Social Media Monitor: Who’s behind the Quweiq River massacre?

 

Dead bodies waiting to be identified after being pulled out of the Quweiq River – Facebook
Dead bodies waiting to be identified after being pulled out of the Quweiq River – Facebook

Aleppo witnessed a horrifying scene on Tuesday, January 29; more than 80 dead bodies of men of different ages were pulled out from the Quweiq River in the rebel-controlled Bustan Al-Qasr area. Most of the bodies were hand-tied with a single shot in the head, which led to the belief that they were executed. The government accused the Al-Nusra Front of carrying out the killings, while the opposition accused regime forces, saying they threw the bodies in the river in an area they control and then the bodies moved downstream.  The Telegraph interviewed a man who said his three sons, whose bodies were found in the river, had gone missing after heading to an area controlled by the regime.

The Facebook page The Syrian Revolution 2011 issued an urgent call, asking people to help in organizing the process of body identification.

Activist Bassam al-Khouri insinuated that members of the regime carried out the massacre in order to eradicate any possible negotiations with the opposition.

"Is it a coincidence that the Quweiq River massacre took place at the same time as the Geneva conference and the speech made by [United Nations envoy Lakhdar] Brahimi at the UN?? Did the madman of Qirdaha [Bashar al-Assad's hometown] do it? Or was it a senior Alawite officer who belongs to an extremist wing in the regime who did it, in order to eradicate any potential agreement …"
“Is it a coincidence that the Quweiq River massacre took place at the same time as the Geneva conference and the speech made by [United Nations envoy Lakhdar] Brahimi at the UN?? Did the madman of Qirdaha [Bashar al-Assad’s hometown] do it? Or was it a senior Alawite officer who belongs to an extremist wing in the regime who did it, in order to eradicate any potential agreement …”

Regime retaliates to Israeli airstrike against Syrians

"Dear president, reserve the right to retaliate against us at least once. Is Israel any better than us? – Facebook"
“Dear president, reserve the right to retaliate against us at least once. Is Israel any better than us? – Facebook”

Syrian officials declared that Syria reserves the right to retaliate for the Israeli airstrike was subject to sarcastic comments by Syrian opposition supporters. Israeli aircraft hit military targets inside Syria on Wednesday, January 30. Similar declarations have been made by Syrian officials after similar attacks in the past few years and were not followed by real action.

Lebanese journalist Fidaa Itani, who covers the events in Syria and was previously kidnapped near Aleppo commented on Facebook, saying:

"The best thing about mumana'a [a term common in the regime's rhetoric that roughly translates as 'steadfastness'] is that it is only used passively against the enemy. But in Syria, God is witness to what it can do."
“The best thing about mumana’a [a term common in the regime’s rhetoric that roughly translates as ‘steadfastness’] is that it is only used passively against the enemy. But in Syria, God is witness to what it can do.”

Syrian cartoonist Saad Hajo played on the different meanings of the Arabic verb hafatha which could be used in the sense of “to reserve” and “to store”.

"Please [store] the right to retaliate in a cool, dry place!" One of the commentators wrote "And away from the reach of children", another replied: "You mean away from bakeries." The last comment refers to repeated incidents where bread queues have been bombed.
“Please [store] the right to retaliate in a cool, dry place!” One of the commentators wrote “And away from the reach of children”, another replied: “You mean away from bakeries.” The last comment refers to repeated incidents where bread queues have been bombed.

Pro-opposition actor Fares Helou wondered if bombing Al-Ansari quarter was in Aleppo is the regime idea of avenging the Israeli airstrike:

"Was the massacre in Al-Ansari today the surprise that the regime prepared to strike back??"
“Was the massacre in Al-Ansari today the surprise that the regime prepared to strike back??”

Controversy about negotiations with the regime  

The head of the National Coalition, the umbrella that gathers the main opposition forces, Moaz al-Khatib, declared last week that he is willing to initiate negotiations with representatives of the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Khatib had two conditions: freeing the some 160,000 detainees held by the regime and allowing Syrians abroad to renew their passport.

The ex-member of the Syrian National Council Kamal al-Labwani talked live on Al-Arabiya channel, asking Khatib to resign. On Facebook, activist Mustafa al-Jarf wrote that Khatib’s proposal is merely an attempt to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the international community.

"One could overlook the question of whether or not the National Coalition and its chairman have the right to rhetorically use martyrs as a [means of political pressure]; one could say that the living are more important than the dead. This is the kind of logic used by a shopkeeper who runs to open his shop right after his father's funeral is over. This is a sound, profitable logic, but it has nothing to do any revolution or historic change!"
“One could overlook the question of whether or not the National Coalition and its chairman have the right to rhetorically use martyrs as a [means of political pressure]; one could say that the living are more important than the dead. This is the kind of logic used by a shopkeeper who runs to open his shop right after his father’s funeral is over. This is a sound, profitable logic, but it has nothing to do any with revolution or historic change!”

A comment published on Al-Mundassa Al-Souriyya blog saw that Khatib’s move comes as a response to Assad’s call for dialogue, not the more positive initiative made by UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, which stipulated the formation of an interim government.

“In principle negotiations and concessions are not always wrong, especially if they come with a give-and-take approach; let us take whatever we can from Brahimi’s initiative in order to carry on with the revolution later,” the comment read.

“Many people successfully did the same – the Kurds are one example. Refusing certain gains they are only partial, however, could result in losing everything. ”

Activist Massoud Akko, a member of the League of Syrian Journalists, tweeted the following:

"To those against Moaz al-Khatib's initiative, what indicatives or solutions do you have to offer?!!"
“To those against Moaz al-Khatib’s initiative, what indicatives or solutions do you have to offer?!!”

Khatib finally commented on the on-going debate through Facebook, saying he is happy with hearing criticism.

"The conditions I stated [to start dialogue with the regime] are simple; if the regime complies with these conditions it would be in the benefit of the people, and if not, it would be a declaration by the regime before our people the whole world that it refuses to make simple humanitarian moves."
“The conditions I stated [to start dialogue with the regime] are simple; if the regime complies with these conditions it would be in the benefit of the people, and if not, it would be a declaration by the regime before our people the whole world that it refuses to make simple humanitarian moves.”

Khatib met the Russian Foreign Minister Serguei Lavrov and his Iranian homologue Ali Akbar Salihi on the margins of a conference on global security in Berlin on Saturday, February 2. Lavrov said that he invited Khatib to visit Moscow.

So many conferences, so few solutions   

Several conferences on Syria were organized last week. In Geneva, members from National Coordination Board, which is based in Syria, met with independent opposition figures who live abroad. The board is often accused by the radical opposition of being close to the regime.  The closing statement called for negations with the regime and remained ambiguous on the fate of Assad.

Columnist Subhi Hadidi, who writes in the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi, criticized the outcomes of the conference:

"The Geneva conference did nothing more than offer a statement that puts the victim and the assassin on a par; it mentioned neither the assassins of children nor the thousands of detainees."
“The Geneva conference did nothing more than offer a statement that puts the victim and the assassin on a par; it mentioned neither the assassins of children nor the thousands of detainees.”

In another tweet, the Syrian program presenter at Al-Arabiya channel quoted Loay Hussein, the head of the Movement to Build the Syrian State, who participated in the conference:

"Members of the regime are liars, but our struggle should be constructive. If things stay the same the regime will not fall, not even in another year."
“Members of the regime are liars, but our struggle should be constructive. If things stay the same the regime will not fall, not even in another year.”

Another conference was simultaneously taking place in Paris, where representatives from 50 countries met with members of the National Coalition, who asked for financial support.

This was an occasion for some to remind France that it should intervene in Syria as it did in Mali:

"France is still watching the horrific killing of Syrians, most of whom are Muslim, yet France has been irritated by …the presence of Muslims in Mali and pounced on them with the help of the United States, Great Britain and Russia."
“France is still watching the horrific killing of Syrians, most of whom are Muslim, yet France has been irritated by …the presence of Muslims in Mali and pounced on them with the help of the United States, Great Britain and Russia.”

A conference was held in Kuwait to raise donations for countries hosting Syrian refugees. Donors pledged to raise $1.5 billion, something that writer Mustafa Hadid saw as “pouring water into a sieve” since these countries are “corrupt.”

8