Particularly striking was his description of the third group — those he characterized as having been deceived. He described them as naive, inexperienced, and influenced by separatists. He emphasized that they were “also from us” and “also our children.” This paternal tone suggested both rebuke and embrace. On one hand, they had erred; on the other, they remained members of the national community. He mentioned that some had written to him expressing regret, asking for forgiveness for having taken to the streets. According to his remarks, they were not imprisoned, were free, and acknowledged their mistake.
He further stated that those among this group who were killed were considered martyrs by the authorities and that this designation was appropriate. In doing so, he attempted to reconcile the contradiction between condemning unrest and honoring certain victims. By recognizing them as martyrs, the state’s narrative extended dignity to those whose deaths might otherwise complicate official messaging. This approach seemed designed to defuse public anger and to mitigate perceptions of indiscriminate repression.
