By categorizing the dead into defenders, passersby, deceived individuals, and separatists, the leader’s speech implicitly addressed public outrage. Many families demanded answers about how their relatives died and why. By acknowledging anger and mourning, he recognized the emotional weight of the tragedy. However, his emphasis on forgiveness and unity suggested a desire to move beyond confrontation without fully revisiting the circumstances that led to such widespread loss of life.
The language of fatherhood and kinship played a central role in his remarks. Referring to protesters as “our children” evokes a familial bond between ruler and ruled. In this framing, dissent becomes akin to youthful misjudgment rather than political opposition. Such rhetoric can soften perceptions of repression by recasting conflict as a domestic dispute within a shared household. Yet critics argue that this metaphor risks minimizing legitimate grievances by reducing them to immaturity or deception.
