President Bashar al-Assad's speech, with which he inaugurated the new term of the Syrian People's Assembly, practically signaled the beginning of the current wave of massacres, wide-scale killings and attacks against the rebelling towns and villages. When he says “we are now facing real external war and dealing with war is different than dealing with a domestic dispute, this must be clear," the only explanation drawn by the groups of thugs and security elements from this is that each oppositionist should be killed and that “war" must reach the level of collective sectarian liquidations. Al-Assad was likely aware of the direction in which he was pushing Syria. The behavior of whoever carried out the Al-Kubeir massacre cannot be dissociated from what was said at the People's Assembly, as it defines the political ceiling for the work of the authority and its tools that are drowning in the fueling of civil war. Moreover, the aforementioned speech constituted “theoretical preludes" for the Al-Kubeir massacre and all the ensuing violence against the citizens. Indeed, the regime let go of its remaining masks and its leader abandoned the vague rhetoric and resorted to clear expressions, thus rejecting “national gray areas," insisting on “Syria's resisting role" and considering that the issue did not reside in reforms and democracy. In other words, loyalty to the regime and the acceptance of its perception of its regional position rise above all other demands raised by the opposition. As to the insistence on summoning the “resistance" in all the speeches, it is stripping the word of its true value and placing it in the context of the conflict between the regime and its oppositionists, which will carry repercussions on Syrian policies during the next phase. On the other hand, it is difficult to grasp the country's image that is wanted by the perpetrators of the Houla, Karm al-Zaitoun, Baba Amr and Al-Kubeir. Their motives cannot be dissociated from the hatred felt by desperate groups that are aware of the imminent end of the Utopia which the regime made them believe it built for them – over the limbs of the other groups – and the wish to destroy the other to resume the previous peaceful life that was undermined by those who have different sectarian or political affiliations. The complex visualization for the post-massacre phase does not stem from a mind truly wishful to live in a multiracial and multi-sectarian society or from a rational vision for a state in which the allocation of the wealth is fair or the transition of power peaceful. It stems from the same exclusionist mind which spoke at the People's Assembly and believes that all the decisions related to reform, parties and war against society are issued by it, upon the completion of its win and loss calculations. Hence, it is the one that introduced reforms (not corruption) and the one that can restore security (not oppression), among other expressions with dual meanings. As to the bitterness felt by many Syrians due to the regime's attempts to subjugate them via terror, blood and the pictures of blasted heads, it will be echoed in the response to the authority's violence with similar violence, and the legitimization of the calls for foreign intervention to end the nightmare of the mobile massacres and the overwhelming humiliation. This is partly wanted by the regime which realized since day one that its ability to reunify Syrian society underneath its black wings has dissipated, and that its only remaining tools are bloody ones. After many months of arguing over the purpose and morality of arming the Syrian revolution, and after thousands of oppositionists were forced to carry weapons to defend themselves, the regime seems to be insisting on completely stripping reality of all the lies it has been weaving throughout the last forty years, and on rendering the Syrian situation even more complicated.
