calls for revenge” so that Syria does not go back “ten years”!
Source: middleeast-24
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of the Observatory.