Blood borders [Archive] - Page 3 - Armed Forces Journal Forums

Kurdistan_Serok

09-03-2006, 11:44 AM

Ancient period
The very first mention of the Kurds in history was about 3,000 BC, under the name Gutium, as they fought the Sumerians (Spieser). Later around 800 BC, the Indo-European Median tribes settled in the Zagros mountain region and coalesced with the Gutiums, and thus the modern Kurds speak an Aryan language (Morris). The Kurds are mentioned by Xenophon, a Greek mercenary, as he retreated from Persia with ten thousand men in 401 BC, he says of the Kurds, "These people, lived in the mountains and were very war-like and not subject to the Persian king. Indeed once a royal army of 120,000 thousand had once invaded their country, and not a man of them came back..(Morris)." (Jensen 1996)

The tract to this day known as Kurdistan, the high mountain region south and south-east of Lake Van between Persia and Mesopotamia, was in the possession of Kurds from before the time of Xenophon, and was known as the country of the Carduchi (Greek:Καρδούχοι) , as Cardyene or Cordyene.[3]

Kurds claim descent from various ancient groups; among them the Guti, Mannai (Mannaeans), Hurrian and Medes.[4] The original Mannaean homeland was situated east and south of the Lake Urmia, roughly centered around modern-day Mahabad.[5] The Medes came under Persian rule during the reign of Cyrus the Great and Darius. Centuries later, Kurdish-inhabited areas in the Middle East witnessed the clash of the two competing super powers of those times, namely the Sassanid Empire and the Roman Empire. At their peak, the Romans ruled large Kurdish-inhabited areas, particularly the western and northern Kurdish areas in the Middle East. Kurdish Kingdoms like Corduene and Commagene were vassal states of the Roman Empire.

From 189 BC to 384 AD, the ancient kingdom of Corduene ruled northern Mesopotamia. It was situated to the east of Tigranocerta (i.e., to the east and south of present-day Diyarbakir in south-eastern Turkey). It became a vassal state of the Roman Republic in 66 BC. It remained allied with the Romans until 384 AD.

http://samilico.tripod.com/samilico/kurdistan.jpg

Kurdistan_Serok

09-03-2006, 11:45 AM

Medieval period
In the 7th century A.D., Arabs conquered most of the Middle East, and Kurds became subjects of Arab Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates. In the second half of the 10th century, Kurdistan was shared amongst five big Kurdish principalities. In the North the Shaddadid (951-1174) (in parts of Armenia and Arran) and the Rawadid (955-1221) (in Tabriz and Maragheh) ,in the East the Hasanwayhid (959-1015) and the Annazid (990-1116) (in Hulwan, Kermanshah and Khanaqin) and in the West the Marwanid (990-1096) of Diyarbakir.

Kurds in the Middle Ages were living in several semi-independent states called "emirates". A comprehensive history of these states and their relationship with their neighbors is given in the famous textbook of "Sharafnama" written by Prince Sharaf al-Din Bitlisi in 1597.[6][7] The most famous Kurdish Emirates included Baban, Soran, Badinan and Garmiyan in present-day Iraq; Bakran, Botan (or Bokhtan) and Badlis in Turkey, and Mukriyan and Ardalan in Iran. In 17th century, Ahmad Khani (Ehmedê Xanî) wrote "Mem û Zîn", the Kurdish national epic, and he was seen by some as an early advocate of Kurdish nationalism.

http://samilico.tripod.com/samilico/kurdistan.jpg

Kurdistan_Serok

09-03-2006, 11:48 AM

Modern period
In the 16th century A.D., the Kurdish inhabited areas were split between Safavid Iran and the Ottoman Empire after long wars. Before World War I, most Kurds lived within the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire in the province of Kurdistan. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Allies created several countries within its former boundaries. Originally, Kurdistan along with Armenia was to be one of them, according to the never-ratified Treaty of Sèvres. However, the reconquest of these areas by Kemal Atatürk and other pressing issues caused the Allies to accept the renegotiated Treaty of Lausanne, giving this territory to Turkey and leaving the Kurds without a self-ruled region. Other Kurdish areas were assigned to the new British and French mandated states of Iraq and Syria under both treaties.

Main articles: Iraqi Kurdistan, Turkish Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan, and Kurds in Syria
Since WWI, Kurdistan has been divided between several states, in all of which Kurds are minorities. Many Kurds have campaigned for independence or autonomy, often through force of arms. There has been no support by any of the regional governments, however, and little by outside powers, for changes in regional boundaries. A sizable Kurdish diaspora exists in Western Europe that participates in agitation for Kurdish issues, but most of the governments in the Middle East have historically banned open Kurdish activism.

In Iraq, Kurdish guerrilla groups, known in the Kurdish culture as 'Peshmerga', have fought for a Kurdish state. In Iraqi Kurdistan, Peshmerga fought against the (former) Iraqi government before and during the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and now comprise significant parts of Iraqi army forces such as police especially in Iraqi Kurdistan as well as some neighboring regions.

Another guerrilla group, the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), has fought an armed campaign in Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran for over thirty years. In Turkey, more than 30,000 Turkish and Kurdish people have died as a result of the war between the state and the PKK, with alleged atrocities being committed by turk side.

In Iranian Kurdistan, frequent unrest and occasional military crackdown have happened throughout the 1990s and even to the present [8]. Iranian Kurdistan is one of the most heavily militarized areas of Iran since World War II and the military is present in every village (see Ethnic Cleavage as a Component of Global Military Expenditures, Journal of Peace Research, p.24, 1987). In Iran, Kurds twice had their own controlled free area without government control: The Republic of Mahabad in Iran which was the second independent Kurdish state of the 20th century, after the Republic of Ararat in modern Turkey; and second time after the Iranian Revolution in 1979. There have also been casualties in Syrian Kurdistan such as the 2004 incident [9]. All these political crises and conflicts in Kurdistan, lead to make it to one of the most militarized regions on earth; all of those countries which have Kurdistan within their political borders have focused military operations in the region.

http://samilico.tripod.com/samilico/kurdistan.jpg

Kurdistan_Serok

09-03-2006, 11:52 AM

http://www.palpalo.de/modules/User_Fotoalbum/album/Kurdistan-Schimmel6.jpg

Kurdistan_Serok

09-03-2006, 12:01 PM

http://vladimirkurdistan.blogspot.com/

check this webblog people it will help you to know new facts

Kurdistan_Serok

09-03-2006, 12:07 PM

True facts go through this links then Justic:

http://www.kurdishinfo.com/

http://www.kurdishinfo.com/userimages/belgeler/semdinli/semdinlidosyaingilizce.htm

http://www.kurdishinfo.com/userimages/vahset/Civilian_victims_of_the_war.html

Türk_kürdü

09-03-2006, 12:28 PM

Zrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt Propagandaaaa

Türk_kürdü

09-03-2006, 12:32 PM

http://www.dw-world.de/image/0,,451828_4,00.jpg

When he was captured he sad: I love Turkey, My Mom is Turkish.. mUAHHA

This is the only real fact.

mpasha

09-03-2006, 12:42 PM

On one hand redrawing these borders might please some profit takers or separatists but on the other hand majority of the people of these countries might decide to unite. We have to be extremely careful in deciding the fate of other countries. People of these countries if have the will should be able to change their countries their way not on easy fix by any outsider influence. Any out intrusion or help to redrawing can bring more harm than good. Redrawing the borders can also ignite the Unity movement in Muslim countries and can also bring out more fundamentlist forces, which mean more trouble for West jeopardising world Peace.
My suggestion, we should work on peace and dialogues more than any other approach. No matter what all these expert analyst or polical pundit say one weapon in every country's arsenal is dialogue and which havn't been use by America yet that sincerely. Being Super power if world peace is the objective then best weapon is dialogues. Indiscriminate destruction innocent killings and then trying convince people that we are the liberators can never sit right with a muslim people. American Muslims have to play more active role in changing Government policies toward Middle East and toward Muslim countries. Because Peaceful dialogues will resolve all these problems in much shorter span of time, with way less money and virtually hatefree environment with a VERY HAPPY AND PROSPEROUS AMERICA EVERAFTER

Kurdistan_Serok

09-03-2006, 01:43 PM

say something that we don't know. his father is Kurdish and his mother is turkish. it doesn't change any facts , Serok APO loves turkey as much as Kurdistan but he rise to protest the turkish racist ( One flag , One nation ).

Biji Kurd u Kurdistan,
Biji Serok APO,
Merg u Neman u Nisti bu turkiyey fashisti

http://www.dw-world.de/image/0,,451828_4,00.jpg

When he was captured he sad: I love Turkey, My Mom is Turkish.. mUAHHA

This is the only real fact.

Türk_kürdü

09-03-2006, 03:57 PM

Cry cry like a little baby...

aaaaaaaaaa, I realy start to like you.. I like kids that knows nothing and sees the world from Internet. You poor kid, brainwashed with propaganda...

Kurdistan_Serok

09-03-2006, 04:10 PM

aaaaaaaaaa what a good sheep dog. Cry!?!?:confused: don't know where if you know tell me where did you see me that I am crying and I didn't do anythnig to you like a lucky dog? where and when.
Cry cry like a little baby...

aaaaaaaaaa, I realy start to like you.. I like kids that knows nothing and sees the world from Internet. You poor kid, brainwashed with propaganda...

bezgin

09-03-2006, 05:08 PM

Türk_kürdü

09-03-2006, 05:14 PM

Türk_kürdü

09-03-2006, 05:17 PM

PKK Terrorists.

They are still trying to defend an animal responsible of 30.000 deaths.

They are the only reason why we cant find a political platform for the solution.

They are why thousands of Kurdish people are suffering.

They are harmful for the Kurdish people.

So i find it very difficult to call USA an ally while they are making deal with the TERRORISTS.

America is the greatest Enemy of Turkey, Kurdish PKK is only a organizasion that could be used to do the dirty work for USA, Like toy's... and you know what kid's do with they toys when they are not working propper? They will throw it in the trash.

techwhiz

09-04-2006, 01:04 AM

That would serve a better purpose, we would get rid of a hegemonial and arrogant state which thinks that it is the almighty of this world and can decide fate of other countries and their people.

If you believe in democracy and freedom, then act like it. Leave the rest of the world alone, let people from different parts of the world decide what they want to do with their lives and their countries. You got 12.5% poverty in US and its on the rise, falling education standards, falling labor wages, a large proprtion of the population without health insurance, significant drop in the percentage of high school graduates going to colleges, you got bigger problems to pay attention to at home fella!!

zorr

09-04-2006, 01:57 AM

-Well since we are telling predictions...I'll give you a prediction.....

-Islamic revolution simmilar to that in Iran all over the world...

-Muslim States all over the world unite to form The Muslim Federation or KHILAFAT led By Turkey, Indonesia, Iran Or Pakistan !

-Russia and China form alliance with the Federation

-World War III

-Total annihilation of United States and Israel

-Most of Europe Captuered by the Federation

-The Muslim Federation Federation Supreme Power of the world !

aslveben

09-04-2006, 07:01 AM

"Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works."
How sad that the above sentence was used in the US armed forces journal.
Ethnic cleansing works if good people like Mr Ralph Peters accept it.

There are many shortcomings with Mr Peter's article.
#1 It legitimizes ethnic cleansing. Specially the ethnic cleansing of the Armenians by the Turks.
#2 It does not comprehend the historical and geopolitical concerns of the region. Many of the same people that live inside various countries cannot unite and create a homogeneous society. There will be multiple civil wars in the region and rise in instability. Baluch in Iran cannot live with Baluch in Pakistan and the same is true for the Azeris, Kurds and Arab Shiats.
#3 In the proposed map Armenia and Kurdistan will be suffocated by their neighboring countries. There is already a blockade on Armenia imposed by Turkey and Azerbaijan. The same scenario will exist for the Kurds being non-Turk and non-Arab and surrounded by Arabs and Turks.

For the Turks that are posting their comments here; Turkish government and army have destroyed more than thousand Kurdish villages in the eastern Turkey. The Turkish government has tried assimilating Kurds as Turks and even tried changing the scientific names of the local animals to drop any reference to the Armenian or Kurd nouns. Kurds are afraid of expressing their true feelings, because they know what happened to the Armenians.

give example???
i give you some of ours, last days in ANTALYA, ISTANBUL and MARMARIS this ****ing PKK bombed citizens and tourists,
more
read about pkk gercegi(reality of pkk) , but i,m sure you,re a fan of this terrorists, so you won,t want to understand the realities,
i think you should read more,and tell me what is the name of killing TURKMEN people and exiling them to swhere else from north Iraq??????
the answer, because the kurdish are more stupid to be profited??by USA, for oil,petrol everything....

Kurdistan_Serok

09-04-2006, 11:38 AM

EU report on Turkey - key points
Here are key points from the European Commission's report on Turkey's progress towards meeting the conditions for EU membership. The report is the basis for the Commission's recommendation to open Turkish accession talks.

Conclusion: "Turkey has achieved significant legislative progress in many areas ... Important progress was made on implementation of political reforms, but these need to be further consolidated and broadened."

Political reforms: "Political reforms, in line with the priorities in the Accession Partnership, have been introduced by ... a series of constitutional and legislative changes adopted over a period of three years (2001-2004)."

Economic reforms: "Economic stability and predictability have been substantially improved since the 2001 economic crisis. Previously high inflation has come down to historic lows, political interference reduced and the institutional and regulatory framework has been brought closer to international standards."

Military reforms: "The government has increasingly asserted its control over the military. Although the process of aligning civil-military relations with EU practice is underway, the armed forces in Turkey continue to exercise influence through a series of informal channels."

Judicial reforms: "The independence and efficiency of the judiciary were strengthened."

Human rights: "Concerning ... the respect of human rights and the exercise of fundamental freedoms, Turkey has acceded to most relevant international and European conventions."

Torture: "The authorities have adopted a zero tolerance policy towards torture and a number of perpetrators have been punished. Torture is no longer systematic, but numerous cases of ill-treatment, including torture, still continue to occur and further efforts will be required to eradicate such practices."

Women's rights: "The situation of women is still unsatisfactory; discrimination and violence against women, including 'honour killings', remain a major problem.

Children's rights: "Children's rights were strengthened, but child labour remains an issue of serious concern."

Minority rights: "The OSCE [Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe] High Commissioner on National Minorities could play a valuable role in assisting Turkey to move towards full compliance with modern international standards on the treatment of minorities, including the Kurds."

Freedom of religion: "Although freedom of religious belief is guaranteed by the constitution ... non-Muslim religious communities continue to experience problems."

Freedom of the press: "Notable progress has been made, (but)... journalists, writers and publishers continue to be sentenced for reasons that contravene the standards of the European Court of Human Rights."

Kurdistan_Serok

09-04-2006, 11:44 AM

Gur from DEHAP, Tuzel from EMEP, Kozanoglu from ODP and Kocali from SDP talked about their views on the EU, and commented on the EU progress report on Turkey. They argued that the report was inadequate in reflecting shortcomings in democratic rights.

BİA (Istanbul) - The heads of left-wing, so******t parties, who talked about Turkey beginning membership negotiations with the European Union (EU) and its possible accession, expressed views about, "a union for the unity and interests of laborers, instead of the capital," "the negotiations process positively affecting the Kurdish problem," and "the presence of problems that were not reflected in the commission's progress report on Turkey."
"The EU wants the Kurdish problem to be solved and the clashes to end so that the demands of capital are met," said Nazmi Gur, deputy head of the Democratic People's Party (DEHAP). "But there are not concrete requirements in the progress report about this issue."

"The Justice and Development Party (AKP) government will continue to use EU accession as a 'liberation project' and make do with reports for some more time," said Levent Tuzel, head of the Labor's Party (EMEP) in a written statement. "But the peoples of Turkey, who know from their history of struggle that democratization cannot come along through reports, will not remain satisfied with these bits and pieces. They will continue with their struggle for independence and democracy."

According to Tuzel, the conditional negotiations period will be used by both sides as a means of politics and blackmailing.

"As a partner of the European Anti-Capitalist Left-Wing Parties, we argue that the EU should be established from zero," said Hayri Kozanoglu, head of the Freedom and Solidarity Party (ODP). "We want a Europe where citizens can participate in the decision making processes, where the interests of laborers are protected, instead of those of the capital, and where the laborers' union serves as a main element."

Kozanoglu, who also made a written statement, said they defended "a wider struggle against neo-liberal globalization; one which does not fit in Europe."

"Neo-liberal capital is forcing women to work part time at mostly inhouse jobs without any insurance, and thus is creating a large labor market," said Filiz Kocali, head of the Social Democracy Party (SDP), who evaluated the progress report in terms of women.

Kocali said the report's requirement that women's rights in Turkey should be improved was positive. "But we have to realize that there will be new ways of exploiting women," she added.

Nazmi Gur: The ending of clashes should be a requirement

* It is obvious that the progress report is kind of critical of Turkey. However, the criticisms about the Kurdish issue are far from reflecting a wide viewpoint.

* The solution of the 15-year problem can only be possible by abandoning the policy of denial. It is unacceptable for the government to make the democratic and political rights of Kurds a matter of bargain. The Kurdish people are an establishing factor of the Turkish Republic, and they demand that their rights are overseen by the constitution. They don't demand a minority status.

* Why shouldn't Kurdish become a second language of education in the negotiations process? The private courses and half-hour broadcasts show what the government is not doing about this issue.

* Beginning EU accession negotiations are made to seem like the success of the AKP government. But the government only did what was necessary according to the EU accession document.

* Imposing limitations on movement means there are double standards on the free movement, which is a right of laborers, as much as it is a right of capital.

* The increased investments in the south east, reduced unemployment, and less difference between regions, can be viewed as advantages of the EU process. We are supporting this process and Turkey's full membership. But we are working so that people and laborers have more say on the EU.

Levent Tuzel: Consolation from the EU to supporters of EU

* It is obvious that the prime minister's remarks on reforms are nothing more than an empty boast in the face of our country's realities. It can be seen within the lines of the EU commission's report, that even the minimum requirements of EU's much-praised bourgeois democracy doesn't exist.

* The fact that "implementations will be followed," and "that ultimate membership is not guaranteed," shows that both sides will use this accession issue as a political and blackmailing tool.

* The "civilization" the EU is promising to Turkey, is an imperialist platform decorated with, and hidden behind a bourgeois democracy. We have to see that they are trying to turn our country into a dependant place where people earning their living from agriculture no longer exist; a place which can serve as a new market for monopolies and looting, and which can serve as a front in international share clashes.

Hayri Kozanoglu: We defend the Europe of labor

* We will embrace the developments within the EU process toward democracy, human rights and freedoms, and follow the implementation of legal reforms.

* On the other hand, we want to show to the crowds that a basic EU right, the right of free movement is being limited. We want the people to see that this is an example of bourgeois hypocrisy.

* We will struggle for a "social Europe," so that the social rights, which were gained as a result of a 150-year class struggle, are protected, improved and implemented in Turkey. We will work together with the European laborers, so******ts, ecologists, feminists and anti-war activists at the Europe Social Form, of which we are a participant, and Europe Leftist Party, to which we applied to become observers, against the neo-liberal Europe.

* With out internationalist approach, and our view that all the world's laborers and peoples are brothers, we will continue our struggle to "create a new world," against neo-liberal globalization, with a perspective of a "new internationalism."

Filiz Kocali: Regulations on cultural rights are inadequate

* There are some points in the progress report that don't reflect the realities. On the contrary to what the report says, torture is systematic (human rights organizations conclude torture is systematic by comparing the torture complaints and numbers to the United Nations' definition of systematic torture), and the new Turkish Penal Code (TCK) includes articles that limit the freedom of thought, expression and organization.

* By focusing the TCK on the adultery debate, they approved articles which limit basic rights and the freedom of expression. The new TCK allows punishing the laborers for exercising a basic right such as halting production.

* The Kurdish problem cannot be solved with half-hour long Kurdish broadcasts, with Kurdish language courses, which can be only attended by those who have money, and where participants are recorded by the police, and by releasing Leyla Zana and her friends, who were going to be released in a short time anyway.

* For the Kurdish problem to be solved, the operations should stop, Kurdish language education should be offered at state schools, and it should be realized that the problem may not be solved through the military. It is very difficult for Kurds to return to their villages as long as the village guards are not dispersed. If you have destroyed the means of living of the
people who return to their villages, you have to provide them with that again. Since even Kurdish music was banned until recently, it is normal to see tiny changes in the path toward the EU as huge steps.

* The political criteria seem to be for the advantage of workers and laborers. But there has been a retreat in the so******t state in the EU in the last 10 years, and the laborers are reacting to this. The EU is at the same time an economic project and the capital cannot be expected to forego its rights.

* The capital is becoming international through the establishment of unions such as the EU and becoming a large and organized power against the working class. It is becoming harder for laborers to fight for their rights. For this reason, we are trying to form relationships with the left-wing, so******t political parties and labor organizations within the EU and to pursue a joint struggle. (OG/EA/YE)

Kurdistan_Serok

09-04-2006, 12:39 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5666901203256863551&q=kurd+turkey

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1825655558139054191&q=kurd+turkey

patriot

09-04-2006, 01:21 PM

first of all I shocked when I see this (1000 years) altogether mongolian turks are in middle east as a wild people is about 500 or 600 years back not more than this and after than you turks don't forget that they ****ed you turks in World War.this soils is only Kurdish Land and we will fight till thelast drop of your blood. like all your bastards soldier and special forces we will send you also to the hell. don't forget it to the HELL. you turks are nothing without USA and don't say that USA is not with you, if it is like this so why always here and there turkish goverment suck their dicks and lick their ball to help turks to PKK? so stop bullshitting assholes with your ****ing zeal.
Yes Mr Kurdistano, haho, maho, or kiro, or whatever the hell you call yourself...
Turks own this blood borders for a thousand years after malazgirt victory in 1071 by Selchuk Commander Alparslan beating the byzantin empire. It is 2006 now, there you go it is gonna be 1000 years excatly by 2071.
What war did you win to earn this land????
What war ever kurds had in the history???? (other than terrorism, lol)

Now we give the right to live as a minority (cultural rights already given to you, etc...) in this land just like your past in Ottoman Empire and before then. But we don't give you the right to take our land, if try you will have to suffer the consequences, and you know what that means!
Guess what your bodies using you as a player in this psyicological war, but in real war you will be alone... and there is nowhere to escape, lol....
you will be surraunded very quickly!

mpasha

09-04-2006, 02:46 PM

Unity, Faith and Discipline
This is the motto of founder of Pakistan Mohammed Ali Jinnah who won Pakistan without a drop of blood from the iron fist of British Empire.
Just read this again and again till you understand what it mean. All turks and Kurds stop fighting and killing each other, Dialogues is the only way to win.

Thinker of Pakistan Great Poet Iqbal said
Unite all muslims to gaurd and protect Musjid-e-haraam
From Shores of China to the fields of Kashgars

Time to call a country yours has long gone, Turkey belongs to Kurds and Turks, Iraq belong to Shia Sunnis and Kurds, whole land belong to you do not fight for land it all belong to you any country is your country, all the countries are your if you win that right peacefully and respectfully. War, terror, destruction won't win you nothing. you will be Losers at the end of the day. Because you are still a muslim.
Look at Pakistan Baluchis, Pushtoons, Punjabis and Sindhis craeted their home a jewel in the turban of Islamic world. Outside powers try to divide and conquer it but collective wisdon prevails. Yes Bangladesh was a loss to Pakistan but still a win for Muslim world.

Look at Europe, Unity for the people, more properity, get it!

Dialogues with peace and respect with Turkey will surely take care of your problem. However, If you still have urge to fight then, world still be watching and judging you by every move you make.
Allah may be with you

drljr

09-04-2006, 02:55 PM

Do not believe everything you read about in the "Press and Media" about the US. The "Press and Media" tend to only report the negative and present the positive in the most negative way possible. And while we have had problems we always deal with them. As a society we are always talking, fighting and adjusting. We are not perfect and have as lot of imperfections and we know it. It has only been in the last 40 years or so that we have started to be consider everyone equal. But remember the words of Admirmal Yamamoto of World War II about "waking a sleeping giant". So far the Islamic Terrorist have only "pricked us while we sleep" and received a "kick while we sleep". Beware if you wake us up. As Imperial Japan discovered we can be terrible when aroused as did Nazi Germany, and many of us have German ancestory.

From history I have studied were dragged into World War I, World War II and other wars in the 20th century. When the USSR and communist countries attacked South Korean it was the US that lead the defense of South Korea and remember that the Korean War is NOT over. It is still an active war zone with the North Koreans. It is just not an active "hot" war zone. The war in Iraq was the same in the 1990s - it went from hot to cold and then we decided to finish it since the Iraqi government refused to do what they agreed to do with the ceasefire. Then think of the "Oil for Food" Scandal. Think it would have been revealed if the US did not push to find out what was going on? Think of what the world might be like if the Europeans had acted to stop Hitler in the 1930's instead of "just talking" and appeasing him.

It was the US that worked to stop the USSR advances into various countries around the world - we help the Afghani to repel the USSR forces. Then we left the Afghanis alone. Because we stood against the USSR with our allies the people under the control of the USSR have a chance to chart their own course. Of course we consider our interests but the citizens of the US generally prefer to be left alone and we will generally leave others alone. From the 1940s to now we have been forced onto the world stage because of the "Cold War" with the USSR and its attempts to spread its toletarian ideology around the world in the. Remember, the USSR, Cuba and almost every communist takeover of a country has started with a "democratic" election where the communist then betray the people. Don't believe it? Look at the USSR/Russia, Cuba, Eastern Europe and other communist governments around the world. After the fall of the Tsar Russia had a democratic government for around 1 year or so. The Lenin took over.

Even with what is going on with Iran right now we have choices. They are behaving just like Germany of the 1930. The world wants to just talk and the Iranian government ignores everyone's concerns and says "let talk some more while we do X and Y". Sounds just like Hitler. We are technically at war with Iran - Iran committed an act of war when it attacked and seized the US Embassy. Under International Laws and Standards we had and still have the right to launch a full scale attack on Iran and destroy the country. But we chose not to do that. Considering the support of terrorism that Iran represents it makes me wonder if should not have detroyed Iran at that time. And before someone starts complaining about our support of Shah at the time - he was the government and we did not do anything to keep him in power at that time. Do you think the US would have been looking at Iraq, Afganistan and Iraq if we had not been attacked in 1993 and 2001 by Islamic Terrorist?

But also consider what happens when disasters happens around the world. Who supplies the food, tents and other resources to aid people who have lost everything in earthquakes, tsumanis and other disasters. Even when these people and governments dispise and hate us? We still give aid - we still help people. Do you want us to stop?

So be careful what you wish for. The US has been a stabilizing force in the world. How many more people would have been slaughtered. Remember, even Stalin murdered and caused the death of 20 million citizens of the USSR. And in the same time period as when Hitler was in power. How much "blood letting" would be occuring if the US was not present "sticking its nose and feet" where not wanted. Where people did not want to look at what was happening. Think about the recent genocides in Rowanda, the Suddan, Cambodia, Uganda and other places. We know about them and try to stop them.

And for the Turks who say the forced migration of the Armenian was not an act of genocide? In the US we have the "Trail of Tears". Americans (who were very racist) of the time stole the land from the Cherokee and worked hard to have the Cherokee die on the march. It was an act of genocide and many Americans had the idea of "the best Indian is a dead Indian". The US has been both the best and worst of the countries. We however learn and adjust.

Think of what life under the toliterian regimes like the USSR, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Imperial Japan, and Nazi Germany would have been like if the USA had not been there. Do people really want to live under Islamic Facism where you do not have free thought and freedom of action? Where the leader's words determine what is right and wrong?

Ralph Peter's article was an intellectual exercise of "what if". All countrys do this type of "what if". It is part of understanding what is going on in the world. Viewing it as other than that is short sighted.

So be careful what you wish for - you might get it and not like it.

Kurdistan_Serok

09-04-2006, 06:05 PM

Okay puppy. wake up and see the truth cuz everyday is not friday
Yes Mr Kurdistano, haho, maho, or kiro, or whatever the hell you call yourself...
Turks own this blood borders for a thousand years after malazgirt victory in 1071 by Selchuk Commander Alparslan beating the byzantin empire. It is 2006 now, there you go it is gonna be 1000 years excatly by 2071.
What war did you win to earn this land????
What war ever kurds had in the history???? (other than terrorism, lol)

Now we give the right to live as a minority (cultural rights already given to you, etc...) in this land just like your past in Ottoman Empire and before then. But we don't give you the right to take our land, if try you will have to suffer the consequences, and you know what that means!
Guess what your bodies using you as a player in this psyicological war, but in real war you will be alone... and there is nowhere to escape, lol....
you will be surraunded very quickly!

diyako

09-05-2006, 12:10 AM

Dear Turkish friends!!

Language has its limit. In many my writing I have state, some bad words such as “idiots, fools, stupid” however, as proud Kurdish I never used F* word I am very com and work for my nation
Put yourself together, this forum suppose to be communication channels, for those who swearing, surely it is plenty place to take out their angers, or just join Army perhaps, serve your country in forum you swearing just post in professional manners, and state you reason, screaming swearing is childish as well as barbaric mentality, keep you anger and frustration to yourself, because end of day it wouldn’t bring anything good to your country, it is really desperation .
There is simple logic so far I work out from most Turkish perspectives in this forum, nad I conclude them, and that is:

1. Turks don’t allow Kurds neither don’t want Kurds to talk. They want them to be silence, if Kurds want talk about their basic and legitimate rights, it considered as terrorist separatisms (without knowing the difference between separatism and terrorism), and cause mayhem and anger with a lot F***
2. They don’t believe will of peoples through a Referendum to peacefully overcome problems,
3. New generation of Turkish society does not have any knowledge what so ever of Kurdish nation, which reflect of systems of denial and fascism which turkey has adopted for last 85 years
3. Force is only language that Turks one to adopt, nothing else.
4. Anyone who ask for free and independent Kurdistan, in Turkish perspective is its PKK member, therefore, it is a terrorist and most be killed.
5.etc…

Therefore, we neither understand each other true civilized manner but I guess, some here only thirsty for blood. Bloodshed is answer to all this, but sadly is not history of 85 years Turkish foundation proven that with all arsenal and haters and killing assimilation which turkey as well as other countries in the region adopted to forcibly turkishnized, Kurdish nation, it did not work, and never will work. Now peace and democratic values is strong mechanism that young Kurds and Turks can find such mechanism through dialogue and communication to understand each other and solve problems, if they failed they will be great lose and regret ,so those who cares about brotherhood and humanity they should change their mentality of denying a nation rights

Türk_kürdü

09-05-2006, 01:25 AM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5666901203256863551&q=kurd+turkey

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1825655558139054191&q=kurd+turkey

PKK doesn't want a STATE, They wat recognizatatsion..

YEah right, this man doesn't know about what he is tolking.

GUNTURKUN

09-05-2006, 08:03 AM

my kurdish friend,

look at the sentence you write :

4. Anyone who ask for free and independent Kurdistan, in Turkish perspective is its PKK member, therefore, it is a terrorist and most be killed.
??????????????????
what is this ? my friend it is to seperate the Turk soil... How can you ask for an independent Kurdistan from Turkey ? From this sentence i understand that you ask for the soil where the Kurdish citizens live ha ? Example Diyarbakır, Hakkari etc... Why will we give our soil ? Should we give soil because you want ?

Well think first... Lets say you have your own country between Iraq Iran Syria... And a community who lives in your country has organized and asks for a soil from you.... Will you give any of your soil ? I dont think so...

Thats the reason why you have no chance ... But you have the right to live in This heavenly country as long as you like, you want.
But if you ( TURK or KURD or ÇERKEZ or LAZ or ERMENi or EUROPEAN ) break the peaceful conditions then everybody will treat you ( TURK or KURD or ÇERKEZ or LAZ or ERMENi or EUROPEAN ) as terrorists...

Dont you think that only TURKS die as a result of sun of a bitch PKK actions ??? NO, young Kurds, Turks die together for their country, for their soil...

If terrorist still insists on these kind of attacks, KURDS who are not in PKK s way will suffer too...
Our bir brothers plan is just like this! Make TURKS and KURDS enemy.. they are doing their ideas well....
If things go like this ( PKK attacks innocent people and kill 10 soldier per week) for 2 months, then the hell will come.
Army will attack northern Iraq and Iran, in east of Turkey many innocent TURKS and KURDS will die... İn Iraq there will be more bombngs than now. Everything will be worse than now... We will loose together. Kurds will loose, TURKS will loose... AMERICA wins...
so lets stop supporting PKK and other terrorists... Lets live in peace..
you can talk eat sing inKurdish, you can educate if you like, you cn learn your Kurd language...You can speak in LAZ language in Armenian language, but when you enter a formal bureu, you have to write and speak in Turkish...
Is this too hard for you ?

sincerely ,

GUNTURKUN SOYLEMEZOGLU

Kurdistan_Serok

09-05-2006, 09:54 AM

The Kurdish people compose one of the ancient nations of the Middle East. Kurdistan, the land of the Kurds, is spread among several modern states: northwestern Iran, northern Iraq, northeastern Syria, southeastern Turkey, and small parts of Armenia. There is no exact figure to the Kurdish population because each state has tended to downplay the number of Kurds within its own borders. Nevertheless, according to various estimates, the Kurdish population is estimated to range between 25 to 30 million. This makes the Kurds the fourth largest ethnic people of the Middle East.

In terms of numerical strength, Kurdish ranks fortieth among the world’s five to six thousand languages. The strategic weight of Kurdistan was recognized by the U.S. Government in 1985 when Kurdish was included among its list of 169 “critical languages.

Kurdistan_Serok

09-05-2006, 10:08 AM

The history of the Kurds stretches from ancient times to the present day. The Kurds are an ethnolinguistic group inhabiting the mountainous areas of the northern Middle East (Zagros and Taurus mountain ranges), a geographical area collectively referred to as Kurdistan. This area covers northern Iraq, northwestern Iran, northeastern Syria and southeastern Turkey. Kurds are also found in southwestern Armenia and an enclave in Azerbaijan (Kalbajar and Lachin, to the west of Nagorno Karabakh). They are also found in northeastern Iran in Khorasan. The Kurds speak the Kurdish language.

Origins
With regard to the origin of the Kurds, it was formerly considered sufficient to describe them as the descendants of the Carduchi, who opposed the retreat of the Ten Thousand through the mountains in the 4th century BC. Modern research traces them far beyond the period of the ancient Greeks [1]. The earliest known evidence of a unified and distinct culture (and possibly, ethnicity) by people inhabiting the Kurdish mountains dates back to the Halaf culture of 8,000-7,400 years ago. This was followed by the spread of the Ubaidian culture, which was a foreign introduction from Mesopotamia. In their own histories, they are proud to mention the Hurrian period in the mid third millennium BC as the earliest well documented period. The 3rd millennium was the time of the Guti and Hattians. The second and first was the time of the Kassites, Mitanni, Mannai (Mannaeans), Urartu, and Mushku. All of these peoples shared a common identity and spoke one language or closely related languages/dialects. These groups are thought to have been non-Indo-Europeans, apart from the original Mitanni leadership. Kurds consider themselves Indo-European as well as descendants of the above groups. According to the Encyclopaedia Kurdistanica, Kurds are the descendants of all those who have historically settled in Kurdistan, not of any one particular group. A people such as the Guti (Kurti), Mede, (Mard) Carduchi, (Gordyene), Adiabene, Zila and Khaldi signify not the ancestor of the Kurds but only one ancestor.

Hurrian Period
The Hurrian period lasted from possibly as long ago as 6,300 years ago, until about 2,600 years ago. The Hurrian language was similar later Urartean, and perhaps distantly related to the Northeast Caucasian family of languages (or Alarodian), and kin to modern Chechen and Lezgian. The Hurrians spread far and wide, dominating much territory outside their Zagros-Taurus mountain base. Like their Kurdish descendants, they did not expand very far from the mountains. Their intrusions into the neighboring plains of Mesopotamia and the Iranian Plateau were primarily military annexations with little population settlement. The Hurrians — whose name may be seen today in the dialect and district of Hawraman in Kurdistan — were divided into many clans and subgroups, who set up city-states, kingdoms and empires known today after their respective clan names. The major peoples in the mountain region during this era (some of whom spoke languages known to be unrelated to Hurrian) included the Gutis, Kurti, Khaldi, Mards, Mushku, Manna (Mannaeans), Hatti, Mittanni, Urartu, and the Kassites, to name just a few.

Indo-European Migration
By about 4,000 years ago, the first vanguard of the Indo-European-speaking peoples were trickling into the present-day Kurdish areas in limited numbers and settling there. They formed the aristocracy of the Mittani and Hittite kingdoms, while the common peoples there remained solidly Hurrian and Hattian, respectively [27]. By about 3,000 years ago, the trickle had turned into a flood, and Indo-Europeans quickly outnumbered the Hurrians. However, the Hurrian legacy, despite its linguistic eclipse, remains the single most important element of the Kurdish culture today. Medes, Scythians and Sagarthians are the better-known clans of the Indo-European-speaking Aryans who settled in the area. By about 2,600 years ago, the Medes had set up an empire that included all of the present-day Kurdish areas and vast territories far beyond. By 1200 BCE, Medes conquered Hurrian cities and by 850 BCE, the old language of the Kurds (probably from a Dene-Caucasian family) had changed to Indo-European [4].

In the earliest recorded history, the mountains overhanging Assyria were held by a people named Gutii, a title which signified "a warrior", and which was rendered in Assyrian by the synonym of Gardu or Kardu, the precise term quoted by Strabo to explain the name of the Cardaces[5]. These Gutii were a tribe of such power as to be placed in the early Cuneiform records on an equality with the other nations of western Asia, including Syrians and Hittites, the Susians, Elamites, and Akkadians of Babylonia; and during the enitre period of the Assyrian Empire, the Gutii seem to have preserved a more-or-less independent political position.

After the fall of Nineveh, the Gutii coalesced with the Medes and, along with all the nations inhabiting the high plateaus of Asia Minor, Armenia and Persia, became gradually Aryanised, owing to the immigration of tribes in overwhelming numbers who, from whatever quarter they may have sprung, belonged certainly to the Aryan family [6].

The first records of the name Kurd appeared in Assyrian documents around 1000 BCE. Assyrians called the people living in Mt. Azu or Hizan (near Lake Van) by the name Kurti (Kurd). Classical histories of Polybios(133 BCE) and Strabo(48 CE) used the name Kurts [7]. The last emperor of the Medes, Rishti Vega-Azhi Dahak (Astyages), killed Zoroaster, ruled his followers and overthrew Vishtaspa (Hystaspes). His army reached the southwest of Afghanistan. During that attack, the army of the Medes inflicted cruelties on Zoroastrians [8].

Modern historical research indicates that Kurds who migrated to present Balochistan during Median empire, did not return back to Kurdistan but rather stayed in Balochistan and later became known as Balochis. Its interesting also to note that Balochi language is closely linked to Kurdish.

Kurdistan_Serok

09-05-2006, 10:15 AM

Turkish Kurdistan (Turkish:Türkiye Kürdistanı or Kuzey Kürdistan ("Northern Kurdistan") , (Kurdish: Kurdistana Tirkiyê or Bakurê Kurdistanê ("North of Kurdistan") )or Kurdistana Bakûr ("Northern Kurdistan") ) is an unofficial name for the southeastern part of Turkey densely inhabited by Kurds. The term has no administrative basis and is very open to controversy. Some sources claim that this region is the larger and northern part of the greater cultural and geographical area in the Middle East known as Kurdistan. The geographical subdivisions referred to in Turkey at a quasi-official level and among the larger public that covers the region treated in this article form parts of Güneydoğu Anadolu Bölgesi ("Southeastern Anatolia (Region)") and Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi ("Eastern Anatolia (Region)").

The Encyclopaedia of Islam describes "Turkish Kurdistan" as covering at least 17 provinces of Turkey: Erzincan, Erzurum, Kars, Malatya, Tunceli, Elazığ, Bingöl, Muş, Ağrı, Adıyaman, Diyarbakır, Siirt, Bitlis, Van, Şanlıurfa aka Urfa, Mardin and Hakkâri, stressing at the same time that "the imprecise limits of the frontiers of Kurdistan hardly allow an exact appreciation of the area." .(Since 1987, four new provinces - Şırnak, Batman, Iğdır and Ardahan - have been created inside the Turkish administrative system out of the territory of some of these provinces.)

The use of the term "Kurdistan" is vigorously rejected due to its alleged political implications by the Republic of Turkey, which does not recognize the existence of a "Turkish Kurdistan". These political implications are claimed to involve primarily the Democratic Society Party (DTP) in Turkey's current political scene.

Kurdistan_Serok

09-05-2006, 10:25 AM

first of all it is Kurdistan and Kurds soil and not turk soil that we want it from you. then those bastards which they will send to the hell by PKK are not innocent by are some terrorists,dogs,biatches that they will kill Kurdish people without reason from small kid to old people nothing else. I think you got your answer.

NEXT...

my kurdish friend,

look at the sentence you write :

4. Anyone who ask for free and independent Kurdistan, in Turkish perspective is its PKK member, therefore, it is a terrorist and most be killed.
??????????????????
what is this ? my friend it is to seperate the Turk soil... How can you ask for an independent Kurdistan from Turkey ? From this sentence i understand that you ask for the soil where the Kurdish citizens live ha ? Example Diyarbakır, Hakkari etc... Why will we give our soil ? Should we give soil because you want ?

Well think first... Lets say you have your own country between Iraq Iran Syria... And a community who lives in your country has organized and asks for a soil from you.... Will you give any of your soil ? I dont think so...

Thats the reason why you have no chance ... But you have the right to live in This heavenly country as long as you like, you want.
But if you ( TURK or KURD or ÇERKEZ or LAZ or ERMENi or EUROPEAN ) break the peaceful conditions then everybody will treat you ( TURK or KURD or ÇERKEZ or LAZ or ERMENi or EUROPEAN ) as terrorists...

Dont you think that only TURKS die as a result of sun of a bitch PKK actions ??? NO, young Kurds, Turks die together for their country, for their soil...

If terrorist still insists on these kind of attacks, KURDS who are not in PKK s way will suffer too...
Our bir brothers plan is just like this! Make TURKS and KURDS enemy.. they are doing their ideas well....
If things go like this ( PKK attacks innocent people and kill 10 soldier per week) for 2 months, then the hell will come.
Army will attack northern Iraq and Iran, in east of Turkey many innocent TURKS and KURDS will die... İn Iraq there will be more bombngs than now. Everything will be worse than now... We will loose together. Kurds will loose, TURKS will loose... AMERICA wins...
so lets stop supporting PKK and other terrorists... Lets live in peace..
you can talk eat sing inKurdish, you can educate if you like, you cn learn your Kurd language...You can speak in LAZ language in Armenian language, but when you enter a formal bureu, you have to write and speak in Turkish...
Is this too hard for you ?

sincerely ,

GUNTURKUN SOYLEMEZOGLU

Türk_kürdü

09-05-2006, 01:06 PM

drljr

09-05-2006, 04:05 PM

Kurdistan_Serok

09-05-2006, 05:40 PM

the term which drljr used " The history Kurdistan_Serok posted shows this ". the use of these type of terms is useful but you should prove what you want to say but we can see that he/she will just say his/her viewpoints without proving them. and of course from this thread we can understand that drljr is a turkish racist that without any reason just want other accept what he/she will say. no it's not like this we world is awake and will see small movement of you turks.

Kurdistan_Serok's history makes my point for me. The people who occupy what is refered to as Kurdistan can not properly call themselves "the Kurd of 4000 years ago". To quote from the history Kurdistan_Serok supplied

"According to the Encyclopaedia Kurdistanica, Kurds are the descendants
of all those who have historically settled in Kurdistan, not of any one
particular group."

So claiming a continuous history as "Kurds" would be like the French calling themselves Gauls or the Scottish calling themselves Pics. It is a reaching into the past to claim an identity. Here in the USA it would be like the citizens of the States of Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina calling themselves Cherokee because the area was called the Cherokee Nation two hundred years ago and some of the people have Cherokee ancestry. I also don't hear Iranians normally refering to themselves as Persians even though they occupy the same "root" terrority as the former Persion empire.

While they may be some of the ancestors of the current group of people refered to as Kurds, today they are obviously not the same group or groups as 4000 years ago, 6000 years ago or even 8000 years ago. The history Kurdistan_Serok posted shows this.

The area has historically been called Kurdistan through out the years and as a result the peoples inhabiting the area called Kurds. But the people who occupy the land have been overun, moved and other wise mixed and matched over the centuries and milleniums. Turks, Mongels, Goths, Romans, Persians, Babylonians and host of other peoples. It also sounds like parts of the original "Kurdish" language may have survived over the centuries.

Are the people who are called "Kurds" a minority, have they been persecuted or otherwise abused? Do they have language and cultural background different from the majority of the countries of Turkey, Iraq, Iran and other countries? The discussions on this forum indicates this is true. Do they deserve a country of their own? From what has been presented on this forum I would say that no - they do not. I have not seen any evidence that their was an independent Kurdistan in either recent or ancient histories. The term Kurd and Kurdistan appears to have been used to refer to a specific area and the people currently occupying the area. And the histories do not indicate any sort of independent country.

Now Kurdistan_Serok and others who want a "Kurdish" homeland will no doubt disagree and how they react will show what type of people they are. But so far I do not see the current "Kurdish" culture existing before the 1300's. They claim an identity going back thousands of years but the history presented on this forum clearly show that these connections do not exist. In fact the history supplied shows a series of cultural disconnections as different people occupied the same geographic area. They are claiming the history based upon the location but the people that have occupied this area has constantly changed over the last 8000 years and brought different cultures into the same geographic area.

Kurdistan_Serok

09-05-2006, 05:53 PM

this information about Kurdistan is a little bit old like the population and of course the area is not right, it is according turkey goverment information and they always tried to show it less part of turkey is Kurdistan.the population of Kurdish people in turkey is 1 over 3 of whole population of turkey.

THE KURDISH DRAMA

Kurdistan is today partitioned among its four neighbors.

Turkey alone occupies half Kurdistan. The Turkish Kurdistan covers an area of 230.000 km2, represents 30% of the whole area of Turkey and is inhabited by approximately 12 million Kurds.

The remaining area of Kurdistan is occupied by Iraq, Iran and a small part by Syria.

In Iran, the Kurds have sufficient freedom and a relative autonomy. In Iraq, they have also autonomy, with their own parliament in Erbil, in north Iraq.

The only country which, not only does not recognize any human right to the Kurds, but also forbids them to speak their own language, to sing their songs, to have newspapers, books, schools, culture, is Turkey. For this reason, the Kurdish problem is mostly a problem, for the part of Kurdistan, which is enslaved to Turkey

The Kurds are a Indo-European people, related to the Persians. They inhabited the lands where they live today, 35 centuries ago. Their language is related to the Persian language and was written since the 7th century B.C. According to the latest scientific research, they are considered descendants of the Medes. Thus, they have absolutely no relation (racial, linguistic, anthropologic) to their Turkish oppressors, who are of Mongolic descent. They also have no relation with the Arabs who are of Semitic descent. The only common characteristic among these three nations is the Moslem religion.

The Kurds enter history from the time of their acceptance of Islam after the occupation of their country by the army of Chalifa Omar in 637A. D. Saladin, the heroic opponent of the Crusaders, is the great hero of the Kurds during the middle Ages. Saladin formed a great empire, which survived even after his death, in 1193.

The Mongolian attacks of the beginning of the l3th century dissolved the Kurdish states. Because of the separation into many autonomous states and the feudal organization of society, a great part of Kurdistan was later conquered by the Ottoman Empire and the rest was conquered by Persia.

There is hardly any parallel in history, to the struggles of the Kurds for their independence. In 1806 Babazade Abdul Rahman organized the first revolt against the Turks in Mosul. Since then, there have been 38 Kurdish revolts and uprisings.

The greatest was that which took place in 1925,led by Sheikh Said. It lasted almost 20 months. The totalitarian regime of Kemal crushed the Kurds and drowned their revolt in blood.

The Kurds were slaughtered or hanged by thousands. The Turkish newspaper VAKIT, wrote characteristically in 7-5-1925 <<Wherever a Turkish bayonet appears, there is no Kurdish problem>>. This is always the Turkish response to peoples demanding their independence. The Kurdish revolts in Turkey had 1.500.000 victims. There is constantly for 50 years martial law in the eastern Turkish provinces, where the Kurds live, and the district is forbidden to foreigners.

The Turkish authorities want to ignore the Kurds, they call them mountainous Turks and they deprive them of any human right. Blood, violence, oppression, have not erased the desire of the Kurdish people to live independent not under this totalitarian enslavement where they are today.

The Turkish military regime has recently intensified the oppression and extermination of Kurds. Thousands of them rot in prisons while others live in caves. It would however be wrong to believe that violence against the Kurds was less intense under the so-called democratic regime of Turkey. Policy is one and the same for any Turkish regime: The policy of extermination of every minority.

The Treaty of Sevres, which has not been officially annulled, mentions an autonomous, independent Kurdistan. The Kurds have the right to free themselves from Turkish yoke. Kurdish independence must become a reality. Give your help to that end.

In the pages that follow you will see photographs of the drama and the struggle of the Kurdish people.

http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Turkish.php#drama

http://www.kypros.org/CyprusPanel/cyprus/ANTI_Turkish.html

Kurdistan_Serok

09-05-2006, 05:55 PM

http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Turkish_crimes_pictures.htm

bezgin

09-05-2006, 07:36 PM

Kurdistan_Serok's history makes my point for me. The people who occupy what is refered to as Kurdistan can not properly call themselves "the Kurd of 4000 years ago". To quote from the history Kurdistan_Serok supplied

"According to the Encyclopaedia Kurdistanica, Kurds are the descendants
of all those who have historically settled in Kurdistan, not of any one
particular group."

So claiming a continuous history as "Kurds" would be like the French calling themselves Gauls or the Scottish calling themselves Pics. It is a reaching into the past to claim an identity. Here in the USA it would be like the citizens of the States of Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina calling themselves Cherokee because the area was called the Cherokee Nation two hundred years ago and some of the people have Cherokee ancestry. I also don't hear Iranians normally refering to themselves as Persians even though they occupy the same "root" terrority as the former Persion empire.

While they may be some of the ancestors of the current group of people refered to as Kurds, today they are obviously not the same group or groups as 4000 years ago, 6000 years ago or even 8000 years ago. The history Kurdistan_Serok posted shows this.

The area has historically been called Kurdistan through out the years and as a result the peoples inhabiting the area called Kurds. But the people who occupy the land have been overun, moved and other wise mixed and matched over the centuries and milleniums. Turks, Mongels, Goths, Romans, Persians, Babylonians and host of other peoples. It also sounds like parts of the original "Kurdish" language may have survived over the centuries.

Are the people who are called "Kurds" a minority, have they been persecuted or otherwise abused? Do they have language and cultural background different from the majority of the countries of Turkey, Iraq, Iran and other countries? The discussions on this forum indicates this is true. Do they deserve a country of their own? From what has been presented on this forum I would say that no - they do not. I have not seen any evidence that their was an independent Kurdistan in either recent or ancient histories. The term Kurd and Kurdistan appears to have been used to refer to a specific area and the people currently occupying the area. And the histories do not indicate any sort of independent country.

Now Kurdistan_Serok and others who want a "Kurdish" homeland will no doubt disagree and how they react will show what type of people they are. But so far I do not see the current "Kurdish" culture existing before the 1300's. They claim an identity going back thousands of years but the history presented on this forum clearly show that these connections do not exist. In fact the history supplied shows a series of cultural disconnections as different people occupied the same geographic area. They are claiming the history based upon the location but the people that have occupied this area has constantly changed over the last 8000 years and brought different cultures into the same geographic area.

drljr, I agree with every word you say but there are a few things i would like to add.

Serok is probably voluntarily speaking from the mouth of PKK, a terrorist organisation responsible of 30.000 deaths in Turkey. Like HADEP, the political sub-division of PKK, Serok is trying to justify their destructive purposes. He will try any other political maneuver to make your arguments seem wrong. Because he is either a politician or a terrorist, speaking with greed more than sanity.

The same miserable and hopeless strategy is being used by HADEP today. I mean if they had isolated themselves from terror and tried democratic means for their cause maybe problems could have been solved. Because only then we could have believed they were the representatives of a nation and not a marginalized terror organisation. But i don't think that is what they want. They don't want to help solve the problem.

Their purpose is to give an impression of tolerance and openness to discussions to the outside world while they provoke Turkish governments and nation with the terror wave to force them towards human rights abuses. This is actually a very clever tactic. And it has worked out well in the last twenty years.

But our administration is also cleverer now. They are now able to determine normal Kurdish citizens from these terrorists. And thats why you will see no official response to the terrorists in such forums. Because there will be no talks with the terrorists.

But it is time to talk with the real people. It is time to talk and learn what their expectations are. When we don't talk with the real people, "individuals" like Serok may confusingly mistake us for their spokesmen.

Further from that point, i would like to remind you some examples which can enlighten us in this discussion, Soviet Russia, Yugoslavia.

After the fall of "Iron Curtain" these strong countries were not able to keep their several-nationed unity. Whole Soviet Union divided into many mini-countries. In some cases peacefully and in other violently. One thing we know is these departures were influenced from a new-wave of nationalism, a natural result of fall of imperial powers since 1789 the French Revolution.

In most of the instances we obsorved that there was a driving force for the unity, in Yugoslavia it was the Serbs and in the Soviets, Russians. Now my point is how much of a similarity does Turkey and Turks represent?

I say, none. First of all Turk is not the name of one single nation, but many different nations. Whereever you go in Turkey, it will be hard to find a majority of "Turks". The term "Turk" in fact, refers to the people who are inhabitants of "Anatolia" or "Asia Minor", nothing else. Of course the Turkic tribes entered Anatolia intensively after 1071 but certainly they mixed with the nations living in the territory, including the Kurdish.

As i stressed before there is none or ignorable racial driving force in the Turkish Republic.

We are a nation of people who are fond of and willing to live together. And we are very annoyed with the few racist people trying to destroy this. Because these people want to build a new nation based on the racial and ethnic differences which will look like Hitler's Germany and i am sure this new wave of fascism will lead us to new wars in the Middle East.

Members of PKK are frequently stating that they would invade whole Anatolia, and Balkan part of Turkey. So this can give you all an idea what kind of nation these people are dreaming of.

In their fantasies, they are seeing the collapse of Turkish nation after their departure. They dream that they will leave Turkey to its own devices with open sores as i said we are actually identifying ourselves with this nation. One may think of the "weaker cycles", but we will prove them wrong. I for one, will do my best to wake them up. As the son of a Sudanian, Kurdish, Bulgarian, and Turkmen mix family. :)

drljr

09-05-2006, 08:03 PM

Kurdistan_Serok response to my reading of the history he posted is quite interesting and it reveals a lot of about himself.

First I have no "bone to pick in this conflict". I am neither Turkish or Kurdish. I am also not from any other minority who lives in the area. Anyone who has read the prior posts I have made know my ethnicity. I have no first-hand knowledge except the various histories I have read and seen that present various views - both for and against positions. And the various positions presented in this forum. I have nothing to gain one way or another but to express an opinion. I have never been to Turkey or the area around it. I have lived in the USA my whole life having being born here.

I am the classic objective outsider looking in and considering all of the information being presented and then giving an opinon based upon the supplied information.

Kurdistan_Serok's history talks about multiple migrations of people through a specific area. The origin section lists some 10 different peoples and the "Indo-European Migration" sections list more. In short the "culture" was constantly changing because the people were constantly changing. This could also be called "Cultural Replacement".

I have seen this type of attitude before here in the USA and it is generally associated with racism. It is a refusal to recognize that the environment and other conditions have changed. Many Black-Americans and some White-Americans see everything that happens as a racial issue. My own observations has been that most things in this day are not race based but behavior and attitude related. But because the person see everything that happens to them as race based when things go wrong they blame others instead of the real culprit - themself.

Kurdistan_Serok - before you "cry wolf" about me or some else being a racist you should examine yourself first. I wrote the assement based upon what YOU posted and it does not support a continuous Kurdish culture. It does however support the idea of constant migration through the area.

diyako

09-06-2006, 12:52 AM

Ignorance gentleman!!, is a humans biggest disease, and that is problemtoday Turkey facing!!! You all consider my brother Kurdistan_Serok as kid, well, all of you not comparable with one kid then, you guys desperately creating philosophy to argue your case, first well You do Not have any thing to argue about it at all, you guys only speaking way your paranoia systems brought you up , without knowing the Kurdish mind!! Onsides thinking is dangers, denying a nation , oppressing them, killing them, is crime that world no longer accept that neither even turkey able to handle it. I always in favorer of peaceful solution, through democratic reform to Kurdish problem with real dialog.but as in 21 centurally I see Turkish young mentality, is tragic, is smell of bloodshed, for them is like indefinite that by killing and by guns they can silence Kurds? It is big mistake brothers, wake up!! You have no idea ,that old days cadging, silence Kurds is over!!

Speaking from haters and emotions, not answer to anything, therefore you guys just wasting your time. Bring millions argument, none of them can stop what Kurds asking for, because it what mean to be human .

Some of you definition of Turkey as country with different nationalities, good concept , but is blinded with everything to Turkish nation culture and Turkish identity, which is inherited from Asia, they forcibly put Kurds in such systems ,the Kurds, have their own identity, they never accept such crime in past to be part of a country or a nation which they are not. They would never accept it. It is our human values (as human been) ,which we want be free and choice our own path with our own systems.

Some of you only considered Kurds with circle only around PKK, well as I said before is tragic, your racist mind stopping you to analysis Kurds. I am not PKK follower nor I have any communist ideology, but let me remind you, inside Kurdistan PKK have millions followers is stronger than ever, and PKK is reality and have a lot to say in kurdish nation dastiney,the Men and Women inside PKK no matter how much I have deference in terms of ideology than them ,again end of day they are my brothers and sisters, today PKK asking for federal system inside Turkish border, while some Kurds like me, our struggle is for Kurdistan ultimate Independent, is right which can not be ignored and no one can stop it

Some of you said again again, only few terrorist believe Kurdistan, well then why don’t you but in test then??? Through a referendum to see in fact, in your definition 25 millions Kurds perhaps all are terrorist (Turkish dictionary mind: to be Kurd and ask for your rights==terrorist)

kençel

09-06-2006, 06:03 AM

Sanırım yeni bir filmin senaryosunu hazırlıyorlar. Fakat ;bilinmesi gereken çok önemli bir şey var. Türk millet tarih yazmak istediği zaman istediği gibi yazmışdır. Başkaları Türk milletine tarih yazmaya kalkışınca hiçbir zaman istedikleri gibi yazamamışlardır.Lütfen çekmeyi düşündüğünüz filmin senaryosunu hazırlarken bu gerçeği göz önüne alın.
Have a good days , everybady..;)

Kurdistan_Serok

09-06-2006, 11:05 AM

drljr said "In short the "culture" was constantly changing because the people were constantly changing. This could also be called "Cultural Replacement"."

and he said whatever he think but because it is not related to our topic I won't answer it cuz it doesn't make anything clear!!! for example because of caltural replacement the Kurdish nation ( 43-45 million people ) shouldn't have their own country( meaningless )or their basic human rights ??? first make it clear that what do you mean by writing your veiws then I will answer you.

for bezgin I will support PKK and all those organizations that they are against turkish terrorist goverments and I not communist, I will follow europe and USA system. now you will call me PKK spokesman and whatever.I will be very happy. Kurds are not turks brothers we can be but not now you in turkey and we in Kurdistan. you will say it won't exist then okay we will wait and we will see no doubt.Kurds are nowadays awake and they will pay for that thing that they believe.
it is become a habit for you turks that call those who they want their rights terrorist but no problem don't forget armenian. Kurdistan also in near future will become on the map of the world but USA will go step by step.I am sorry I can't say how cuz it is not my job to tell you how but still we are in the first step.

Kurdistan_Serok

09-06-2006, 11:22 AM

The Kurdish language is an Indo-Iranian language spoken in the region loosely called Kurdistan, including Kurdish populations in parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey.[1] Kurdish is an official language in Iraq while it is banned in Syria where it is forbidden to publish material in Kurdish [2]. Before August 2002, the Turkish government placed severe restrictions on the use of Kurdish, prohibiting the language in education and broadcast media.[3] The Kurdish alphabet is still not recognized in Turkey, and use of the Kurdish letters X, W, Q which do not exist in the Turkish alphabet have led to judicial persecution in 2000 and 2003 [4] [5]. In Iran, though it is used in the local media and newspapers, it is not allowed to be taught in schools [6] [7]. As a result many Iranian Kurds have left for Iraq where they can study in their native language.[8]

The Kurdish language belongs to the western sub-group of the Iranian languages which belong to the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European languages family. The most closely related languages to Kurdish are Balochi, Gileki and Talysh, all of which belong to the north-western branch of Iranian languages. Persian which belongs to the south-western branch, is also considered a related language.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Origin and Roots
Most of the ancestors of today's Kurds spoke various languages of the Indo-European family during the millennia BC. An exception to this was Hurrian, a non-Indo-European language belonging to the Caucasian family which is thought to have exerted a great deal of influence on Kurdish. These older languages which already had mixed and shaped closely related dialectes were replaced by Iranic (a branch of Indo-European) language around 850 BCE, with the arrival of the Medes to Kurdistan [9]. Some experts believes that Hurrian influence on Kurdish is most evident in its ergative grammatical structure and in toponyms[10]. But this argument is controversial, especially to know that many of other Indo-European Languages have some ergative charactrisitics. The most obvious example for those ergative languages among the Iranic branch of the Indo-Iranian Languages that had ergative characteristics was Pahlavi. It was the official language of the Persian Empire before Islam. A linguistic group also influential on Kurdish, but to a lesser degree was the Semitic group, especially languages such as Aramaic and Arabic. Today, more than three-quarters of Kurdish clan names and roughly two-third of topographical and urban names are of Hurrian (Khurrite) origin [11], e.g., the names of the clans of Bukhti, Tirikan, Bazayni, Bakran, Mand; rivers Murad, Balik and Khabur, lake Van; the towns of Mardin, Ziwiya, Dinawar and Barzan. So it is safe to say that the historical development of the Kurdish language (both grammar and vocabulary) is distinct and different than the other members of the Iranian language family.

__________________________________________________ _______________

History
Little is known about Kurdish in pre-Islamic times. The sacred book of the Yazidis, Mishefa Reş (Black Book) was written in Kurmanji Kurdish by Shaikh Adi's son in early 13th century [12]. From the 15th to 17th centuries, classical Kurdish poets and writers developed a literary language. The most famous classical Kurdish poets from this period are Ali Hariri, Ahmad Khani, Malaye Jaziri and Faqi Tayran.

In the beginning of the 20th century the countries that controlled the Kurdish-speaking regions refused to accept Kurdish as an official language and placed restrictions on its use. Today, only in Iraq, Kurdish is an official language. In Turkey the use of Kurdish is allowed, though with restrictions; In Iran, Kurdish is used in some publications, but it is not allowed to be taught in schools. Syria still opposes to the use of Kurdish in the country.

In March 2006, Turkey allowed private television channels to begin airing Kurdish language programming. However, the Turkish government said that they must avoid showing children's cartoons, or educational programs that teach the Kurdish language, and can only broadcast for 45 minutes a day or four hours a week. The programs must carry Turkish subtitles.

__________________________________________________ _______________

Dialects
Generally there are two types of Kurdish widely used in media and communications: Kurmanji in northern areas and Sorani in southern areas.

In dialectical and regional classifications Kurdish can be divided into two main branches of dialects: 1. The Kurmanji, and 2. Gorani. The Kurmanji branch consists of the sub-dialects, Northern Kurmanji and Southern Kurmanji also called Sorani. The Gorani branch consists of the sub-dialects: Kakeyi, Hewrami and Zazaki [14].

Other linguists classify the Kurdish language as the Northern Kurdish group of dialects also called Kurmanji and Badînî, the Central Kurdish group of dialects also called Sorani, and the Southern Kurdish group of dialects also called Gorani.

The detailed classification of Kurdish dialects is problematic. There is no widely-accepted appellative system for the various Kurdish dialects; not only in Western scholarly opinion, but even among the Kurds themselves. This often prompts arguments if these four different dialects are a language on their own or not.

A proposed system for the classification of the dialects is as follows [15]:

Kurmanji:

Northern Kurmanji (also called Kurmanji); (Spoken by most of Kurds in Turkey, All Kurds in Syria and the former Soviet Union. Kurds in Northern regions of western Azarbaijan province and in northern Khorasan of Iran. Kurds in Dohuk and Mosul governorates in Iraqi Kurdistan.)
Southern Kurmanji (including Sorani and Kalhuri); (Spoken by most of Iraqi and Iranian Kurds)

Pehlewanî

Gorani dialect (including Laki and Hewramani )
Zazaki

Adil Rashdi

09-06-2006, 02:20 PM

I do not believe Afghanistan itself is a natural country. The natural geographic entity comprising NWFP and the Pashtun reagions of Afghanistan would be an independent Pashtunistan. Let us not forget that the map of the world has been changed throughout the ages according to the whims of great powers. But as these changes defied the natural scheme of things, these did not survive beyond a point. For example, the Soviet Union - a divided Germany - Yugoslavia and of course Pakistan with Bengal. The Hazara and Tajik regions of Afghanistan will defintely not accept a Pashtun dominated Afghanistan and would rather opt for joining its Central Asian neighbours.

Adil Rashdi

09-06-2006, 02:28 PM

Let us not forget the Seraiki nation!

bezgin

09-06-2006, 05:22 PM

Lol, you have been in the first step for 1000 years now. If the second step takes 500 hundred years neither you nor your grandsons' grandsons will see it.

Azaad Baluch

09-07-2006, 12:22 AM

Before the Partition of India and creation of Pakistan in 1947, Balochistan was a
free sovereign independent state with it own parliament, the Dar-ul Awaam (the
House of Commons) and Dar-ul Umraa (House of Lords). Soon after the
creation of Pakistan, it invaded Balochistan and forcefully annexed it into
Pakistan. Balochistan, rich in oil and Gas with a 900 miles of warm water
strategically located costline was very important for the survival Pakistan.The
Baloch people didn’t have a strong big army compare to Pakistani army, but still
they resisted the Pakistani Occupation of their Baloch land. Thousands Baloch
took up arms to defend their land from the occupiers. Many thousands Baloch
got killed and many hundreds were arrested and later executed by Pakistani
Military. A half million Baloch took refuge in Neighboring countries, like
Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and India.

From 1977-2006, Pakistan continues its crime against Baloch people. Thousand Baloch political activists and students have been arrested
since then and are being tortured in secret jails. Many are missing, including Dr. Allah Nazar Baloch, Goher Baloch and Akther Nadeem
Baloch. Pakistani military, paramilitary and security forces are given tasks to arrest, kidnap or kill any Baloch who talks or think about freedom.
More than 600 military check post have been established all over Balochistan to control the activities and movements of Baloch people. There
are 60 thousand troops stationed in Balochistan and more troops are on the way. Balochistan have been turned into a military occupied war
zone. Baloch people are living in fear and in hopelessness. They are desperately looking at the world community and the freedom loving
people for their help and rescue against the tyranny of Pakistani and Iranian regimes. They are saying, "Enough is enough".

Azaad Baluch

09-07-2006, 12:36 AM

PICTURE STORY OF BALUCHISTAN

http://www.balochvoice.com/Balochistan/Pirco_foto_story.htm

PAKISTANI JETFIGHTERS KILLED INNOCENT BALUCH

http://www.balochvoice.com/Army_Operation/Children_Killed_28.12.05.html

Türk_kürdü

09-07-2006, 09:40 AM

I Want a TUrkish Nation into EUrope, The Bask's are acciant Turks to...

kaynakci

09-07-2006, 11:11 AM

At least I found a supporter of apo. I want to ask you something If you let me.

1) Why are you doing this?

2) Why dont you think as your ancestors?

3) We have a long history together. We wrote history together. Why did you give up ?

4) As you know we fought together at OUR independence war to the enemies which are England, France, Greek, etc. What do you hope from them today ? Because as you know they try to rape OUR mother and sister. Let me remind you just one thing. They try to build bitch house from children of KahramanMaras. And you remember what happen then. Sütçü İmam etc. Our ancestors lived together and we face lost of difficulties. What is happened totay?

5) I was lived at Kahramanmaras Pazarcik, Bingöl Adaklı, Bitlis Güroymak, Erzurum and Van in my childhood. In Pazarcik, Adaklı, Erzurum Turks and Kurds was like brother. But when I goto Bitlis güroymak and Van they are like enemy. And I saw that at least one man was in PKK at mountain in every house. In my childhood there are not much of them. But totay lots of Kurdish think they want different country. Why ?

6) Have you ever think this could be a plan of other countries to divide us so they control us easly as their puppets ?

if you answers this questions I will be very pleased. So I could understand. Thank you very much.

drljr

09-07-2006, 03:40 PM

Kurdistan_Serok have you carefully read what you have written? In an earlier post you give an extensive list of peoples who have occupied Kurdistan and you claim as ancestral Kurds. The using the various languages of these people, as link to the Kurdish language, you use it as a justification for a nation. Now you say "Little is known about Kurdish in pre-Islamic times.". You appear to invalidate your own arguments. You posts appear to indicate that historically the area called Kurdistan has ALWAYS been part of another country or empire and never an actually independent entity.

The question that the original post was about is "borders based upon existing cultural and ethnic background". And if it was possible. Should there be a separate country just because a group of people speak a different language or have a differrent ethnic background? Would "making ethnic countries" reduce violence and blood shed?

Many people have brought up or discussed language and supression and repression of languages. There is a reason a country - modern or ancient - would have an official language. That reason is unity. It unitifies the country or empire. Consider the Roman, Persian, Greek, and Babylonian empires. Each had an official language that unified the empire.

The country of China is a classic example of what a country can become when unified by a language. As I understand around 200 BC China existed as 5 or more independent states. The country of Chin successfully defeated the other and incorporated them into his country. He then had a single language and writing system imposed on the country. As a result China has remained a single country for 2000 years instead of the 5 or more countries that had existed and constantly been at war with each for the prior 1000 years. If we have any Chinese reading the posts you input would be appreciated. This also includes anyone who is willing to contribute to the conversation.

Now in the 1960s I remember from National Geographic (a magazine) maps that showed the various areas around India had a number of countries between India and China. Maps today show China and India up against each other. Tibet is occupied by China. Now I know at least some Chinese consider Tibet part of China but that issue is not relevent here. This discussion is related to Pakistan as well. Why did India occupy these countries or these countries become part of India. Look at the recent history. India was concerned about China possibly invading these countries and then using the area to possibly invade India. In at least one item I remember reading from a long time ago one reason giving for India giving was to protect the neighboring country from being invaded and seized by China.

What other reasons do country invade neighbors and other areas. One reason is for survival. Through history many of the migration of people has been for survival. Northern Europeans did this when the "Little Ice-age" forced them to look for land and food elsewhere. It is hard to live off ice. Other reasons are power and religion. Julius Caesar took Gaul so he have power. Rome became a super-power to protect themselves and to have "elbow" room.

So what would happen if we created all of these little countries based upon ethnicity and culture. Maybe for a maximum of 10 years things might look good - if a super-power like Rome maintained the "peace". Keep in mind the word "decimate" comes from the punishment for cowardice in the Roman army where every 10th man in a unit was killed. Then we would have a blood letting like we have never seen. Especially when "modern" weapons are added to the mix. Look at France and Germany's fighting over the Rhineland. And that history appears to be rooted in a ruling family inheritence feud. Some little country would need more land to feed it people or more water so they would invade their neighbor and of course the neighbor would fight back. What then happens - genocide. Then another neighbor goes in to help the survivors of both countries and stays because they are the only ones that can keep everyone from starving and killing each other. And now three countries are now one country. Sound familiar?? How often has that happened in the past.

Only if people chose to get along with the problems of the world be solved. Changing borders won't make a different. Which I believe was one of Ralph Peters underlying points.

Kurdistan_Serok

09-07-2006, 05:37 PM

I am very happy that I will see some one that try to find the problems instead to say something bad.thank you for your questions.

A1. Mr. Kaynakci,because I want to rule myself. because I don't want somebody come and behead my brother and sisters or kill them without reason.My land (Kurdistan) is a very rich land but you can see that Kurds are very poor people!! you can see the different between turkish city and Kurdish city, but it is not only in turkey, in iran , syria also the same thing is there. why? because they are Kurd and they shouldn't speak,read,write Kurdish in public and in schools.Dear I am not the APO supporter I am the Kurds supporter but with the same logic of Serok APO.you know in turkey if you say I am turk you have all the facilities, in iran if you don't speak Kurdish and say I am Fars they will solve your problem within one hour ( 1 week in 1 hour ) ( I am from the west of Kurdistan(Iranian Kurdistan)) as you know PKK nowadays doesn't want a independent state instead they want Kurdish rights the Equality between Kurd and Turk.

A2.Actually this turkey is made by Kurdish and Turkish. but the problem begin with the turkish racist (kamalizim) even kamal ata turk was not like this but these racist they will say that we are following him. if you read Serok APO's book you can see that in those books Serok APO will say many thing good about Mustefa Kemal cuz his idea was in Equality between people in some case. but nowadays we Kurds in all 4 parts of Kurdistan are more close to each other that was not like this before. now if something happen in one part from other parts support will be there that was not like this before. I wanna say that the way of thinking is different now.

A3.It is not that much long but of course we can not deny it.and we didn't write the history cuz it is a real life of past days. we didn't give up those relations but as I told you my brother that the way of thinking is different between the Kurds and turks.

A4. Dude I have no idea about that wars.
A5. answer is in A1,A2,A3.

A6. Dude this is not a plan from outside this is a real fact that is there for more than 200 years in Kurdistan. don't think that it is only in turkey, no in all parts the same situation is there. see now in south of Kurdistan they have little independency so the leaders of Kurds ( Serok Barzani , Serok Talibani ) they decided to stay in iraq but they could say that we were separate for 12 years and now also we don't want to come under the flag of iraq, cuz at that time there was not an army in iraq but there was a well trained Kurdish forces in Kurdistan. but they didn't say that and now we can see the president of iraq is Kurd and in iraq we have Federation.

I hope that I could satisfy you . if not or any other question you have tell me if I have the knowledge I will answer.oh you can even check those links below I think they will help you to find your answers.

Once again thank you for your question.

Well done and bye

At least I found a supporter of apo. I want to ask you something If you let me.

1) Why are you doing this?

2) Why dont you think as your ancestors?

3) We have a long history together. We wrote history together. Why did you give up ?

4) As you know we fought together at OUR independence war to the enemies which are England, France, Greek, etc. What do you hope from them today ? Because as you know they try to rape OUR mother and sister. Let me remind you just one thing. They try to build bitch house from children of KahramanMaras. And you remember what happen then. Sütçü İmam etc. Our ancestors lived together and we face lost of difficulties. What is happened totay?

5) I was lived at Kahramanmaras Pazarcik, Bingöl Adaklı, Bitlis Güroymak, Erzurum and Van in my childhood. In Pazarcik, Adaklı, Erzurum Turks and Kurds was like brother. But when I goto Bitlis güroymak and Van they are like enemy. And I saw that at least one man was in PKK at mountain in every house. In my childhood there are not much of them. But totay lots of Kurdish think they want different country. Why ?

6) Have you ever think this could be a plan of other countries to divide us so they control us easly as their puppets ?

if you answers this questions I will be very pleased. So I could understand. Thank you very much.

bezgin

09-08-2006, 02:20 PM

Killing in the Name of Democracy
by James Bovard

President George W. Bush perpetually invokes the goal of spreading democracy to sanctify his foreign policy. Unfortunately, he is only the latest in a string of presidents who cloaked aggression in idealistic rhetoric. Killing in the name of democracy has a long and sordid history.

The U.S. government’s first experience with forcibly spreading democracy came in the wake of the Spanish-American War. When the U.S. government declared war on Spain in 1898, it pledged it would not annex foreign territory. But after a swift victory, the United States annexed all of the Philippines. As Tony Smith, author of America’s Mission, noted,

Ultimately, the democratization of the Philippines came to be the principal reason the Americans were there; now the United States had a moral purpose to its imperialism and could rest more easily.
William McKinley proclaimed that in the Philippines the U.S. occupation would “assure the residents in every possible way [of the] full measure of individual rights and liberties which is the heritage of a free people, substituting the mild sway of justice and right for arbitrary rule.” He also promised to “Christianize” the Filipinos, as if he did not consider the large number of Filipino Catholics to be Christians. McKinley was devoted to forcibly spreading American values abroad at the same time that he championed high tariffs to stop Americans from buying foreign products.

The “mild sway of justice” worked out very well for Filipino undertakers. The United States Christianized and civilized the Filipinos by authorizing American troops to kill any Filipino male 10 years old and older and by burning down and massacring entire villages. (Filipino resistance fighters also committed atrocities against American soldiers.) Hundreds of thousands of Filipinos died as the United States struggled to crush resistance to its rule in a conflict that dragged on for a decade and cost the lives of 4,000 American troops.

Despite the brutal U.S. suppression of the Filipino independence movement, President Bush, in a 2003 speech in Manila, claimed credit for the United States’s having brought democracy to the Philippines:

America is proud of its part in the great story of the Filipino people. Together our soldiers liberated the Philippines from colonial rule.
Perhaps Bush believes that subservience to the U.S. government is the highest freedom that any foreign people can attain. His comments illustrated the continual “1984”-style rewriting of American history.

Latin American interventions

Woodrow Wilson raised tub-thumping for democracy to new levels. As soon as he took office, he began saber-rattling against the Mexican government, outraged that the Mexican president, Victoriano Huerta, had come to power by military force (during the Mexican civil war that broke out in 1910). Wilson announced in May 1914,

They say the Mexicans are not fitted for self-government; and to this I reply that, when properly directed, there is no people not fitted for self-government.
This is almost verbatim what Bush has said about Iraqis and other Arabs. And as long as a president praises self-government, many Americans seem oblivious when he oppresses foreigners.

Wilson summarized his Mexican policy: “I am going to teach the South American republics to elect good men!” U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain Walter Hines Page explained the U.S. government’s attitude toward Latin America:

The United States will be here 200 years and it can continue to shoot men for that little space until they learn to vote and rule themselves.
In order to cut off the Mexican government’s tariff revenue, Wilson sent U.S. forces to seize the city of Veracruz, one of the most important Mexican ports. U.S. soldiers killed hundreds of Mexicans (while suffering 19 dead) and briefly rallied the Mexican opposition around the Mexican leader.

In 1916, U.S. Marines seized Santo Domingo, the capital of the Dominican Republic. After the United States could not find any Dominican politicians who would accept orders from Washington, it installed its own military government to run the country for eight years. The previous year, the U.S. military had seized control of Haiti and dictated terms to that nation’s president. When local residents rebelled against U.S. rule in 1918, thousands of Haitians were killed. Tony Smith observes,

What makes Wilson’s [Latin American] policy even more annoying is that its primary motive seems to have been to reinforce the self-righteous vanity of the president.
World War I and II

After Wilson took the nation into World War I “to make the world safe for democracy,” he acted as if fanning intolerance was the key to spreading democracy. He increasingly demonized all those who did not support the war and his crusade to shape the postwar world. He denounced Irish-Americans, German-Americans, and others, declaring, “Any man who carries a hyphen about him carries a dagger which he is ready to plunge into the vitals of the Republic.” Wilson urged Americans to see military might as a supreme force for goodness, appealing in May 1918 for “force, force to the utmost, force without stint or limit, the righteous and triumphant force which shall make Right the law of the world.” As Harvard professor Irving Babbitt commented,

Wilson, in the pursuit of his scheme for world service, was led to make light of the constitutional checks on his authority and to reach out almost automatically for unlimited power.
Again, the parallels with Bush are almost uncanny. And many of the same intellectuals who currently praise Wilson for his abuses in the name of idealism also heap accolades on Bush’s head.

The deaths of more than 100,000 Americans in World War I did nothing to bring Wilson’s lofty visions to Earth. The 1919 Paris peace talks became a slaughter pen of Wilson’s pretensions. One of his top aides, Henry White, later commented, “We had such high hopes of this adventure; we believed God called us and now we are doing hell’s dirtiest work.” Thomas Fleming, the author of The Illusion of Victory, noted, “The British and French exploited the war to forcibly expand their empires and place millions more people under their thumbs.” Fleming concluded that one lesson of World War I is that “idealism is not synonymous with sainthood or virtue. It only sounds that way.” But it did not take long for idealism to recover its capacity to induce political delusions.

During the 1920s and 1930s, U.S. military interventions in Latin America were routinely portrayed as “missions to establish democracy.” The U.S. military sometimes served as a collection agency for American corporations or banks that had made unwise investments or loans in politically unstable foreign lands. Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler bitterly lamented of his 33 years of active service,

I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.... I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.
Franklin Roosevelt painted World War II as a crusade for democracy — hailing Joseph Stalin as a partner in liberation. Roosevelt praised Stalin as “truly representative of the heart and soul of Russia” — as if the lack of bona fide elections in Russia was a mere technicality, since Stalin was the nation’s favorite. Roosevelt praised Soviet Russia as one of the “freedom-loving Nations” and stressed that Stalin was “thoroughly conversant with the provisions of our Constitution.” Harold Ickes, one of Roosevelt’s top aides, proclaimed that communism was “the antithesis of Nazism” because it was based on “belief in the control of the government, including the economic system, by the people themselves.” The fact that the Soviet regime had been the most oppressive government in the world in the 1930s was irrelevant, as far as Roosevelt was concerned. If Stalin’s regime was “close enough” to democracy, it is difficult to understand why Roosevelt is venerated as an idealist.

Cold War interventions

Dwight Eisenhower was no slacker in invoking democracy. In 1957, he declared,

We as a nation ... have a job to do, a mission as the champion of human freedom. To conduct ourselves in all our international relations that we never compromise the fundamental principle that all peoples have a right to an independent government of their own full, free choice.
He was perfectly in tune with the Republican Party platform of 1952, which proclaimed,

We shall again make liberty into a beacon light of hope that will penetrate the dark places.... The policies we espouse will revive the contagious, liberating influences which are inherent in freedom.
But Eisenhower’s idealism did not deter the CIA, dreading communist takeovers, from toppling at least two democratically elected regimes. In 1953, the CIA engineered a coup that put the shah in charge of Iran. In 1954, it aided a military coup in Guatemala that crushed that nation’s first constitutionally based government.

bezgin

09-08-2006, 02:21 PM

The elected Guatemalan government and the United Fruit Company could not agree on the value of 400,000 acres that the Guatemalan government wanted to expropriate to distribute to small farmers. The Guatemalan government offered $1.2 million as compensation based on the “taxed value of the land; Washington insisted on behalf of United Fruit that the value was $15.9 million, that the company be reimbursed immediately and in full, and that [President Jacobo] Arbenz’s insistence on taking the land was clear proof of his communist proclivities,” as America’s Mission noted.

Yet, at the same time, the federal government in the United States was confiscating huge swaths of private land throughout American inner cities for urban renewal and highway projects, often paying owners pittances for their homes. There was no foreign government to intervene to protect poor Americans from federal redevelopment schemes. The fact that the U.S. government got miffed over a 1954 Guatemalan government buyout offer helped produce decades of repressive rule and the killing of hundreds of thousands of Guatemalan civilians.

Since the Eisenhower era, U.S. government bogus efforts to spread democracy have sprouted like mushrooms. Especially with the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy in 1983, all limits were lifted on how many democratic cons that the U.S. government could bankroll abroad. The U.S. government is currently spending more than a billion dollars a year for democracy efforts abroad. But Thomas Carothers, the director of the Carnegie Endowment’s Democracy and Rule of Law Project, warns that Bush policies are creating a “democracy backlash” around the globe.

The greatest gift the United States could give the world is an example that serves as a shining city on a hill. As University of Pennsylvania professor Walter McDougall observed, “The best way to promote our institutions and values abroad is to strengthen them at home.” But there is scant glory for politicians in restraining their urge to “save humanity.” The ignorance of the average American has provided no check on “run amok” politicians and bureaucrats.

lamdacore

09-08-2006, 04:07 PM

This is a ridiculous article. An absolute outrage if you ask me. How can Mr. Ralph be coming up with an idea as horrific as of dividing the Muslim world further with borders. We cannot even cope with more violence for the benefit of western interests. This is absolutely insane and the message is of promoting violence. In fact i should congratulate him because the number responses i am witnessing on this thread, each member directly assaulting another, is absolutely remarkable. He probably has been the smarter one and already pitched most of you on this forum against each other. This is pure propaganda indeed.

We have seen that the emergence of new states will never solve problems, they only spread the fire. Look at India and Pakistan, an absolute classic example. They were to be divided to live in peace but they have already fought 4 wars and are now nuclear neighbors. Nice going i presume on new borders. Furthermore, look at Russia, the once upon a time USSR, it broke up and now it will try every possible political and military tactics possible to take back lost land. Borders weaken existing countries and no one remains powerful except those that watch the show. In my point view, Mr. Ralph seems to be some sort of an agent attempting to create chaos on the internet and to start a massive movement that would have to meaning and lead to nothing.

To our friend Mr. Baloch who is horribly upset about the condition of Balochistan in Pakistan, i wish to tell him that most of his countrymen side with him because i have many pakistani friends that are punjabis and balochis and pashtuns. I have never such unity and love in my life that that among these individuals. Don't let a few nasty individuals such as General Musharraf break your heart and spirit. Stay with Pakistan because the country needs you and people hear your plea. With patience you can always make a difference. Remember when one of the Prime Minister was from Balochistan. Even Musharraf is not Punjabi. So please remove this dillusion of being dominated by Punjabis.

So with these statements, i would like to conclude that Mr. Ralph Peters did not carry out a thorough feasibility study of the origin and the impact his article may have in the Muslim World. A real pity indeed.

diyako

09-09-2006, 09:36 AM

amdacore This is a ridiculous article. An absolute outrage if you ask me. How can Mr. Ralph be coming up with an idea as horrific as of dividing the Muslim world further with borders. We cannot even cope with more violence for the benefit of western interests. This is absolutely insane and the message is of promoting violence. In fact i should congratulate him because the number responses i am witnessing on this thread, each member directly assaulting another, is absolutely remarkable. He probably has been the smarter one and already pitched most of you on this forum against each other. This is pure propaganda indeed.

We have seen that the emergence of new states will never solve problems, they only spread the fire. Look at India and Pakistan, an absolute classic example. They were to be divided to live in peace but they have already fought 4 wars and are now nuclear neighbors. Nice going i presume on new borders. Furthermore, look at Russia, the once upon a time USSR, it broke up and now it will try every possible political and military tactics possible to take back lost land. Borders weaken existing countries and no one remains powerful except those that watch the show. In my point view, Mr. Ralph seems to be some sort of an agent attempting to create chaos on the internet and to start a massive movement that would have to meaning and lead to nothing.

To our friend Mr. Baloch who is horribly upset about the condition of Balochistan in Pakistan, i wish to tell him that most of his countrymen side with him because i have many pakistani friends that are punjabis and balochis and pashtuns. I have never such unity and love in my life that that among these individuals. Don't let a few nasty individuals such as General Musharraf break your heart and spirit. Stay with Pakistan because the country needs you and people hear your plea. With patience you can always make a difference. Remember when one of the Prime Minister was from Balochistan. Even Musharraf is not Punjabi. So please remove this dillusion of being dominated by Punjabis.

So with these statements, i would like to conclude that Mr. Ralph Peters did not carry out a thorough feasibility study of the origin and the impact his article may have in the Muslim World. A real pity indeed.

Why you been so ignorance, the so called Pakistan as country not made by god, nor by prophet Mohammed!! It made by British. There has never been such country’s Pakistan or Turkey or Iraq, etc…all these been deigned by colonial powers in the past. nations like baluchi and Kurds always been their own rules. now if your really consider yourself as believer or man of god, your first priority is to clean your own backyard(Muslim world), not to be racist or fanatic against other religions, the first step for you should be help those who seeking freedom and wish to be their own rules .you can not force nation live together, you can not create false brotherhood with force and with cost of other nations or races identity and culture., where there has never been equality, but rather always has been culture domination of majority and oppressing and killing, or assimilating other nation, ask yourself what kind god or religion say that, what is this fake and fascism Islam phobia ,When you killing your own countryman for sake of so called unity, in Muslim world.

bezgin

09-09-2006, 10:59 AM

The Stab in the Back
Israel plays the Kurdish card – and Americans are caught in the crossfire
by Justin Raimondo
The victors in the Iraq war are now moving rapidly to consolidate their gains, and carry out the second phase of their operation. No, I don't mean the June 30 American handover of pseudo-"sovereignty" to a puppet regime, but the ongoing invasion of Kurdistan by Israeli operatives trying to spark a war of secession. Thanks – once again – to the indispensable Seymour Hersh, the truth about what is happening in Iraq – and why – is coming out, as the real victors help themselves to the spoils of war. While American troops are fighting and dying to maintain the independence and unity of the Iraqi state, the Israelis, operating behind our backs and in the shadows, are working to split the country up:

"In a series of interviews in Europe, the Middle East, and the United States, officials told me that by the end of last year Israel had concluded that the Bush Administration would not be able to bring stability or democracy to Iraq, and that Israel needed other options. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government decided, I was told, to minimize the damage that the war was causing to Israel's strategic position by expanding its long-standing relationship with Iraq's Kurds and establishing a significant presence on the ground in the semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan. Several officials depicted Sharon's decision, which involves a heavy financial commitment, as a potentially reckless move that could create even more chaos and violence as the insurgency in Iraq continues to grow."

Gee, I thought Israel had nothing to do with this war, and that anyone who said otherwise was merely spreading anti-Semitic canards. Why, in that case, does Israel need "other options," or, indeed, any options at all?

This war was always about enhancing Israel's strategic position, and nothing else: not oil, not democracy, not WMD. The goal was to extend Israel's sphere of influence, and that is precisely what is occurring. To the victor go the spoils, and Hersh's revelations highlight the Israelis as the real winners of this war:

"Israeli intelligence and military operatives are now quietly at work in Kurdistan, providing training for Kurdish commando units and, most important in Israel's view, running covert operations inside Kurdish areas of Iran and Syria. Israel feels particularly threatened by Iran, whose position in the region has been strengthened by the war. The Israeli operatives include members of the Mossad, Israel's clandestine foreign-intelligence service, who work undercover in Kurdistan as businessmen and, in some cases, do not carry Israeli passports."

I love how the issue is framed in Hersh's piece: the Israelis advised us to seal the Iraqi borders against Iranian infiltration, we are told, and warned that the violence was bound to increase. As if only they could have predicted the altogether predictable. What geniuses! A former top Administration official cites his Israeli counterparts as saying: "You're not going to get it right in Iraq, and shouldn't we be planning for the worst-case scenario and how to deal with it?"

In other words: if you're not going to install Ahmed Chalabi and his gang – who promised to recognize Israel and even build an oil pipeline from Mosul to Haifa – and you won't do to the Iraqis what we're doing to the Palestinians, then we'll just have to take matters into our own hands.

By arming Kurdish commando (i.e. terrorist) units, and launching provocative incursions, the long arm of Israel is reaching out to jab Syria and Iran – and stab the U.S. in the back. They did it, so we are supposed to understand, more in sorrow than in anger – after all, they warned us, didn't they?

What chutzpah!

Desperate to maintain a semblance of stability amid increasing chaos, U.S. viceroy Paul Bremer is trying to maintain a delicate balancing act between the Shi'ite Muslim majority, which longs for an Iranian-style Islamic "republic," and the various non-Arab minority groups, notably the Kurds in the north, who demand autonomy, and, in some cases, independence. The Kurds managed to win concessions from Bremer and the interim government, but with the June 30 transfer looming, tried to get these incorporated in the UN resolution – and failed. In response, the two main Kurdish leaders sent an open letter to the Americans and their Iraqi clients, threatening to pull out of the deal entirely and unilaterally declare Kurdistan's independence.

It is in this context that the Israelis initiated what they call "Plan B": sneaking into Kurdish territory, arming dissident Kurdish factions, and actively undermining the American strategy. Israeli support for the Kurds is nothing new: in alliance with the Shah of Iran, Tel Aviv sought to undermine Ba'athist rule in Iraq by financing and shipping arms to Kurdish rebels, abandoning them when it was no longer convenient. The rationale for starting up the old relationship again, as explained by a senior CIA official to Hersh, is as follows:

"'They think they have to be there.' Asked whether the Israelis had sought approval from Washington, the official laughed and said, 'Do you know anybody who can tell the Israelis what to do? They're always going to do what is in their best interest.'"

bezgin

09-09-2006, 11:00 AM

Too bad we can't say the same for the Americans. While U.S. soldiers are fighting and dying for the lost cause of Iraqi "democracy," the real beneficiaries of this war are doing their best to make sure that chaos reigns – and we're caught in the crossfire. Violence is already on the uptick in northern Iraq, including reports of armed conflict between U.S soldiers and Kurdish peshmergas. Assassinations and sabotage are taking place almost daily – amid the continuing ethnic cleansing of Arabs and Turks from the area, carried out by Kurdish militants with American acquiescence. According to this Knight-Ridder report, Paul Harvey, Bremer's man in Kirkuk, avers the anti-Arab pogrom is entirely justified because:

"They have every right to do so. It's a frontier spirit here. This is their land and they're rebuilding."

But now that the Kurds are once again complaining that they've been "betrayed," U.S. forces are under siege – but from whom? Gee, I dunno: perhaps the same terrorists who killed a prominent Turkmen politician and evicted 100,000 Iraqi Arabs from their land. Or maybe it was the same guys who did this. It's that Kurdish "frontier spirit."

The target of a recent car bomb attack in the mostly Arab city of Mosul in northern Iraq, Mayor Salem al-Hadj Isa, escaped unharmed, but 10 people were killed and over 100 wounded. The same day, a car bomb shook the northern Iraqi city of Baqouba, near the former Iraqi air force base of al-Faris, now occupied by U.S. troops, killing at least four Iraqis and one U.S. soldier, with 16 Iraqis and 10 Americans wounded.

Empowered by the influx of Israeli assistance, training, and arms, growing anti-American sentiment among radical Kurdish nationalists could lead to open warfare, directed not only at their ethnic rivals but also at U.S. troops, the ultimate guarantors of the post-June 30 order.

Habitually blaming all violence in Iraq on the influx of "foreign fighters," Bush administration spokesmen may be telling us more than they mean to say. In the days before Saddam's capture, and for months afterward, all violence directed at coalition military assets was identified as the work of Ba'athist "remnants." These days, however, the culprits are increasingly described as these mysterious "foreign fighters," generally taken to be Al Qaeda and its Islamist allies. But now there's a new "foreign" factor at work – the Israelis.

If you look at a map of what the pershmerga claim as "Kurdistan," a huge swath of territory that snakes through every country in the northern core of the Middle East, it clearly resembles a very long fuse – just waiting to be lit. Now that our friends, the Israelis, have struck a match, it's only a matter of time before we witness the resulting explosion.

The Israeli justification for embarking on this dangerous course, as reported by Hersh, is that their "strategic position" is being undermined by U.S. bungling of the occupation, and if that doesn't expose them as the ultimate ingrates of all time then nothing will. We were dragged into this occupation, after all, by Israel's amen corner in Washington, as General Anthony Zinni, the former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East put it:

"'Certainly those in your ranks that foisted this strategy on us that is flawed. Certainly they ought to be gone and replaced.'

"Zinni is talking about a group of policymakers within the administration known as 'the neo-conservatives' who saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to stabilize American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel. …Zinni believes they are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq.

"'I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody – everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do.'"

Intelligence expert James Bamford also knows what the neocons were trying to do, and offers further evidence of an Israeli connection to the phony "intelligence" that lied us into war. The "blueprint for war," he writes, had been drawn up long ago by pro-Israeli hawks in the highest foreign policy councils of the U.S. government: all they required was a "pretext for war," hence the title of Bamford's bestselling new book. Working through the Office of Special Plans, a Pentagon unit set up by Pentagon policy secretary Douglas Feith, the War Party in this country "forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence unit within Ariel Sharon's office in Israel," that "was designed to go around the country's own intelligence organization, Mossad."

Having manipulated the hapless Americans into an unwinnable war, are the Israelis now amping up the violence by organizing such terroristic groups as the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), in spite of their own role in turning the group's leader over to the Turks? The PKK has recently declared an end to their "unilateral ceasefire," a course previously urged on them by the captive Abdullah Ocalan. That this occurred just as news of Israel's infiltration and "support" to the Kurds began to leak out, is, of course, pure coincidence.

This latest development underscores the upside-down "logic" of our Iraqi adventure, which seems to be taking place in some sort of Bizarro World alternate universe, where everything is turned into its opposite. The war in Iraq, as Professor Paul W. Schroeder pointed out in a footnote (not online) to a piece in The American Conservative,

"Would represent something to my knowledge unique in history. It is common for great powers to try to fight wars by proxy, getting smaller powers to fight for their interests. This would be the first instance I know where a great power (in fact, a superpower) would do the fighting as the proxy of a small client state."

As Israeli agents flood Kurdistan with arms and ill intent, Professor Schroeder's thesis acquires another surprising element: it would be the first instance that I know of where a superpower, after fighting a proxy war on behalf of a pipsqueak client, is kicked directly in the teeth by its ingrate of an "ally."

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2859

diyako

09-09-2006, 12:06 PM

@bezgin

bezgin The Stab in the Back
Israel plays the Kurdish card – and Americans are caught in the crossfire
by Justin Raimondo
The victors in the Iraq war are now moving rapidly to consolidate their gains, and carry out the second phase of their operation. No, I don't mean the June 30 American handover of pseudo-"sovereignty" to a puppet regime, but the ongoing invasion of Kurdistan by Israeli operatives trying to spark a war of secession. Thanks – once again – to the indispensable Seymour Hersh, the truth about what is happening in Iraq – and why – is coming out, as the real victors help themselves to the spoils of war. While American troops are fighting and dying to maintain the independence and unity of the Iraqi state, the Israelis, operating behind our backs and in the shadows, are working to split the country up:

"In a series of interviews in Europe, the Middle East, and the United States, officials told me that by the end of last year Israel had concluded that the Bush Administration would not be able to bring stability or democracy to Iraq, and that Israel needed other options. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government decided, I was told, to minimize the damage that the war was causing to Israel's strategic position by expanding its long-standing relationship with Iraq's Kurds and establishing a significant presence on the ground in the semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan. Several officials depicted Sharon's decision, which involves a heavy financial commitment, as a potentially reckless move that could create even more chaos and violence as the insurgency in Iraq continues to grow."

Gee, I thought Israel had nothing to do with this war, and that anyone who said otherwise was merely spreading anti-Semitic canards. Why, in that case, does Israel need "other options," or, indeed, any options at all?

This war was always about enhancing Israel's strategic position, and nothing else: not oil, not democracy, not WMD. The goal was to extend Israel's sphere of influence, and that is precisely what is occurring. To the victor go the spoils, and Hersh's revelations highlight the Israelis as the real winners of this war:

"Israeli intelligence and military operatives are now quietly at work in Kurdistan, providing training for Kurdish commando units and, most important in Israel's view, running covert operations inside Kurdish areas of Iran and Syria. Israel feels particularly threatened by Iran, whose position in the region has been strengthened by the war. The Israeli operatives include members of the Mossad, Israel's clandestine foreign-intelligence service, who work undercover in Kurdistan as businessmen and, in some cases, do not carry Israeli passports."

I love how the issue is framed in Hersh's piece: the Israelis advised us to seal the Iraqi borders against Iranian infiltration, we are told, and warned that the violence was bound to increase. As if only they could have predicted the altogether predictable. What geniuses! A former top Administration official cites his Israeli counterparts as saying: "You're not going to get it right in Iraq, and shouldn't we be planning for the worst-case scenario and how to deal with it?"

In other words: if you're not going to install Ahmed Chalabi and his gang – who promised to recognize Israel and even build an oil pipeline from Mosul to Haifa – and you won't do to the Iraqis what we're doing to the Palestinians, then we'll just have to take matters into our own hands.

By arming Kurdish commando (i.e. terrorist) units, and launching provocative incursions, the long arm of Israel is reaching out to jab Syria and Iran – and stab the U.S. in the back. They did it, so we are supposed to understand, more in sorrow than in anger – after all, they warned us, didn't they?

What chutzpah!

Desperate to maintain a semblance of stability amid increasing chaos, U.S. viceroy Paul Bremer is trying to maintain a delicate balancing act between the Shi'ite Muslim majority, which longs for an Iranian-style Islamic "republic," and the various non-Arab minority groups, notably the Kurds in the north, who demand autonomy, and, in some cases, independence. The Kurds managed to win concessions from Bremer and the interim government, but with the June 30 transfer looming, tried to get these incorporated in the UN resolution – and failed. In response, the two main Kurdish leaders sent an open letter to the Americans and their Iraqi clients, threatening to pull out of the deal entirely and unilaterally declare Kurdistan's independence.

It is in this context that the Israelis initiated what they call "Plan B": sneaking into Kurdish territory, arming dissident Kurdish factions, and actively undermining the American strategy. Israeli support for the Kurds is nothing new: in alliance with the Shah of Iran, Tel Aviv sought to undermine Ba'athist rule in Iraq by financing and shipping arms to Kurdish rebels, abandoning them when it was no longer convenient. The rationale for starting up the old relationship again, as explained by a senior CIA official to Hersh, is as follows:

"'They think they have to be there.' Asked whether the Israelis had sought approval from Washington, the official laughed and said, 'Do you know anybody who can tell the Israelis what to do? They're always going to do what is in their best interest.'"

Are you really dumb? or just fooling and humiliating yourself???. Dude!! what you writing make propels lough1! Today the biggest ally of Israel after USA ,It is Turkey, in Turkey beigest operation against Kurds, always Israel has been giving intelegent and logistic support ,even during illegal Kidnapping of OCALAN in fact it was Israel who help Turkey., today the biggest obstacle to Kurdish cause in northern Kurdistan(so called Eastern Turkey) is in fact is Jewish lobby in Washington , where Turkish general and Turkish politician doing everything they can, to get support from USA , Shame yourself, you are really Moran
And one more thing what is crime when whole Islam world have cooperation with Israel, why shouldn’t Kurds have?/ why you been so double standard and naive!!

bezgin

09-09-2006, 01:55 PM

K. GAJENDRA SINGH

Turkey & the great game in the north of Iraq

Israeli interference in the north of Iraq
An article by Pulitzer Prize winning U.S. journalist Seymour Hersh that Israel has been fishing in the Kurdish region of the north of Iraq has caused much controversy and exchanges in the area. The report was based on information from former and current intelligence officials in Israel, the United States and Turkey. (Israeli activities in north Iraq were mentioned in "Coming out of Chakravhyu- U.S. Iraq Exit Policy 15/1/04" www.saag.org/papers9/paper894.html).

Writing in New Yorker magazine Mr. Hersh says that Israel is helping to build up Kurdish military strength to counter the growing Shiite militias in Iraq and create a base to spy on Iran, specially its nuclear programme. Its agents are active in the Kurdish areas of Iran, Syria and Iraq and provide training to commando units and run covert operations, which could further destablise the region and upset Turkey with whom Israel has almost ally-like relations.

"If you end up with a divided Iraq, it will bring more blood, tears and pain to the Middle East and you will be blamed," a senior Turkish official told Mr. Hersh. "The lesson of Yugoslavia is that when you give one country independence, everybody will want it. Kirkuk will be the Sarajevo of Iraq. If something happens there, it will be impossible to contain the crisis," he said.

A recent Intel Brief -- an intelligence newsletter circulated by former CIA chiefs -- stated that the Israeli actions were placing increasing stress on its relationship with Turkey, which was already strained over the Iraq war. "The Turks are increasingly concerned by the expanding Israeli presence in Kurdistan and the alleged encouragement of Kurdish ambitions to create an independent state," it said.

"Israel has always supported the Kurds in a Machiavellian way; as a balance against Saddam," said one former Israeli intelligence officer. "It's realpolitik. By aligning with the Kurds, Israel gains eyes and ears in Iran, Iraq and Syria. The critical question is, 'What will the behaviour of Iran be if there is an independent Kurdistan with close ties to Israel? Iran does not want an Israeli land-based aircraft carrier on its border,'" he added.

According to Mr Hersh, Israel decided to step up its role in Kurdistan last summer when it was clear that the United States incursion into Iraq was unraveling. Israel feared the results would strengthen Iran. In the autumn, the former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak told U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney that the United States had lost out in Iraq. Israel "had learned that there's no way to win an occupation," he told Mr Cheney and the only issue was "choosing the size of your humiliation."

Since July last year, the Israeli government put into operation what one former Israeli intelligence official called "Plan B" to protect itself from the fallout of the chaos following U.S. failure in Iraq. If the June 30 transfer of sovereignty did not go well, "there is no fallback, nothing," a former National Security Council member told Hersh. "The neo-cons still think they can pull the rabbit out of the hat in Iraq," he added. "What's the plan?" They say, 'we don't need it. Democracy is strong enough. We'll work it out,'" he continued.

It is believed that what Israel has been doing in Kurdistan was not so unacceptable to the Bush administration, which has fully supported Ariel Sharon's policies in Palestine too.

Israel, Shah of Iran and the Kurds
Israel's relations with the Kurds stretch back to half-a-century and can be found even in books on Mossad. Kurds provided intelligence to Mossad and caused instability in the Middle East, thus generally helping Israeli objectives. Israel's strategic concept required allies against Arabs to make up for its constricted location with only four million resident Jews surrounded by 200 million Arabs, who remain deeply resentful of Israel's occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, the Golan Heights (and Sinai) after the Arab-Israeli wars. Israel sought cooperation with the other non-Arab Muslim nations in the region from the very beginning. The United States encouraged Israel to have a secret alliance with Iran and its gendarme in the Gulf. Israeli and Kurdish politicians once held meetings in Tehran.

.

bezgin

09-09-2006, 01:56 PM

After the overthrow of the Hashemite dynasty and the military takeover in Iraq in 1958, Israel, in cooperation with Iran, gradually began to arm and train the Kurds in northern Iraq to enable them to stand up to the New Leftist Baghdad regime. Israeli aid was increased in 1963 with the flow of weapons and military advisors to the region via Iran. Israeli military instructors organized the first course for Kurdish peshmergas in the mountains of Kurdistan in 1965. Israel also disbursed $50,000 per month to the Kurds.

But in 1975, after the famous handshake between Saddam Hussein and the Shah of Iran in Algiers, relations between Iran and Iraq were normalized. Then Israeli assistance to the Kurds via Iran stopped and the Kurdish revolt petered out. Israel's secret alliance from 1972-79 with the Shah of Iran disintegrated when the Shah was forced to flee after a year-long political upheaval led by pro-Khomeini forces. However, during the Iran-Iraq war the Kurds continued their cooperation with Israel, which was renewed after the 1991 Gulf war.

Tensions in Turkish-Israeli relationship
Recently Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayip Erdogan publicly criticized Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's policies in the occupied territories, accusing Israel of "state terrorism." Members of his ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), which has Islamic roots, were much harsher and lambasted U.S. policy in Iraq. The Turkish-Israeli relationship consequently reached its low point. Both Turkey's ambassador and its consul general in Israel were recalled to Ankara temporarily. Now, the New Yorker revelations have made the differences public. Turks appear to be aware of Israeli activities in the north of Iraq.

On June 23, the Israeli Ambassador to Turkey Pini Aviv denied the New Yorker magazine report that Israel took advantage of the U.S. occupation of Iraq by expanding the Israeli presence in the north of Iraq. He told the Turkish ITV news network that he had reassured the Turkish foreign ministry that Israel had decided long ago not to meddle in Iraqi affairs.

Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, in public at least, appeared to be convinced by Israeli denials of reports of training Kurdish peshmergas and spying on Iran in collaboration with the Iraqi Kurds. "The Israelis tell us those allegations are not true. But everybody understands both regional and Turkish sensitivity to this issue, so we have to believe what we are told," the semi-official Anatolia news agency quoted Gul as saying. "I hope our trust [of Israel] won't prove misplaced," he added. The foreign ministry had heard allegations and rumors and had received information, but Gul did not specify the sources.

Relations were further strained when Israeli airline El Al suspended all its flights to Turkey from June 25 following the reduction of Israeli guards permitted at Istanbul airport. According to Radio Israel, the decision to stop El Al's six weekly flights to Istanbul was taken on the advice of Israel's Shin Bet Security Service. Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman David Saranga said his office was holding "intensive and ongoing contact with the Turkish authorities to try to find a solution." A large number of Israeli tourists find Turkey a safe destination. There has been wide ranging economic and military cooperation, but Turkey's almost ally-like relationship is now coming under great pressure. The AK Party government is trying to come closer to its Arab neighbours and Iran.

Earlier, the Turkish media reported that former Israeli Foreign Ministry Under-Secretary Alon Liel said that, "the idea of an independent Kurdish state was not distressing to Israel," but added, "Israel is aware of Turkey's sensitivities on this issue and there was no attempt by Israel in that direction."

The Turkish media also reported that Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, while briefing members of the Israeli Parliament's Foreign Relations and Defense Committee, said that the relations between Turkey and Israel should be evaluated from three aspects. These were security, economic cooperation and touristic activities. "We should place priority on protecting our strategic relations with Turkey, however, Israel may no longer wait to answer criticism (of state terrorism) levelled by the Turkish premier," said the Israeli minister.

History of Turkish-Israeli Relationship
Throughout history, Turks always had a good relationship with the Jews. When the latter were expelled from Spain, the Ottoman Empire gave them shelter. Even after the gut-wrenching events of World War I, when the Ottoman Empire collapsed, Armenians were massacred, Christians were exchanged with Turks from Greece, Jews continued to live in Turkey, mostly in Istanbul. They provided the financial acumen earlier provided by Armenians and Christians. Throughout history there has been no love lost between Arabs and Turkic people. Turks have never forgiven them for stabbing the Ottomans in the back in World War I by the Lawrence of Arabia-led Arab revolt. In the final analysis, the Sultan Caliph in Istanbul was the guardian of the Muslim sacred shrines in Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem.

Turkey, after the 1967 war, and even after the 1973 war when Arabs exploited their oil weapon, did not break their relationship with Israel. While there was no de facto strategic alliance, there was close cooperation regarding rightist, leftist and revolutionary student movements, especially during the 1960s and 1970s. In 1971, Turkish students had picked on and assassinated an Israeli Consular General in Istanbul, who was a former senior Mossad officer.

Israel has also developed a top rate defence industry based on support and cooperation with the United States. After the end of the Cold War, Turkey, especially its armed forces, felt a little left out. So Turkey sold itself as a barrier between Europe and the Middle East and the Caucasus, both cauldrons of fundamentalism and chaos. Its informal alliance with Israel was useful, with the latter's influence in Washington being exploited for U.S. grants of sophisticated arms and equipment.

After the fall of the Berlin wall, there have been far-reaching shifts in geo-strategic parameters. The potential threats from the Middle East have grown with many Middle Eastern countries acquiring stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and arsenals of ballistic missiles. Beyond the potential threats from neighboring states, terrorist groups like the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK) based in the region, and others, are another menace in that they could acquire chemical and biological weapons. Then Sept. 11 made things even more complicated; Turkey could no longer afford to overlook possible new threats from the Middle East.

While it started changing its orientation towards Israel in the early 1990s, in 1996 Turkey and Israel went public and signed an agreement for military cooperation. Much was written about this evolving relationship, with some political analysts calling it an "axis," an "entente," even an "alliance." Of course, there are no explicit commitments to assist one another in the event of an armed conflict, and thus making it an alliance, but a careful interpretation of the provisions of the document shows that it opened the door to a much enhanced cooperation between the two countries; a cooperation that could reach levels usually seen only between allies.

Many joint military air and naval exercises have been carried out since 1996. For example, the so called "Anatolian Eagle" took place in central Anatolia in early July 2001. It included air force units from Turkey, Israel and the United States and the air defense systems of all three countries. The exercise simulated defense as well as combat operations against a comprehensive air attack. "Anatolian Eagle" involved 46 Turkish aircraft of various categories; 10 Israeli F-16 fighter aircraft, as well as two tanker aircraft and helicopters and six U.S. F-16 fighter aircraft. Such trilateral military exercises have put in place a mechanism for advanced military coordination

But the Palestinian cause has always had supporters on the religious right and the "progressive" left, even in the Turkish mainstream. The Palestinians remained faithful to the Ottoman Empire throughout World War I, indeed, many had held high Ottoman posts and intermarried with Turks. Media coverage of the Palestinian intifada deeply affected much of the Turkish public. Then, in the Nov. 2002 elections, the people, by giving two-thirds of the seats to the AK Party that has Islamic roots, gave a clear indication. Over 90 percent opposed the U.S. invasion of Muslim Iraq, which the military was very keen to join.

bezgin

09-09-2006, 01:57 PM

Turkey's problem with its own Kurds
Turkey has serious problems with its own Kurds, who form 20 percent of the population. But after five years of comparative peace and quiet in Turkey's southeast, there is an upsurge in violent rebel activity. The rebellion, which began in 1984, against the Turkish state led by Abdullah Ocalan of the PKK cost over 35,000 lives, including 5,000 soldiers. To control and neutralize the rebellion, thousands of Kurdish villages were bombed, destroyed, abandoned or relocated; millions of Kurds were moved to shantytowns in the south and east or migrated westwards. The economy of the region was shattered. With a third of the Turkish army tied up in the southeast, the cost of countering the insurgency at its height amounted to between $6 billion to $8 billion a year.

Whenever there has been chaos and instability in the north of Iraq, as during the Iraq-Iran war in 1980s, or after the 1991 Gulf war, PKK activity increased in Turkey. Eventually the rebellion died down after the arrest and trial of Ocalan in 1999, when a cease-fire was declared by the PKK. After a Turkish court commuted to life-imprisonment the death sentence passed on Ocalan in 2002, Parliament granted rights for the use of the Kurdish language, which was one of the root causes of the Kurdish rebellion. TV broadcasts in Kurdish have already begun. Until the mid-1980s, the use of the word 'Kurd' was taboo, and could even lead to imprisonment.

The PKK (also now known as KADEK or Kongra-Gel) shifted most of its 4,000 cadres to the north of Iraq. But they refused to lay down arms as required under a new Turkish "repentance law," as it provided only partial immunity. Many remain ensconced along the border between Iraq and Iran. The United States' priority to disarm the PKK cadres, despite promises to Turkey, has not been very high. It has its hands full with the troubles in Sunni and Shiite Iraq.

In fact, the United States wants to reward Iraqi Kurds who have remained loyal and peaceful. But Iraqi Kurds have been ambivalent towards the PKK, helping them only on occasions. Ankara has entered northern Iraq from time to time -- despite protests -- to attack PKK bases and its cadres and it keeps many thousands of troops in the region. Ankara has also said that it would regard an independent Kurdish entity as a cause for war. Turkey strongly opposes Iraqi-Kurdish control of the oil-rich northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk through planned ethnic migrations that would change the demographics of the city.

Turkey fears that any moves to bolster Iraqi Kurd's autonomy could pave the way to the formation of a Kurdish state in Iraq, and could eventually fuel separatism amongst its Kurds in the southeast. Turkey also wants to protect the rights of its ethnic cousins the Turkmen, traditionally settled around Kirkuk. But since the growing of fierce Iraqi resistance to U.S. occupation, Turkey has toned down the rhetoric.

The roots of the Kurdish problem were sown during the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the birth of the Turkish Republic after World War I, when northern Iraqi Kurdistan was detached from the Ottoman Kurdish region by the British and joined with the Arab provinces of Baghdad and Basra to create Iraq, because of the oil reserves around Kirkuk. Northern Iraq was proclaimed as part of the Turkish republic territory by its founders who wetre led by Kemal Ataturk. It has been a Turkish dream to retrieve this land.

Turkey and Iraqi Kurds
After the New Yorker report, Iraqi Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) came to Ankara and met with Prime Minister Erdogan and Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul. He dismissed the New Yorker report as a "total fabrication" at a press conference on June 21 and denied any cooperation between Israel's Mossad and the Kurdish peshmerga forces.

Prime Minister Erdogan had earlier called Iraqi Turkmen Front (ITF) leader Faruk Abdullah to Ankara who reported that the situation on the ground was different than stated by Iraqi Kurdish leaders. During the meeting with Talbani, Erdogan reportedly complained about the Turkmen's lack of representation in the new Iraqi administration. Talabani replid that he too was distressed but the United States and that the Iraqi Arabs were responsible for that. He stressed that his group favored representation of the Turkmen on all platforms. Talabani said that his party wanted the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk to have a special status with a joint Turkmen, Arab and Kurdish administration. Erdogan underlined that Turkey would not welcome any formulas giving one group domination over others. "We don't want division of the region," Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) leader Massoud Barzani said recently in an interview with Turkish daily Yeni Safak: "Israel is a reality, a nation and a state. There is a relationship between Israel and the Arab states," he added.

Turkey's special Iraq representative Ambassador Osman Koruturk went to Erbil last week and met with Massoud Barzani, who is expected to visit Ankara soon. But his spokesman Nechirvan Barzani said, "The geopolitical realities are not permitting any relationship with Israel."

Foreign Minister Gul stressed that Ankara would continue to closely monitor the situation in northern Iraq. He said that Ankara was keen to maintain the territorial integrity of neighboring Iraq and that they cannot tolerate any "political activities in [northern] Iraq which would influence the future of Iraq."

Despite assurances to the contrary from Israel and the Iraqi Kurdish leadership, Turkey remains deeply concerned about the presence of Israeli operatives in northern Iraq and their cooperation with the Kurdish community. A retired Turkish general told Turkey's NTV network recently that the Israeli presence in northern Iraq was "natural." It served Israel's long-standing policy to "tear apart the Arab world by playing the Kurdish card against Syria and Iran."

Conclusion
There is now speculation about what the competing powers and players want in Iraq (and the region ) and what might happen. Even the world's only superpower [the United States] could not have things its own way in Iraq. It is clear that if people are prepared to resist they cannot be cowed down and colonized. But the chaos and the maneuverings in the north of Iraq have become like another "Great game."

The Turkish media wrote: "The United States has the unpleasant choice of alienating its indispensable Turkish ally, or its loyal partners in Iraq, the Kurds. The Iraqi Kurds are apparently worried of a Shiite-Islamist-Arab domination of Iraq that would be reminiscent of Saddam Hussein's days that deprived them of their basic rights. Above all, they want a chance of self-rule. The unfolding events threaten the gains that they have made over the last 13 years since the end of the 1991 Gulf War, thanks to the U.S. security air umbrella from bases in Turkey. Iraqi Kurds may decide to move closer to Turkey. Turkey, in turn, is gradually beginning to perceive the benefits of rapprochement with the Kurds who will have a say in determining the future of Iraq."

Jalal Talabani has talked of a "strategic vision" vis-a-vis Turkey. Perceiving that the Iranian and Iraqi Shiites, and the Iraqi Sunni Arabs together with the rest of the Arab world would have a strategic dimension that could be detrimental to the fortunes of Iraqi Kurds, he is anxious to promote a similar relationship between them and the reliable and powerful neighbor in the north, Turkey. "Kurds are, as well Turkey, surrounded by Syria, Iran and Iraqi Arabs who are all extremely sensitive towards any sort of contact with Israel. The last thing that the Kurds would think of is to take steps that could create fatal trouble for themselves," he said.

Then there is Turkey. While it has recently not laid any claims on the north of Iraq as it did in before the Iraq war, it has left no one in any doubt of its stance on the issue. Once again on June 23, Turkish Foreign Ministry Spokesman Namik Tan said that regional countries would have the right to speak on the future of Iraq if the Iraqi people failed to reach a compromise on the territorial integrity of Iraq and engage in civil war. "Iraqi people should reach a compromise on this issue. If the Iraqi people fail to reach a compromise, and if eventually civil war emerges in Iraq, then the regional countries and the international community will have the right to intervene," he said, adding that the most important issue for Turkey concerning Iraq was its territorial integrity. Tan stressed that the U.N. Security Council resolution also stressed the territorial integrity of Iraq.

A Turkish journalist wrote: "The Iraqi Kurds have raised concerns that the Shiite and Sunni Arabs can join together and take action against them after the withdrawal of the United States. While the Iraqi Kurds are trying to increase their advantage despite Turkey, they should also consider Turkey as a security insurance for their own future. Furthermore, the Iraqi Kurds admit that the only realistic window for opening towards the West is Turkey."

We have not speculated on whether a pro-Iran Shiite dominated Arab state will come into being, but what would be the implications for Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Lebanon and other countries with Shiite populations.

bezgin

09-09-2006, 01:58 PM

If the United States cannot enforce things according to its plans, how can Israel hope to shape the region to its own will. Disruption and chaos could ensue. And if the United States were forced to withdraw, even with a face saving solution with help from the international community, it might look for a scapegoat. It is not only the Muslim world, but others too who have been upset by Sharon's bloody and unilateral policies.

K. Gajendra Singh served as Indian Ambassador to Turkey and Azerbaijan from 1992 to 1996. Prior to that, he served as Ambassador to Jordan during the 1990-91 Gulf war, as well as serving in both Romania and Senegal. He is currently Chairman of the Foundation for Indo-Turkic Studies.

bezgin

09-09-2006, 02:31 PM

ANKARA - Turkish Daily News

The second stage of a development project jointly sponsored by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP) Regional Development Administration has been completed, a statement from the GAP Administration published in the monthly UNDP bulletin said.

A number of sub-projects including integrating women of the Southeast into production, vocational training for younger people and rehabilitating children working on the streets were carried out under the UNDP-GAP project to address socioeconomic disparities in southeastern Anatolia.

The first stage of the project, which began in 1995, saw the completion of 26 sub-projects in 2004. The second stage, directed at women, children and youth, was implemented across nine cities in the GAP region between the years 2004 and 2006.

Projects addressing poverty of women:

Commercial enterprise training was provided to female producers in the region. A number of cooperatives were set up in the cities of Batman and Mardin, while work on establishing cooperatives in the cities of Gaziantep and Siirt are still under way. The Women Farmer's Cooperative, established by a group of women from the Besni district of Adıyaman, was a notable achievement of this project. The social and economic empowerment of women in southeastern Anatolia is one of the main objectives of the GAP project, which promotes development as a means to reduce regional disparities in Turkey.

Bazaars featuring handicrafts and traditional food produced by local women opened in the towns of Mardin and Nusaybin have been extremely successful as nearly 40 women selling their wares at the bazaars quickly found customers.

Children working on the streets:

A project targeting improving the living conditions of children working on the streets and extending the time they participate in educational activities was implemented in the cities of Gaziantep, Şanlıurfa and Batman. Computer and game workshops promoting the social development of children were set up in community centers, and five children's libraries were set up with 15,000 books donated.

Efforts to create employment for 575 young people are under way, with vocational training in many subjects from mobile telephone repair to Web and graphics design.

Jobs for people:

A company that agreed to work with the UNDP in the project is training 600 young people in a textile workshop created specially for the project. In June and July, 140 individuals who participated in the workshop were employed.

Eighteen young women from the cities of Adıyaman, Şırnak, Siirt, Batman and Şanlıurfa found internships in the finance, public relations, sales and marketing departments of various companies in Istanbul.

The “e-coach” program provided career-coaching support for young people to better plan out careers. In addition, young people are attending courses on development, project management and entrepreneurship at Youth Culture Homes. Some of the young people who received training benefited from national and international exchange programs.

Micro-financing models to fight poverty and improve the conditions of the urban poor will be the goals of the third stage of the project.

lamdacore

09-10-2006, 05:25 AM

Why you been so ignorance, the so called Pakistan as country not made by god, nor by prophet Mohammed!! It made by British. There has never been such country’s Pakistan or Turkey or Iraq, etc…all these been deigned by colonial powers in the past. nations like baluchi and Kurds always been their own rules. now if your really consider yourself as believer or man of god, your first priority is to clean your own backyard(Muslim world), not to be racist or fanatic against other religions, the first step for you should be help those who seeking freedom and wish to be their own rules .you can not force nation live together, you can not create false brotherhood with force and with cost of other nations or races identity and culture., where there has never been equality, but rather always has been culture domination of majority and oppressing and killing, or assimilating other nation, ask yourself what kind god or religion say that, what is this fake and fascism Islam phobia ,When you killing your own countryman for sake of so called unity, in Muslim world.

I will not bother in getting into any sort of argument here because that is not my intention. Now, speaking of ignorance, I believe that you should make such statements only when you have, at the very least, researched a little about Pakistan. Pakistan did indeed come into existence by dividing India but you must understand the intention of such a creation. The nobel minds and patriotic muslims made this possible because of the inevitable bloodshed that could have followed had such a decision was ignored.

I merely replied regarding Mr. Ralph Peters article, not to bombard any nation or culture existing on the face of this planet. But since you talk of unity of the Muslim World, I ask you for your solution to this problem??? I have a solution but it requires implementation and maturity of the years of such implementation. Its long term benefits are very pleasant and people like Mr. Ralph would try everything to prevent such a thing to happen. We need only a few things and i will mention the primary ones.

1) Education

The non-Muslims have sufficient knowledge in almost every imaginable field present on earth but their religion prevents them from applying in a moral fashion. That is the reason, that despite all the knowledge they pit other nations against each other.

On the other hand, Muslims believe that they have the best guidance but they lack worldly knowledge to make the full use of it. Due to this reason, there are conflicting ideologies that have made every muslim almost intolerant of another muslim.

2) Tolerance

If muslims have tolerance among themselves by putting aside difference and keeping matters simple (which i strongly believe can be done) there would be no Kurdistan, Free Balochistan, nor any other individual muslim states. It would be one mighty Muslim Empire.

Think about it, simple solution to complex problems. After this Mr. Ralph and his brothers in arms will find it extremely difficult to break such a foundation.

Kurdistan_Serok

09-10-2006, 09:57 AM

Arguments used for Turkish membership
An important argument in favor is that Turkey has a very dynamic, rapidly modernizing economy. In 2004 and 2005, growth was above 7%, being far above average growth in the EU. Altough the current GNP per capita is still lower than all of the other new EU-countries, the current economic growth rate suggests that in a few years, Turkey will have overtaken several of these. In addition, Turkey has a young population. That, combined with the huge size of the country, and its growth rates, constitutes a major dynamism and a huge opportunity for the EU.

There are alleged double standards in the requisites for Turkish membership. While some refuse Turkey's admission on the grounds of its territory being mostly Asian, Cyprus is also considered to be geographically Asian. Turkey is poor but not significantly more so than Bulgaria and Romania which will be joining in 2007.

Outside Turkey, Atlanticist countries such as the United Kingdom believe that Turkey, having been a staunch NATO ally, would help counteract France's usually independent stance towards the United States. In non-Atlanticist countries such as France, this is of course seen as an argument against Turkish membership.

Many in the West hope that Turkish membership would cement its alignment with the West. Turkey is a strong regional military power that might give the EU more weight in hotspots like Syria, Iraq or Iran. Alternatively some believe that conditional Turkish membership would encourage moves towards more stable economic growth, democratic government and a less interfering military. This could potentially provide a model of democracy for the rest of the Middle East, comparable to the role played by Western Europe in the Cold War.

Turkey also stresses its involvement in European history for about 1000 years, through the Ottoman Empire and as the seat of the Eastern Roman Empire. It considers itself a European state. A prevalent point of view in Turkey, echoed by its prime minister Erdoğan, is that the EU seems to be a "Christian club", although the foundation of the European Union never claimed to be on religious grounds. However, this argument appears less strong than the previous ones. Many EU-citizens regard this reasoning as suspicious.

European Christians who had converted to Islam freely rose to the highest position in the Ottoman Empire. More Grand Viziers were ethnic Albanian, Slav, or Greek devshirmes, rather than Turks. Even the maternal lineage of Ottoman Sultans was non-Turkish after the first few generations. The Ottomans made key contributions to European culture.

The Turks consider their state a strongly secular one, just as the EU defines itself (for example with the abandonment of the proposals to make reference to Europe's Christian heritage in the draft European Constitution). Compared with the neighbouring Arabic Muslim states, this secular character is obvious. However, the severe discriminations of all other religions than the Sunni, of ethnic minorities and of dissenting opinions make it impossible to consider Turkey as 'secular' in the European meaning of the word. Therefore, many consider Turkey as only partially secular.

Turkey's overwhelmingly Muslim population would lend considerable weight to EU multi-culturalism efforts and might help to prevent potential scenarios involving a clash of civilizations. At the same time, Turkey's young (23% of population is under 15) and well-educated population might act as a balance for the increasingly aging populations of the current EU. In relation to this, Samuel Huntington regards Turkey as a split country in his book Clash of Civilizations, which could drift off to Islamism and/or nationalism if European integration fails.

Kurdistan_Serok

09-10-2006, 09:59 AM

Arguments used against Turkish membership

Opposition to Turkey's entry into the EU varies among the public of the current EU member states, as does political support or opposition to the entry bid. The issues mentioned by some of those objecting to Turkey's EU candidacy can be divided among those inherent to Turkey's situation, those that involve internal issues about human rights, democracy, and related matters, and those concerning Turkey's open external disputes with its neighbours.

[edit]
Inherent issues
Differences in fundamental values and culture between a predominantly Muslim country (99.8% of the population) with current dominantly Christian and non-religious EU members, all of which are historically Christian. Unlike most EU members, which are increasingly secular, Islam continues to play a major role in daily life in Turkey.
The Turkish government's refusal to officially recognize the state of Cyprus, a current E.U. member, technically nullifies any negotiations and promises made between Turkey and the E.U., and is the greatest obstacle to Turkey's accession to the E.U., much before other issues. This issue alone is of great diplomatic concern because it paradoxically implies that Turkey does not fully recognize the side it is negotiating with. One possible solution, apart from an unlikely change of strategy by the Turkish government, would be the introduction of a bureaucratic or diplomatic circumvention or escamotage, like the E.U. adopting special negotiation rules for Turkey. The other 'solution', or rather outcome, is that the EU prefers to stick with its acquis communautaire, and break down negotiations over Turkey's refusal to accept the existing EU-rules. Turkey's non-recognition of the Republic of Cyprus has led to complications with its custom union. Under the customs agreements Turkey already signed as a precondition to start negotiations in 2005, it is obliged to open its ports to Cypriot planes and vessels, but Turkey refuses this and insists it will only do so as part of a settlement to the Cyprus problem. Greek Cypriots have subsequently threatened to veto accesion talks unless Turkey complies.
Only 3% of Turkey's territory lies in geographical Europe. Furthermore, the Turkish capital is not in Europe, but, like Cyprus, in Asia. Turkey's membership would mean that the European Union's external borders would now reach Middle Eastern nations such as Syria, Iraq and Iran.
This argument may be seen as invalid, because Cyprus, another non-European country (albeit with very strong cultural links to Europe) was accepted as a member state.
Turkey's large size and relative poverty. Turkey would upon accession represent an expansion almost equal in population to that of the 2004 Enlargement while the Turkish economy has been known for very unstable growth and sharp recessions despite some recent improvement. Many question whether the EU can support and "absorb" such a large and poor state, and many member states are wary of a potentially huge wave of poor Turkish immigration.
Turkey's large political power once in the Union. Its almost 70 million inhabitants will bestow it the second largest number of representatives in the European Parliament, after Germany. With the current rate of population increase some fear it might even surpass Germany by the time of accession.
Note however that members of the European Parliament are divided along ideological lines rather than along national lines. Most national parties of current member states are part of their ideological European party group counterpart. As at the moment, the AKP (as the largest Turkish party) approached the European People's Party, the largest European party group, and was admitted as an observer-member, it is most likely that the AKP will join this party group if Turkey would accede to the EU.
[edit]
Human rights, democracy, and other internal issues
See Human rights in Turkey for details.

Many have continuing doubts on the commitment of the Turkish state to democracy and human rights, and its ability to reach European standards in these issues as gender equality, political freedom and minority rights (especially as regards the Kurdish population, non-Muslims, and gays and lesbians). Freedom of political speech is another area in which some concerns have arisen (e.g. "Regular Report on Turkey's progress towards accession", p. 36, recent internal EU reports discussed in Financial Times, 5 June 2006, EU Observer 6 June 2006, City Journal, 4 June 2006).

Opinions critical of the strongly nationalistic line are regularly prosecuted. Article 301/1 of the Turkish penal code, which is perceived as being contrary to ideas of freedom of speech, states:
"A person who explicitly insults being a Turk, the Republic or Turkish Grand National Assembly, the penalty to be imposed shall be imprisonment for a term of six months to three years." and "When insulting being a Turk is committed by a Turkish citizen in a foreign country, the penalty to be imposed shall be increased by one third."
There have been recent indications [1] that Turkey may abandon or modify Article 301, after the embarrassment suffered by the prosecution of its most famous novelist, Orhan Pamuk, after mentioning the massacres of Armenians in 1915 and the number of dead resulting from the war with the Kurdistan Workers Party. The prosecutions have largely been initiated by nationalists within the Judicial system, intent on derailing the accession process. [2]
Turkey's treatment of the Kurdish people and other indigenous populations is also of concern. Some decry the recent recognition of the Kurdish language by Turkish authorities as a cosmetic operation. Kurdish education is provided through only a few private local courses, while television in Kurdish is only for half an hour a week and under the monopoly of the state broadcasting corporation TRT.
Discrimination of gays and transgender people appears still widespread. This has several aspects. [3]
Turkey is one of two states (with Azerbaijan) among the 46 members of the Council of Europe which has refused to recognise the status of conscientious objectors or give them an alternative to military service[4].
The issue of church and state separation and discrimination of non-Sunni Muslims is another concern. Mainstream Hanafi school of Sunni Islam continues to enjoy large-scale privileges in Turkey, with thousands of imams in state employment, while Turkish clerics from other religions are not paid at all. Some current members however are also open to criticism on these grounds, although none is reported to have large-scale discrimination of non-majority religions as Turkey. The latest internal EU reports (reported on in the press begin June, see above) confirm those large-scale discriminations, adding that no progress was made since end 2005, nor any willingness shown by the Turkish governement.
The Greek Orthodox Church has not yet been able to re-open the Theological School of Halki as has been its request. Turkey also continues to post state-financed imams to regions of EU member states (both to those where the local minority of Turkish origin requests one and those that prefer locally trained imams). Some EU citizens resent this as interference in the domestic affairs of their states. Others note that those imams have a rather poor knowledge and understanding of the legal, institutional and social organization of the country where they're send to, and a sometimes dubious respect for their secular and democratic values. Moreover, some religious traditions and religiously motivated changes in general policy are a concern, as they may be at odds with official equality policy:

For example the continued consecration of polygamous marriages by state-paid imams is incompatible with the EU's insistence on equal rights for women.
Although the claims of the Alevi minority have become more vocal in recent years, the Turkish state continues its policy of building mosques in Alevi villages and sending Sunni imams.
Recently, the AKP government tried to introduce provisions in penal law that make 'un-Islamic behaviour' -as seen as such by the orthodox Sunni Muslims- a criminal offence for every person, regardless of his religion. Some of these attempts succeeded, others were blocked by the fervently secular president.
Important groups in the European Parliament have urged Turkey to recognize the Armenian deaths in the Ottoman Empire during World War I as genocide, see Armenian Genocide. Turkey denies responsibility, stating that the events were part of a civil war during the final years of the Ottoman Empire. However, the huge number of civil casualties makes this line of reasoning unconvincing. Recognition of the events as genocide is not a formal prerequisite for entry, with other EU members still not recognising the events as such. On the other hand, official recognition for 'certain' Turks's responsibility might contribute to a decrease in the current distrust in the EU.

Kurdistan_Serok

09-10-2006, 10:01 AM

Arguments used against Turkish membership (2)

Relations with neighbours
The Cyprus dispute—the island is still divided after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974, following a coup d'etat by Nikos Sampson against the Cypriot government of Makarios III and fully supported by the Greek military junta of 1967-1974 under its de facto leader Dimitrios Ioannides. Turkey refuses to acknowledge the Republic of Cyprus (an EU member), located in the South, as the sole authority on the island, but instead recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in the North. Turkey and Turkish Cypriots, for 30 years rejected all UN-proposals, but suddenly backed the 2004 Annan plan aimed at reunification of the island, but was subsequently rejected by Greek Cypriots on the grounds that it did not meet their needs. That the latest proposal included maintained residence rights for the many Anatolian Turks that were brought to Cyprus after the invasion and their descendants, and that Greek-Cypriots who lost their property after the Turkish invasion would not be compensated for their losses probably played a role in these recent sudden change of positions.
The Aegean dispute, a series of unresolved geostrategic issues in the Aegean Sea between Greece (a present EU member) and Turkey, which are sources of a great number of military provocations between those two countries.
The economic embargo and closure of land border crossings currently maintained against Armenia (due to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh). Turkey supports Azerbaijan’s claims to Nagorno-Karbakh and views the situation as an occupation of Azeri land. EU reports 3, p.8 state that Turkey should take active measures to resolve this situation before eventual accession, while then-President of the Commission, Romano Prodi said: "Personally, I do not like that the Armenian-Turkish border gate is closed. I do not exclude that the issue of closed borders could be one of the preconditions for Turkey's membership." [5]
For the above reasons, Turkey has insisted that the route of the lucrative Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline bypass Armenian territory. Critics point out that this policy of embargo and isolation of a smaller neighbour is inconsistent with Turkey's desire to join the open European Community.
[edit]
Effect on the future direction of the EU
Turkey’s entry into the EU will have profound consequences on the future direction of the EU.

Many believe that the inclusion of such a large country with a different culture and poor economy might make it extremely difficult for the EU to deepen its integration, and might force it to be reduced to a simple zone of economic cooperation. This is something that is considered a benefit by many eurosceptics who want the EU to structurally remain as is or even revert to an earlier state, being mainly an economic free market project and not a wider political and cultural project, but the opposite view is espoused by the European federalists.
Turkey is a traditionally Atlanticist and NATO country, with very close ties to the United States. The USA has also been one of the strongest backers of Turkey's membership. Some member states, like France, wish the EU to increase its political independence from the United States and therefore believe Turkish membership is undesirable. Atlanticist countries, however, like the United Kingdom, would see their positions strengthened.
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing has opposed Turkey's admission on the grounds that it would lead to demands for accession by Morocco.

Kurdistan_Serok

09-10-2006, 10:03 AM

Public opinion

Public opinion in EU countries generally opposes Turkish membership, though with varying degrees of intensity. The Eurobarometer March-May 2006 survey shows that 48% of EU-25 citizens are against Turkey joining the EU, while about 39% are in favour. Citizens from the new member states are more in favour of Turkey joining (44% in favour) than the old EU-15 (38% in favour). At the time of the survey, the country whose population most strongly opposed Turkish membership was Austria (con: 81%), while Sweden is current member state most in favor of the accession (pro:61%). On a wider political scope, the highest support comes from the Turkish Cypriot Community (pro: 67%) (which is not recognized as sovereign state), followed by Romania (pro: 66%) (which has yet to become an EU member). These communities are even more in favor of the accession than in the Turkish populace itself (pro: 54%).

bezgin

09-10-2006, 10:47 AM

http://img134.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=99839_center_img_122_523lo.jpg

If Turkey's EU Process Fails, This Will Be A Shame for EU - 24.10.2005

Director of Security and Global Government at the Royal Institute for International Relations at the Gent University in Belgium Professor Rik Coolsaet disclosed that it would be a “shame” for the European Union (EU) if Turkey’s negotiations process that started on October 3rd, does not end in full membership.

Coolsaet defended that some EU members were very much dependent on the public polls on Turkey as he explained, “Of course, Turkey’s negotiations process will not be easy; however, some of the leaders fell behind the public in theTurkey discussions.” Criticizing particularly Austrian leaders, Coolsaet told, “They did not act as political leaders in this process. They ran after the ideas of their publics; however, a leader means one who shapes his public’s thoughts. Political leadership has surrendered to the public in Austria.”

The most significant criticism that Coolsaet made about Turkey’s opponents was the fact that they cannot see the global dimensions of the issue. Claiming that Turkey-EU relations exceeded the borders of the EU and Turkey, Coolsaet said it was EU’s responsibility to show Huntington’s idea on “the clash of civilization” was wrong. Indicating that Huntington would be justified if this relationship fails, Coolsaet said the EU leaders have a big responsibility. Coolsaet emphasized that the public polls conducted in Europe just focus on the result that many EU citizens oppose Turkey’s prospective membership. “Another important result is that the EU public does not know Turkey. Many people do not know anything about Turkey. Leaders have a big responsibility here. The leaders should explain to their public why Turkey’s EU membership is necessary. They should point out the problems that the EU would face if this relationship fails. They should tell their public that this relationship is no longer just an EU-Turkey relationship. There are some articles published in the EU about these suggesting the claim that Turkey might be a bridge between the Islamic world and the West are “exaggerated”. The famous French newspaper Le Monde said last week that Turkey cannot be representative of the Islamic world due to its strict secularism.” Coolsaet does not agree with Le Monde’s comment. “It is true that there is strict secularism in Turkey; however, the majority of the Turkish public is Muslim. The Muslim masses in the world will take this into consideration. The Islamic world will see the rejection of Turkey as a rejection of Islam. .Salafi-Jihadi radicals already abuse the Turkey-EU relations. After the negotiations started on October 3rd, they say, ‘Turkey makes efforts in vain. They will not be accepted in the EU no matter what they do since they are Muslims’. I say failure of the process will be a shame for EU because of this.”

Rik Coolsaet thinks that increasing EU opposition should be prevented in Turkey. Indicating that author Burak Turna’s books sell a lot because it defends Western opposition, “ Both EU and Turkey should explain to their public that continuity of Turkey’s negotiations process would be for the benefit of both parties, “ Coolsaet admitted.

drljr

09-10-2006, 02:36 PM

1) Education

The non-Muslims have sufficient knowledge in almost every imaginable field present on earth but their religion prevents them from applying in a moral fashion. That is the reason, that despite all the knowledge they pit other nations against each other.

On the other hand, Muslims believe that they have the best guidance but they lack worldly knowledge to make the full use of it. Due to this reason, there are conflicting ideologies that have made every muslim almost intolerant of another muslim.

2) Tolerance

If muslims have tolerance among themselves by putting aside difference and keeping matters simple (which i strongly believe can be done) there would be no Kurdistan, Free Balochistan, nor any other individual muslim states. It would be one mighty Muslim Empire.

Lamdacore show a serious lack of understanding of human nature. The root of the problems around the world are inherent self-interest and a refusal to be tolerant. People are by nature selfish and it is only by unbringing that the selfish nature is taught to share. People by nature will rarely sacrifice their own self-interest for the group without some sort of benefit in return. This is why philosophies like marxism and communism always fail and become dictatorships. People will never continue to always sacrifice their own self-interest and needs for the good of the group and that is what marxism and communism require. Even "homocide bombers" are serving their self-interest as they believe in a reward in heaven. They are expecting great rewards in heaven for their earthly sacrifice. The only person I can think of in recent years that sacrificed honestly is Mother Teresa from Calcutta and that is based upon the reports of her life.

The religion of the Non-Muslim world, by which I mean suspect you primarily means Christianity, teaches a very clear moral message. It also teach tolerance and forbearance. It also does not teach "forced conversion". As a result not everyone in a "Christian" country practises Christianity. And not everyone who is identified as a "Christian", "Jew", "Moslem" or other member of a religion practices the specific faith in the same way. In the USA we have Christianity, Judism, Islam, Hindi, Buddhism and others. We seem to have more tolerance of differences and cultures in the Western World that in the Middle East it seems. And goverment policies like personal policies follow the interest of the individual government and its perceived and real shared interest in the larger community.

Lamdacore also fails to distinquish between the teaching of a religion and the PRACTICE of the religion. It has taken Christiandom more than 600 years to accept the different demoninations and Christiandom still has problems. Many people have tried to "force convert" populations to Christianity but that is not a teaching of Christianity or even Judism. And from what I have read of the Quran it does not teach it either! Yet from the statements of the Islamic Terrorist these people use terror to force people to convert to Islam - i.e. convert or die. From the reports Islam has three basic branches Sunni, Shia and Wahhabi in the Middle East and others around the world and they refuse to get along or tolerate each other. Just as the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations refused to get along for years.

People forms communities and the resultant culture because of a limited shared self-interest. When this self-interest conflicts with other communities self-interest or challenge a belief system war and persecutions often results. This is what we are seeing all over the world. It is when people and communities refuse to identify commonality with other groups and peoples and instead focus on differences that conflicts arise.

Lamdacore please do not interject religion as the "cause of all to end all". On this thread we have Turks, Kurds and others discussing border and related issues that arise from the conflicts. And while religion undoubtly plays a part in some of the conflicts (i.e. Islam vs Hindu is one such in India) the conflicts involve much more than just religions and the practise of religions. A culture is comprised of much more than just a religion.

lamdacore

09-10-2006, 03:16 PM

Lamdacore show a serious lack of understanding of human nature. The root of the problems around the world are inherent self-interest and a refusal to be tolerant. People are by nature selfish and it is only by unbringing that the selfish nature is taught to share. People by nature will rarely sacrifice their own self-interest for the group without some sort of benefit in return. This is why philosophies like marxism and communism always fail and become dictatorships. People will never continue to always sacrifice their own self-interest and needs for the good of the group and that is what marxism and communism require. Even "homocide bombers" are serving their self-interest as they believe in a reward in heaven. They are expecting great rewards in heaven for their earthly sacrifice. The only person I can think of in recent years that sacrificed honestly is Mother Teresa from Calcutta and that is based upon the reports of her life.

The religion of the Non-Muslim world, by which I mean suspect you primarily means Christianity, teaches a very clear moral message. It also teach tolerance and forbearance. It also does not teach "forced conversion". As a result not everyone in a "Christian" country practises Christianity. And not everyone who is identified as a "Christian", "Jew", "Moslem" or other member of a religion practices the specific faith in the same way. In the USA we have Christianity, Judism, Islam, Hindi, Buddhism and others. We seem to have more tolerance of differences and cultures in the Western World that in the Middle East it seems. And goverment policies like personal policies follow the interest of the individual government and its perceived and real shared interest in the larger community.

Lamdacore also fails to distinquish between the teaching of a religion and the PRACTICE of the religion. It has taken Christiandom more than 600 years to accept the different demoninations and Christiandom still has problems. Many people have tried to "force convert" populations to Christianity but that is not a teaching of Christianity or even Judism. And from what I have read of the Quran it does not teach it either! Yet from the statements of the Islamic Terrorist these people use terror to force people to convert to Islam - i.e. convert or die. From the reports Islam has three basic branches Sunni, Shia and Wahhabi in the Middle East and others around the world and they refuse to get along or tolerate each other. Just as the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations refused to get along for years.

People forms communities and the resultant culture because of a limited shared self-interest. When this self-interest conflicts with other communities self-interest or challenge a belief system war and persecutions often results. This is what we are seeing all over the world. It is when people and communities refuse to identify commonality with other groups and peoples and instead focus on differences that conflicts arise.

Lamdacore please do not interject religion as the "cause of all to end all". On this thread we have Turks, Kurds and others discussing border and related issues that arise from the conflicts. And while religion undoubtly plays a part in some of the conflicts (i.e. Islam vs Hindu is one such in India) the conflicts involve much more than just religions and the practise of religions. A culture is comprised of much more than just a religion.

First of all, thankyou for your detailed response and i believe that I may not have been clear enough. So as a feedback by you to my previous post i will try to discuss this matter more clearly because i believe there are some mature people on this forum that are serious about this discussion.

I completely agree, that religion can never be a pretext to war nor the main and primary reason. Hence, i fully apologize to all those fellow members if my statements may have caused any harm. I will prevent the discussion of religion and focus on the border issues in the near future.

drljr, you are correct by discussing the nature of human beings as being selfish naturally. However, i understand that there are several schools of thought on this issue. I believe that human beings by nature are curious and innocent and this is a fact that is witnessed easily, just look at newborns. A baby will never be angry nor would it be laughing when it is a few months old. It is still too curious abouts its surroundings. Hence, i would have to reject the statement that "People are by nature selfish and it is only by unbringing that the selfish nature is taught to share". It is the environment that brings about this change. Now again, people in GENERAL do not sacrifice for the better benefit of the other BUT they still do sacrifice. This difference is basically in upbringing of the individuals. Yet, in many cases we have witnessed remarkable acts of heriosm from individuals for the survival of others. So, i would have to disagree once again on this part.

Upon further review of my statements, i agree that i have failed explain the teachings and practice of religions nor did i mention the religions in general. However, i will refrain from discussing this issue as it may seem very sensitive and requires extensive debate. Therefore, i will no longer address religion in my post.

People do form communities based on common interests and tend to fight with others where conflicts of interests may result. However, again this is two-sided theory because there yet exists communities that have different interests but tend to tolerate each other.

Hence, by excluding religion my previous post would still stand valid because education and tolerance are some of the means to end such conflicts and prevent such "Bloody Borders".

drljr

09-10-2006, 04:00 PM

Your response was excellent. And while there are people who think selfishness is learned I would refer you the behavior of children as they grow. Unless a child is taught to share they do not. Innocent is not incompatible with selfishness. I have dealt with many different children over the years. I have seen angry newborns - believe me they can be angry but it is expressed in different ways such as crying. Even a newborn exhibits selfish behavior - it is a survival trait that exists in all life. True sacrifice is often the result of upbringing or sometimes in spite of upbringing.

Look at the behavior of children as they grow - a child must be taught to share. Children are curious and when children are taught proper behavior they grow up and tend to become good adults. But observe children when they are not under the "supervision of adults". They tend to be cruel and exhibit very hostile behavior to children who are different - even when parents teach otherwise. We often refer to this as the "mob mentality". And adults often exhibit this behavior as well. And there are people who intentionally work to exploit this behavioral trait.

And unfortunately, this behavior tends to reassert itself over times. Education, tolerance and common interest all have an effect on how people react. My statements were accurate however and it is not a two sided theory. History teaches that alliances and shifting loyalties often result in changes in percieved common threats or benefits. This can be seen in the USSR/NAZI non-agression agreement and the joining of the USSR with the "Allies" after NAZI Germany attacked the USSR. So "communities [exists] that have different interests but tend to tolerate each other" is true. They have found a common interest in tolerance and I suspect other common benefits and find it is better to avoid conflict.

As for the discussion of religion - I believe it is fine so long as it is relevent to the specific issue or point being made.

This is the type of conversion that I believe the original article was intended to start.

bezgin

09-10-2006, 09:17 PM

Why is US and the Allied Forces in Afghanistan? They are not there to fight Taliban. Why are they in Iraq?

Why are they supporting Kurdish groups?

It seems that Iran is under a great siege. And Turkey is going to be the last brick in the wall.

They cannot do this with us, the Turks because we wont fight dirty wars, everybody knows that.

That's why US is determined to divide and minimize every possible opposition to their causes. Turkey is relatively-democratic and that's why it is an easier target for USA.

Does anyone still remember what happened to Salvador Allende?

http://www.answers.com/topic/salvador-allende

As we learn from the history, we clearly see the future.

Kurdistan_Serok

09-11-2006, 06:01 AM

Few of turkey's war Crimes

Turkey's War Crimes

By The American Kurdish Information Network
By Kani Xulam

January 28, 1996

Just a few weeks ago, "The European", a weekly newspaper published in London, England, had a picture with a warning on its front page. It showed a Turkish soldier holding the decapitated heads of two Kurds. The caption read: "Pictures that will shock the world."

A closer look at the pictures and the story which accompanies them reveals that these photographs depict the triumph of five Turkish soldiers over the dead bodies of four Kurdish rebels. In one picture, two of the naked Kurds are headless, one lying on his back and the other on his stomach. The first has a rope tied to his ankles and the second has a rope tied around his trunk, betraying the not uncommon practice of dragging dead bodies behind armored vehicles in Turkey's southeast. Historians tell us that the warriors of Ghengis Khan did the same to their victims, only with horses rather than army vehicles.

In another picture, a soldier in his twenties is holding the two severed heads while smiling at the camera and his comrade in the background is smirking. There are other pictures and other depravities. Suffice it to note that one is uglier than the other and each alone is enough to make Kurds and their friends sick for days.

For days now, I have been staring at these pictures. I have been telling myself: "One of the decapitated heads is yours." It is an eerie feeling. Just stop and think of it: somebody staring at you holding your decapitated head. I have made a point of looking at the reactions of Kurds who confront these pictures for the first time. They feel utterly numb. Think of a people without faith, without love, without hope and with lots of pain. That is what the Kurds of Turkey have become.

These pictures and the heinous crimes they show are not aberrations. These scenes are repeated often in southeastern Turkey, the historical land of the Kurds. Armed with East German rifles, West German armored vehicles and sophisticated American weapons, Turkish soldiers are creating the largest moonscape on the face the earth, raining death and destruction on the Kurds and their land. House Concurrent Resolution 136 of the 104th Congress notes that more than 2,650 Kurdish villages have been destroyed in this most recent Turkish assault on the Kurds.

The French philosopher Voltaire wrote that the worst kind of death is to be obscurely hanged. The slaughter of the Turkish Kurds is a good example of that. Ask the Kurds for the name of a people that supports their cause for civil rights and there is not an answer.

In Turkey, where the majority of an estimated 25 to 30 million Kurds live, resistance is costly; as the pictures show, even your dead body is not immune from abuse and degradation. Public office is costly, too, as is proven by the case of 13 duly elected Kurdish deputies who lost their seats in the Turkish Parliament. Four were sentenced to 15 years in prison for advocating the legitimate rights of their people.

Ankara has tried everything in its power to discourage the Kurds from demanding their rights. It has tried force. Nothing has come of it. It has tried the "village guard" system in which poor Kurds are armed to teeth and inculcated with hatred for their kin. The upshot has been a disaster: Kurds killing Kurds to the chagrin of their friends. It has tried religion, the opium of masses in the words of Karl Marx, and again the policy has not worked. But something quite unexpected has taken root in Turkey because of the heavy emphasis on religion.

The Islamic Welfare Party scored the highest number of votes in Turkey's latest parliamentary elections. This was the result of an unscrupulous campaign by Turkey's leaders, first to undermine the rising tide of Kurdish national consciousness by inculcating a universalistic Islamic ideology which they considered less dangerous than the Kurds, second by using the rising tide of Islamic threat in order to manipulate opinions in the European Union and the United States so as to secure closer military and economic ties.

The late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat encouraged Islamic fundamentalist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood in order to use them against alienated Egyptian youth who were increasingly turning to Marxism. But he himself became the victim of the forces to which he gave a free reign. Members of the Muslim Brotherhood within the Egyptian military gunned him down.

Maybe there is something called poetic justice in the world. Maybe we Kurds will get our civil rights after Turkey travels the same road taken by Iran. Maybe then the State Department will recognize our sacrifices of pain and blood and let us have our due.

Kurdistan_Serok

09-11-2006, 06:15 AM

Turkey's Genocidal Crime and Silence

Mass-Murder of the Armenian People

Richard R. Korn, Ph.D.
Institute for the Study of Genocide
__________________________________________________ ________

In 1915 the Turkish government, led by the Young Turk party which had seized power six years earlier proclaiming a commitment to "Freedom, Justice, Equality and Fraternity," launched a program aimed at the extermination of its Armenian population. Under the supervision of the central government, between 800,000 and 1,200,000 Armenians were murdered. There is evidence that these murderous operations were sometimes monitored with a fine attention to detail. Witness the following telegram sent by Talat Pasha, Minister of the Interior, to the governor of an outlying province:

We hear that certain orphanages which have been opened received also the children of the Armenians. Whether this is done through ignorance of our real purpose, or through contempt of it, the Government will regard the feeding of such children or any attempt to prolong their lives as an act entirely opposed to its purpose, since it considers the survival of these children as detrimental.
Genocidal operations were carried our under the eyes of many witnesses, including foreign observers and diplomats from many legations. Reports of the atrocities flooded the presses of the world. They produced a sense of horror and outrage among those who were already habituated to the atrocities of the European war - a war in which reports of executions of civilians were becoming commonplace. The leaders of the allied nations at war with Germany and Turkey issued grave warnings, promising redress to the survivors and justice for the leading murderers. In the sordid horse-trading which followed the allied victory, none of these promises were carried out.

Armenian Appeals Unheard
In the seventy-one years which have passed since their calamity, the survivors have fought to gain official recognition of the crime committed against them. These efforts have uniformly failed. Successive Turkish governments opposed them with a zeal which matches their original dedication in conducting the massacres. Each went to great lengths to bury their crime as efficiently as they buried their victims.
The determination of the Turkish government to police world opinion continues to this day. Professor Leo Kuper reports:

In 1982 the Turkish government brought diplomatic pressures to bear on the Israeli Government and on Israeli deplomats in Europe and the USA to suppress any discussion of the Turkish genocide against Armenians in a conference to be held in Tel Aviv on the Holocaust and Genocide. The Israeli Government, "out of concern for the interests of Jews", did seek to ensure that the conference was canceled, or removed from Israel, and it also made representations to invited participants. The conference did, in fact, take place, and the Armenian case was fully discussed, but many of the scheduled speakers had withdrawn.
The Turkish campaign of denial has had graver repercussions. In 1971 the United Nations Commission on Human Rights appointed a Special Rapporteur to supervise the preparation of a report on the efficacy of the UN Convention on Genocide. His interim report included a historical survey in which the following paragraph appeared:

Passing to the more modern era, one may note the existence of relatively full documentation dealing with the massacres of the Armenians, which have been described as the first case of genocide of the twentieth century.
The Turkish representative demanded that this paragraph be deleted fortwith. His request was supported by the representatives of Pakistan, Italy, France, Tunisia and the United States. The offensive paragraph did not appear in the final report - but the omission stirred bitter debate. In justifying his deletion, the Special Rapporteur offered an explanation which was, in effect, the acknowledgment of an obligation to avoid ruffling the feelings of an offender by any reference to his offense:

A large volume of correspondence had been received concerning the Armenian question. When the work had begun on the historical part of the study, it had been suggested that as many cases as possible should be reviewed. Many members of the Sub- Commission had been opposed to that idea, however. Concern had been expressed that the study on genocide might be diverted from its intended course and lose its essential purpose. Consequently it had been decided to retain the massacre of the Jews under nazism; but other cases had been omitted, because it was impossible to compile an exhaustive list, because it was important to maintain unity within the international community as regards genocide, and because in many cases to delve into the past might re-open old wounds which are now healing.

Duplicating the First Holocaust
The successful carrying out of Turkey's mass killing of Armenians, and the equally significant success of the Turkish Government in evading official responsibility for it, have become a model for other governments which seek to resolve their problems by exterminating large numbers of their citizens. No less an authority than Hitler recognized the historical importance of this achievement of official amnesia. In a speech urging his general to massacre Polish civilians, Hitler is reported to have said:

Only thus can we gain the living space we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?
The Armenian murders were soon to be emulated. By 1933 the Soviet Union had liquidated between 5 and 15 million people in the Ukraine. Following the Holocaust, genocides have been perpetrated against millions of people in a score of countries. Each new atrocity was greeted by outcries of shock and dismay, followed by inaction, apathy and disillusionment. Despite the adoption of the Genocide Convention by the United Nations in 1948, the international response has been uniform. Far from preventing and punishing genocide and other crimes against humanity, the world organization tacitly supports what Leo Kuper called the "right of the sovereign territorial state, as an integral part of its sovereignty, to commit genocide . . . against peoples under its rule." Kuper continues:

To be sure, no state explicitly claims the right to commit genocide - this would not be morally acceptable even in international circles - but the right is exercised under other more acceptable rubrics, notably the duty to maintain law and order, or the seemingly sacred mission to preserve the territorial integrity of the state.

The sovereign right to commit mass murder has now become a familiar feature of the international landscape. And its sheer familiarity has produced a desensitization and brutalization of human consciousness which has only abetted the destructive process. This corruption-by-familiarity was clarified by the English poet, Alexander Pope, in his matchless Essay on Man, written in the 18th century:

Vice is a monster of so fierce a mien As to be hated, needs but to be seen. But seen to oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
Up to the time of Turkey's genocidal crimes against Armenians, the lower limit of state-perpetrated atrocity was defined by occasional massacres and pogroms. After the setting of the new bottom line - genocide - it became possible to down- grade these atrocities as mere massacres, by definition, less intolerable than the deliberate extermination of whole populations. Next it was the Holocaust which defined the new bottom line of genocide - after which it became obligatory to concede that any new genocide which did not fall to the level of the Nazi crime was somehow less atrocious. The principle of relativity holds for households as well as communities, nations and states.

Lowering the Tolerance to Mass-Murder
In a family in which the ultimate sanction for misbehavior is a spanking, the introduction of beatings makes spanking less severe - and a slap in the face a virtual act of mercy. When maiming becomes the new bottom line, a mere beating is upgraded. What holds for families holds for the family of nations. When mass execution becomes the norm, mere torture and maiming may be redefined as acts of leniency. The principle is obvious: Each lowering of the bottom line of intolerability diminishes the perceived cruelty of any sanction which is relatively less severe, debasing the entire scale.
It was Turkey's acts of genocide which made the Holocaust thinkable and morally possible; it was the Holocaust which made the post-war genocides in Asia and the third world more tolerable by comparison.
The still unrequited genocide in Cambodia (Democratic Campuchea) duplicated the Armenian example in many ways, including the use of deportations resulting in massive death by exposure and starvation. To this date the Pol Pot regime has not been indicted, and its representative still occupies its seat in the United Nations.

Kurdistan_Serok

09-11-2006, 06:29 AM

Check these pictures in below link and then read.

http://www.hr-action.org/chr/solomon.html
________________________________________________

Kenan Akin: "I wish I was there during the incident. I could kill"
Weekly AKTUEL (31.10.96 - 6.11.96) publishes the text of an exclusive interview with Kenan Akin, so-called Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Under the title, "I wish I was there during the incident. I could kill", the interview goes as follows:
"Question: Were you there on the day of the incident?

Akin: In the morning I was there, at around 9:30 I left.

Question: Did you return after the incident?

Akin: No.

Question: Did you see your picture published in the Greek Cypriot press which was taken from television and enlarged?

Akin: Could have. I was not there when the incident took place. But I felt sorry for not being there. I wish I was there. I could have pulled the trigger at least once. I wish I was there, definitely I was going to shoot.

Question: Don't you think that this is an issue to be tackled by the security forces? Apart from this, it is reportedly said that in your election region you were saying that you have killed and you took the responsibility.

Akin: No... During the incident I was on a picnic near the beach with my wife and my child.

Question: Do you have a gun?

Akin: Yes, but I do not carry it.

Question: Following the claims against you, is there any investigation against you by your party, by the government or by the legal organs?

Akin: The esteemed President asked me at one of our meetings. I told him I was on a picnic by the beach with my wife and my child. There was no investigation within the party. Only our general chairman put a question at the party's general assembly. He should have been convinced of what I had said, so that he would not have considered it necessary to establish a commission to open an enquiry.

Question: Do you envisage making any attempt to clear your name of these claims against you by opening an inquiry?

Akin: These are Greek Cypriot lies. The other side are educating their children with Turkish animosity. You are never writing this. Why are you making the killing of a dog sound so important?"

GUNTURKUN

09-11-2006, 01:53 PM

http://www.fatherofturks.com/AtaENGLISH_files/frame.htm

just copy paste the link and be informed about the world's biggest leader ever lived..

GUNTURKUN SOYLEMEZOGLU
AYDIN

bezgin

09-11-2006, 03:57 PM

Ocalan a psychopathic killer, not a Robin Hood

OFFERING one of his regular Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK) ceasefires to the Turkish army, Abdullah Ocalan appeared at a damp, draughty press conference in a cement shack in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon six years ago.

His theme was the brotherhood of the Turkish and Kurdish peoples. ``We are so close, we are like the finger and the fingernail,'' he announced. And I couldn't help wondering how often the two had been separated in southern Turkey.

Ocalan is, even in many Kurdish eyes, a psychopathic killer a Kurdish Abu Nidal who punished suspicion with death, whose guerrillas tamed their opponents not just with collaborator executions but with the slaughter of every member of the family of every collaborator.

The Turkish security forces responded with murder, ethnic cleansing and wholesale invasion of the very northern Iraqi `safe haven' which the West set up for the genocide-stricken Kurds.

Ocalan is no political innocent, no abider by human rights, no Robin Hood though the so******t characteristic might suit the man with the bright, staring eyes.

``Both Kurds and Turks are tired of bloodletting,'' he told us back in 1993. ``Permit me to return unarmed to Kurdistan in peace to practise political action and start a dialogue between us.'' The Turks told him to get lost.

But the events of the last few days embrace more than just international hypocrisy. There is a broader, far more important context to the capture of Abdullah Ocalan a story of American intrigue, Kurdish betrayal and superpower support for the Muslim nation, Turkey, which has become Israel's newest ally in the Middle East.

Monday's seizure of the Kurds' most radical leader is likely to lead to much further violence: to the hijacking of Turkish aircraft, to attacks on Turkish embassies and diplomats as the Turks are themselves well aware.

But it also raises questions about the policies of the United States towards Kurdistan's 20m people.

Only a month ago, the US, whose CIA mission in northern Iraq was destroyed by Saddam Hussein in 1996, was trying yet again to create an anti-Saddam alliance between the two more parochial Kurdish leaders, Massoud Barzani of the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) and Jalal Talabani, leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK).

After their visit to Washington, Barzani and Talabani are now more or less on board the latest American campaign to overthrow the Beast of Baghdad.

With very good reason, Turkey was deeply troubled at this latest alliance. If Barzani and Talabani were ever to create an embryo Kurdish state in northern Iraq, the threat of a much larger Kurdish entity including parts of Turkey, Syria and Iran as well as Iraq would appear greater.

How could Turkey show its anger? One way was to invite a senior Iraqi official to Ankara to discuss a withdrawal of Turkish landing rights for US and British fighter-bombers in southern Turkey the very airfields from which Anglo-US aircraft are bombing northern Iraq.

Tariq Aziz duly arrived in Ankara at the weekend as an honoured guest of the Turkish prime minister only to be told, on Monday, that his request had been turned down. And then momentum mirabilis within hours of Turkey's rebuff to the Iraqis, Ocalan fell into their hands in Nairobi, where the CIA happens to have its Africa headquarters.

So what happens next? True, it's not a good time to fly on Turkish airlines or take a Turkish holiday or queue at a Turkish embassy visa office. Mr Ocalan's chums are about as choosy as a cruise missile when it comes to slaughtering civilians in the pursuit of their political aims.

Oddly enough, Ocalan has now returned to Turkey unarmed, as he said he wished to do in 1993. He can now embark on the ``political action'' he spoke about then in a court appearance that will be one of the most closely observed in the world. Of course, this is always supposing he doesn't suffer the unfortunate fate of other Kurdish prisoners: to be found an inexplicable suicide, hanging from his cell window.

by ROBERT FISK, Irish Independent.

KChanna

09-11-2006, 11:13 PM

I think Ralph Peters needs to get his head out of the Imperialistic American Policy! and before worrying about middle-eastern issues.I have a few solutions for redefining american borders if Ralph wants!

How about giving the southern states to the Ethinic African Americans!
How about giving some land to the Ethinic Hispanic People!

Worry about more than 40 million underprivelaged americans before you can profess your ideas to the rest of the world to re-define middle-east!

zorr

09-12-2006, 01:22 AM

Kurdistan_Serok

09-12-2006, 09:47 AM

Abdullah Ocalan the Courier of Peace (http://www.abdullah-ocalan.com/index1.htm)

in this website you can see and read the ideology of the Greatest Leader of the Middle east. someone that will think about all not only his nation.

cakir

09-12-2006, 12:09 PM

Bu kurtler kendilerini ne saniyorlar lan..dunku ayakabilarimizi boyayan simdi adami oldu basimiza?

Ne kanlar doktuk bu ulke icin ta osmanli zamaninda simdiye kadar bunlar yok kurdistan kurulacak diyorlar bizim topraklarimizda. Lan PKK serefsizleri al defolun gidin topraklarimizdan hepsi hayal aslanim bu vatan ayaktayken giydimiz donu alamasiniz lan..Kurtler deyipte yanlis anlamayin, her kurt kotu degildir ama bu PKK picleri yokmu..hepsini teker teker dasaklarina sikacan sefersizlerin..hem ekmegemizi yiyin sonra arkamizdan vurun..asil bunlara vatan haini derler..Hukumeti sucluyorum..amerika ve avrupa diye diye sizlere erminelere yaptigizmizi sizede yapsaydik cakal gibi havlamasiniz..
Alparslan Turkes gibi birisi lazimdi..ne yaziki o giderken MHP'de gitti :(

Turkuz
Elhamdilullah Muslumaniz
Bayragamiza el kaldiranin anasini aglatiriz
Dikkat edin!
Ne kurdu ne amerakalisini taniriz
EZERiZ!!!

diyako

09-14-2006, 01:28 AM

@cakir
....hepsini teker teker dasaklarina sikacan sefersizlerin..hem ekmegemizi yiyin sonra arkamizdan vurun..asil bunlara vatan haini derler..Hukumeti sucluyorum..amerika ve avrupa diye diye sizlere erminelere yaptigizmizi sizede yapsaydik cakal gibi havlamasiniz..
Alparslan Turkes gibi birisi lazimdi..ne yaziki o giderken MHP'de gitti

Turkuz
Elhamdilullah Muslumaniz
Bayragamiza el kaldiranin anasini aglatiriz
Dikkat edin!
Ne kurdu ne amerakalisini taniriz
EZERiZ!!!

Weldone!!!

You already have someone like Alparslan Turkeş , your general Yaşar Büyükanıt, who doesn’t hesitated to kill one years old baby ,simply for just been a Kurdish, your dark regime its last desperate attempted of desperation by killing innocent children of Kurdistan Capital , Amed(Diyarbakir)in 11/09/2006 by your Turkish Revenge Brigades (TIT) , who has been well trained for years to kill inconet kurdish women and children.it happen just less than 24 when Kurdish leaders ask for preeminent ceasefire and peaces between Kurds and Turks. Kurdish nation favor of peace and political solution to this conflict.
You can bring USA, whole world; you cannot stop Kurds, for their legitimate demand. Your fascist general Yaşar Büyükanıt who has been busy training “good Turkish killers ” as he did in Şemzinan(Şemdinli)and person like you who thirsty for blood , doesn’t want any peaceful solution to Kurdish problem but only blood, if you think by killing our children and bombing our civilian, you revenging your solider blood in battle field, you have Mistaken!!, your government and your terrorist and criminal general are will be doomed and we will by help good Turkish poepls who want peace and freddom for kurds we will hunt this criminal . I can assure you, time is ticking as we speaking. This suffering of Kurds, will bring you more suffer. Make no mistake!!! , don’t compare Kurds with Armenian, Alexander the Great could cross Kurdistan but only with peace making was able, your fake sub mask Islam phobia of Turkish fascism day by day appear in each Kurdish eye as well as whole world, today even some Turkish start realizing the facts about this such horrific crimes against Kurdish nation, they have opened their eyes and they see Kurdish nation as reality and must be accepted there is no other alternative, , with whole arsenal and weaponry you have from USA, and Israel and EU, you event can handle 5000 Kurdish freedom fighters, just forget about 50 millions Kurds, you may kill 10 and bomb in Amed(Diyarbakir) today but Tomorrow we reborn them to 20 .I am not member PKK , but in this moment when you continue your genocidal and oppressing my nation and depriving them for been a human , I can tell you how proudly , how hardcore PKK I am, all 50 million Kurds in heart are PKK, so weld one!! Tell Yaşar Büyükanıt they doing good job!!!

Kurdistan_Serok

09-14-2006, 12:09 PM

Diyarbakir (13.09.2006) – Last night a bomb blasted in Baglar-Diyarbakir, near Kosyolu Park in front of a bus stop. Eight people were killed, 6 of them children, 16 people wounded. The wounded were taken to Dicle University Medicine Faculty. DTP (Democratic Society Party) representatives stated that during a period where messages are being given to end hostilities indicated that this type of incident is the work of dark forces. Former JITEM (Gendarme Intelligence Organisation Centre), Special Forces and confessors were brought to the city a short period before the incident.

1 Year Old Baby Died

1 Year old baby, Ezgi Yetisecek, taken into intensive care died, a heavily wounded 7-8 year child is in critical condition. 12 people are being treated at Diyarbakir State Hospital.

The names of the wounded during the blast are as follows: Erkan Bir, Mubin Cicekli, Ali Haydar Kaplan, Sahin Songur, Murat Akboz, Hasan Cakar, A. Samet Ilhan, Selahattin Altinoglu, Mehmet Simsek, Neytullah Dag, Seyfettin Can, Vehbi Tanriverdi, Suleyman Yuksel, Emine Yetisecek, Nadihe Cetinkaya.

STATEMENT BY BAYDEMIR

Diyarbakir Municipal Mayor Osman Baydemir was in Istanbul yesterday called for cease-fire at a press conference. Baydemir made a statement regarding the incident stating that some forces want to take the country into darness despite their call for peace, “however we are are adamant in pulling the country out of the dark and into the light.”

Democratic Society Party (DTP) Vice President Sedat Yurttas stated that the explosion in Diyarbakir is a provocation.

JITEM Members Were Called to Diyarbakir

Baglar municipal is the poorest in Diyarbakir. Diyarbakir is the lagest Kurdish city in Turkey. It comprises mainly of forcibly displaced people due to the terror of Turkish military forces from the region. For this reason for the incident to take place at Baglar and after a call for peace does create intrigue as to who is behind the incident. A short period before the incident former members of JITEM was called to Diyarbakir.

A separate building by the 7th Army Corps Commandship was allocated 3 weeks ago to educate JITEM and confessors on operational and intelligence matters.

Kurdistan_Serok

09-14-2006, 12:13 PM

bezgin

09-14-2006, 04:37 PM

There is no word from the Kurdistan Liberation Hawks (TAK), a group believed linked to the PKK which claimed responsibility for attacks in August. TAK has threatened to turn Turkey into "hell" over its policies towards the Kurds.

The handmade bomb exploded as it was being transported in a thermos, Turkish authorities said Wednesday. The information adds to suspicions that the bombing may have been a mistake, and that the device was intended for a different target. Reports said the bomb was placed in a large thermos.

Diyarbakır is a hotbed of PKK activity, which has a solid base in the city of around one million people.

As one body was torn apart beyond recognition, police were considering the possibility that it belonged to the person carrying the bomb.

Residents were perplexed by the blast, given local support for rebels.

The PKK took up arms in 1984 with the goal of creating a Kurdish homeland in southeast Turkey. More than 30,000 people have since been killed in the conflict.

The PKK took up arms in 1984 with the goal of creating a Kurdish homeland in southeast Turkey. More than 30,000 people have since been killed in the conflict.

Kurdistan_Serok

09-14-2006, 06:58 PM

Kurdistan_Serok

09-14-2006, 07:00 PM

Kurdishinfo -In the statement issued through an internet site, http://www.turkintikamtugayi.8m.com/ the Turkish Renvenge Brigade’s assumed the bomb attack in Diyarbakir, which killed 11 and wounded over 16 people on 12 September.

The statement was titled, “To Our Great Turkish People,
Lately the hands in blood PKK terror organisation have been orchestrating treacherous ambushes and raids through our country and as a result many of our young Soldiers and Police officers were martyred.”

The organisation stated that they will kill 10 Kurds in Diyarbakir for every Turk that is killed.

This organisation has poped up every once in while in the past and perpatrated similar atrocities.

Kurdistan_Serok

09-14-2006, 07:03 PM

This News with related images of terrorists "TIT" (http://www.kurdishinfo.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3944)

The notorious Turkish ultra-nationalist terrorist group ‘Turkish Revenge Brigade’ (Turkish: “Turk Intikam Tugayi”, “TIT”) claimed on their homepage responsibility for the bomb attack outside a family park in the Baglar district of Amed (Diyarbakir) in northern Kurdistan (southeastern Turkey). The blast killed seven Kurdish children and three adults. Another 13 people were wounded, of them two seriously.

[UPDATED] NEWSDESK, Sep 14 (DozaMe.org) - The notorious Turkish ultra-nationalist terrorist group ‘Turkish Revenge Brigade’ (Turkish: “Turk Intikam Tugayi”, “TIT”) claimed on their homepage responsibility for the bomb attack outside a family park in the Baglar district of Amed (Diyarbakir) in northern Kurdistan (southeastern Turkey). The blast killed seven Kurdish children and three adults. Another 13 people were wounded, of them two seriously.

The blast occurred around 21:00 (9 p.m. EEST) at a bus stop outside a family park in Baglar district of Amed (Diyarbakir) ripping through a crowd consisting of Kurdish families on their way home from the park. A total of 10 Kurds, seven of them children, were killed and thirteen others were wounded.

The names of the dead are:

* Nazli Çetinkaya and her children Abdullah Çetinkaya (5 months), Nazar Çetinkaya (2)
* Vahide Demir (33) and her children Mizgin Demir (12), Zilan Demir (8), Shilan Demir (6 months) and Evin Demir
* Rojhat Aslan

Two other killed in the blast have not yet been identified.

On their website http://turkintikamtugayi.8m.com, the Turkish ultra-nationalist terrorist group TIT claimed yesterday responsibility for the blast outside the family park in the Baglar district.

“To the great Turkish people. In the recent period in many of the areas of our country, the bloody PKK terrorist organization has martyred our soldiers, police officers and our youth. We, as the Turkish Revenge Brigade, swear on our flag colored red with the blood of our martyrs, that for every Turk that PKK kills in [western Turkey], we will kill 10 Kurds in Diyarbakir. […] Here are photos taken during the preparation for the operation on September 12, 2006, dedicated to Private Ali Balikci who was martyred during duty by the PKK terrorist organization in the Eruh district of Siirt,” the statement read. It ends with the slogan, “A good Kurd is a dead Kurd.”

A set of pictures were added to the homepage, showing the preparation of the bomb that was used in the attack. The bomb consisted of a 12-liter blue termos container, a walkie-talkie relay detonator, an activator, the top of a metal gas container as a balancing weight that was placed in the bottom of the termos and a case believed to contain C-4 plastic explosive.

A RUTHLESS GROUP WITH A BLACK HISTORY

The ‘Turkish Revenge Brigade’ gained fame during the political clashes between left-wing and right-wing groups in Turkey and Kurdistan in the 70s and 80s. The group is believed to be responsible for over 1,000 deaths during that time period.

The group was scattered with the Turkish military takeover on September 12, 1980, and most of its members were arrested during the first sweep by the Junta. The members were later released and integrated with the Turkish military intelligence agency JITEM and used in black operations against Kurdish political and cultural figures during the Kurdish insurgency in the mid-80s and throughout the 90s. The group has maintained low-profile since PKK’s unilateral ceasefire on September 1, 1998.

TIT is now believed to be one of many subsections of the gang collectively known as “Atabeyler.” The Atabeyler gang’s existence — believed to be an ‘open secret’ in the corridors of Ankara — was unearthed by the Turkish AKP administration after an attack on the Turkish Council of State on May 17, 2006. The Turkish judge Mustafa Yücel Özbilgin of the Second Chamber was killed and four other judges were wounded. The assailant, Alparslan Aslan, a lawyer with Islamic fundamentalist and Turkish ultra-nationalist sympathies, was arrested for the murder.

Alparslan Aslan’s interrogation led to the arrest of several retired and serving military service men and police officers. The operation was named as “Atabeyler Operation” but satisfying results could not be obtained due to interference by the higher Turkish military echelon who claimed most of the suspects as “their own.” A reference in Turkey enough to make anybody an ‘untouchable’.

The Atabeyler’s aim was to provoke a new military takeover in Turkey.

memo4

09-14-2006, 08:09 PM

Dear Mr Peters
I have recently become aware of your commentary named “Blood borders” .

As you clearly indicate in your commentary, the borders change in time. Of course there is no doubt about that.

One little note however, they usually change not because ordinary humble people want it but because of some crazy politician who is after a cheap and quick fame (usually pumped up by his military advisors who are also after their life time adventure - as long as their sons are not at front line that is ).

No Mr Peters me and millions of likeminded simple people don’t want to change borders with blood, hardship, misery and have never ending feud after wards while you guys comfortable sit in your lounge rooms watch us on your TV screens suffer.

You can change borders in your imagination or your imaginary world. We have no problem with that.

But please do not start or limit yourself only with Turkey’s or its neighbours’ borders.
You can even go further.
You can let Spaniards, American Indians; African Indians and others have their own independent states or borders within the USA. You can even fancy giving independent status to people not only for their ethnic origin but for gender, colour, height, eye colour, hair style etc.

There is no border to stop for you Mr Peters.

Kurds of Turkey are and have been the first class citizens of the country for more a thousand year Mr Peters (since the time of Turkish migration to Anatolia at around 700 AC). They never set up their own independent state and they have always been part of many Turkish empires (Selcuks, Ottoman and now Turkish republic). They have fought for this land against occupying forces along with the Turks and many other ethnic groups in Anatolia.

Currently they have no more or no less rights than any other ethnic group in Turkey. They share and contribute to the well being of the country they live in. These people share a history of more than a thousand years in that area. Kurds are just like Turks free to enjoy everything that country has. Kurds are in the public sector, government; they even became prime minister and president of Turkey. (By the way just quickly looking at your own back yard, how many American Indian or African Indian president you had Mr Peters?). Plus why confine them to a land locked area while they can enjoy everything the fertile Anatolia offers (seas, climate, abundant water, agriculture, industry, human resources)

Just because, a few adventure minded separatist who are encouraged by other powers to serve their own agenda (as witnessed by a number of times in the region and as known a recurrence of the history) wanted or just because of a few commentaries like yourself dreamed of further divisions in the historically and strategically important region of the world, the borders do not change Mr Peters.

As I expressed before if you want to have intellectual fantasies please start looking at your own back yard first. And don’t stop by ethnical divisions but keep going for physical and mental differences and divisions too.
Regards

bezgin

09-14-2006, 10:09 PM

PKK 'behind' Turkey resort bomb

Victims included holiday-makers visiting the popular resort
Turkish authorities believe Kurdish PKK separatists planted Saturday's bomb on a tourist bus, said the UK ambassador.
"They are virtually certain this is the PKK," Sir Peter Westmacott said.

The five people killed were Helen Bennett, of Co Durham, and Tara Whelan, 17, of Co Waterford, Ireland, and three Turkish nationals.

Among at least 13 injured are Stephen Staples and Michael Aspinall, of north-east England, and Toni and Sam Punshon and Adam Megoran, of Co Durham.

Mr Staples and Mr Aspinall suffered serious injuries and are still being treated at Ege University Hospital in Izmir, north of Kusadasi.

Violent campaign

Despite the explosion, Sir Peter said people should not to be deterred from visiting Turkey.

Turkish blast woman named

The PKK, considered a terrorist organisation by the US and EU, has been staging a violent campaign against the Turkish government for an independent Kurdish state since 1978.

More than 37,000 people have been killed in the campaign.

The rebels declared a unilateral truce in 1999, but ended it in 2004, saying Turkey had not done enough to meet their demands.

'Repugnant act'

No group has yet claimed responsibility for Saturday's blast, which Turkish officials suspect may have been caused by a parcel bomb, not a suicide bomber as first believed.

The British woman died of her injuries after having been taken on to the nearest city, Izmir - 90km (56 miles) away - for medical treatment, along with the other wounded Britons.

Send us your comments
UK tour operator Thomas Cook has confirmed that two of those killed in the attack and the five injured Britons were their customers.

"One guest was travelling with Thomas Cook Tour Operations, and the other with Thomas Cook UK & Ireland's subsidiary company, Sunworld Ireland," company spokeswoman Faith Wooton said of the dead holidaymakers.

The explosion is the second in the area within a week

"Thomas Cook's first priority is the welfare of its customers, and the company's overseas team is on hand to support the injured guests and their families," she added.

Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer and Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern have condemned the attack, while UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw called it a "repugnant act".

But, after visiting the injured in hospital, the UK ambassador told the BBC the feeling among many holiday-makers in Turkey as well as among the Turkish locals was that "life must go on" - similar to the response to the London bombs.

The minibus blast came six days after a bombing in the nearby town of Cesme, which left at least 20 people injured.

Kurdish militants claimed responsibility for that attack, as well as one in Kusadasi in April, in which one policeman was killed and four other people were wounded.

Militants both from the far left and from Islamist circles have carried out bombings in Turkey in the past, as have Kurdish rebels.

Kurdistan_Serok

09-15-2006, 09:14 AM

and Dear memo4 please watch these links below and then talk about Kurds in turkey that they are first class or even they say there is any Kurd in turkey or they will say mountain turkish ?!?! first gather some info. then send thread.

Dear Mr Peters
I have recently become aware of your commentary named “Blood borders” .

As you clearly indicate in your commentary, the borders change in time. Of course there is no doubt about that.

One little note however, they usually change not because ordinary humble people want it but because of some crazy politician who is after a cheap and quick fame (usually pumped up by his military advisors who are also after their life time adventure - as long as their sons are not at front line that is ).

No Mr Peters me and millions of likeminded simple people don’t want to change borders with blood, hardship, misery and have never ending feud after wards while you guys comfortable sit in your lounge rooms watch us on your TV screens suffer.

You can change borders in your imagination or your imaginary world. We have no problem with that.

But please do not start or limit yourself only with Turkey’s or its neighbours’ borders.
You can even go further.
You can let Spaniards, American Indians; African Indians and others have their own independent states or borders within the USA. You can even fancy giving independent status to people not only for their ethnic origin but for gender, colour, height, eye colour, hair style etc.

There is no border to stop for you Mr Peters.

Kurds of Turkey are and have been the first class citizens of the country for more a thousand year Mr Peters (since the time of Turkish migration to Anatolia at around 700 AC). They never set up their own independent state and they have always been part of many Turkish empires (Selcuks, Ottoman and now Turkish republic). They have fought for this land against occupying forces along with the Turks and many other ethnic groups in Anatolia.

Currently they have no more or no less rights than any other ethnic group in Turkey. They share and contribute to the well being of the country they live in. These people share a history of more than a thousand years in that area. Kurds are just like Turks free to enjoy everything that country has. Kurds are in the public sector, government; they even became prime minister and president of Turkey. (By the way just quickly looking at your own back yard, how many American Indian or African Indian president you had Mr Peters?). Plus why confine them to a land locked area while they can enjoy everything the fertile Anatolia offers (seas, climate, abundant water, agriculture, industry, human resources)

Just because, a few adventure minded separatist who are encouraged by other powers to serve their own agenda (as witnessed by a number of times in the region and as known a recurrence of the history) wanted or just because of a few commentaries like yourself dreamed of further divisions in the historically and strategically important region of the world, the borders do not change Mr Peters.

As I expressed before if you want to have intellectual fantasies please start looking at your own back yard first. And don’t stop by ethnical divisions but keep going for physical and mental differences and divisions too.
Regards