It has become possible to call it Deathbook instead of Facebook, as the proposed name has become more appropriate for what it really is, the communication site that is full of news of the deaths of Syrians, and it is also “on the occasion of many deaths” the preferred site for the battles that we will talk about, for its ease of use with the feature of comments and responses in it. Before delving into the history of the battles, we make it clear that talking about the multiplication of Syrian deaths is not a matter of exaggeration or lamentation, and the increase in the so-called “natural deaths” is largely due to the extermination and displacement they suffered, then the impoverishment that brought an overwhelming percentage of them below the poverty line. During all of this, the psychological stress that everyone suffers from, and its consequences for health, intensified in the various places of their presence, and it is certainly more severe where medical care is absent or very low.
With the multiplication of death, we are accustomed to the hyenas coming to devour corpses, so that only the corpses of those who are far from public activity in all its forms will survive. For some time, we have seen secularists mocking and mocking Islamists pronouncing the permissibility or impermissibility of having mercy on a dead person, but soon we will find these cynics denouncing mercy on another dead person, only to discover that their denunciation and mockery is not directed, as we thought, at the idea of mercy itself. More than that, some of these people will surprise us “in describing a dead person” with terms that we would not have thought were from their dictionary, terms such as: fatis .. hypocrite … etc.
Of course, it is easy to notice that the previous epithets refer the dead person to a subhuman, which is a referral that means the permissibility of what is meant by it, whether he is alive or dead, and the strength of the permissibility increases in the inability of the corpse to respond, if the living always have this ability. We have read many times protests against writings considered as a way of criticizing the dead, without degrading absolutely from his human dignity, and they were met with disapproval from the enemies of the dead, because such writings commit the sin of humanizing the dead! It is no secret that behind this protest there are those who harbor the previous descriptions as “hypocritical… fat…”, and their intelligence deters them from using them explicitly. We have seen, after some real battles, the corpses of the opponent being mutilated and abused, and what happens hypothetically is no less than these scenes at all. One of them complements the other.
Then it is not uncommon for hyenas to reveal a wolf’s nature that preys on the living, if they ask themselves to humanize the dead, and with this nature a very strong vengeful tendency is revealed. In front of them, everyone who disagrees with them regarding the deceased, even in particulars, becomes an enemy to the same degree of what that departed person represents. evil” to the living, so that death may add a new bounty to itself.
This populism does not only come from circles for which it has always been known, but also from circles that include, for example, former detainees, many of whom were proud of having met outside prison his executioner who had tasted him the arts of torture, and yet they exchanged greetings with him, and perhaps talking, without any grudge. And if this “excessive tolerance” is understandable, what is difficult to understand is its absence in other disputes, and the difficulty of understanding stems from politics and not from feelings in both cases, if politics prevails over what is conciliatory and consensual over what is vengeful.
Of course, we do not speak out of vilification of difference, but we talk about what is vengeful and genocidal, so that its owners are truly frightening if we imagine them for a moment in a position of actual power instead of their symbolic power over the means of communication, of all degrees. And because the conversation does not refer to an isolated few, the worst that we can conclude is the spread of that genocidal determination without the slightest embarrassment among its companions, and the lack of embarrassment is not due to the level of personal sensitivity, it is reinforced by the presence of its supporters and the rejection or disregard of those who are expected to be against it.
There is nothing wrong with a mental exercise, in which we imagine a non-Syrian person browsing the accounts of Syrians and their battles on social media, and being “just a little” alert to these hyenaic, werewolf, and genocidal tendencies. It takes a lot of naivety to think that this supposed observer will sympathize with the scattered weeping and wailing here or there, or that he will compose poems of grief because these opponents failed to overthrow Assad. And if we imagine the observer as a Syrian from a different perspective, it will not be difficult to imagine his fear for himself from those people, if they were able to control the likes of him, assuming that “where he is” is innocent of the same contaminations.
We reaffirm that we do not proceed from humane motives, despite the importance of what is humane, and it goes without saying that the dead are not harmed by being abused, because the abuse is mainly for the living who witness this and are forced to remain silent. We would make a mistake if we did not see in this personal revenge an undermining of the concept of justice itself. The personal aspect of the rivalry stops by death, while the aspect related to the struggle of concepts, ideas and values remains. As for the focus on the personal, it naturally obscures what is supposed to have permanence for the sake of justice. We dare, and most of us are his victims, to say that the rivalry with Hafez al-Assad continues because of his inheritance of power, i.e. because of his biological continuity, and had it not been for the succession, he would have been forgotten because the rivalry moved to another tyrant, or because the Syrians have finished with tyranny.
Perhaps it must be said that the sanctification of corpses is no less harmful than the abuse of them. Sanctification strips the dead of their humanity on the pretext of exalting their status, a claim that greatly lacks credibility when it is almost the same who says of a dead person that he has perished and of another dead person that he has risen. The hyena’s relationship with corpses may be understood when it is issued by lions in their various manifestations and forms, but it must raise surprise by its spread in circles whose members were expected to keep a human memory of the revolution to which they once belonged. The increase in deaths among Syrians is not the only thing that says that they are not well; Their dealings with their dead says more horrible than what death says, even if it has an emergency bout of atonement here or there.
