Turkey Recalls Ambassador Over Genocide Resolution

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/...ans/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301221,00.html

Quote:

---

ANKARA, Turkey — Turkey ordered its ambassador in Washington to return to Turkey for consultations over a U.S. House panel's approval of a bill describing the World War I-era mass killings of Armenians as genocide, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said Thursday.

---

So, is it worth risking US relations with Turkey which are crucial to the progress of the Iraq War to make sure the Armenian Genocide isn't lost in history?

I'd say so, yes.

Relations may be more or less useful for the 'war', but there are other nations in the region too which are US vassals.

Besides, wouldn't it be ... hypocritical to not denounce a genocide just because you want to be in someone's good will? Denounce terror and genocide and those who do not support you, but your friends can do all that and get away with it?

Of course that would be nothing new.
So what's next? Darfur is not a genocide?

Seems a bit late and pointless to denounce it really, what purpose does it serve? How is the current Turkish government responsible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Seems a bit late and pointless to denounce it really, what purpose does it serve? How is the current Turkish government responsible.

---

They are not responsible, but they deny it at all costs.

Its not like the current German government is responsible for the holocaust either though.

Either way, this is not about which government is responsible, but to highlight the plight of those affected and their extended families and survivors. If Turkey feels not directly responsible, then they shouldn't make a fuss about it.

That's the weird part. Neither the Turkish Republic nor its founders had anything to do with the genocide (unlike the German state which is the legal successor to the German Reich; mind you we're talking legalities here, if we're talking practical matters it's something different), but it's the Turkish Republic that is so virulently denying it was a genocide in the first place, allowing the Armenian state (rightfully so after that) to demand an apology.

The question here is how far are the Turks willing to go. If they cut off U.S. air supplies they're risking a whole lot -- their position in the NATO and their supply of fresh craft for their air fleet. I don't think they'll try stuff like that; in a bluffing game it's big ol' Uncle Sam that's got the cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

They are not responsible, but they deny it at all costs.

---

Probably they thought some illusory "national pride" is at stake. :dizzy2:

Bah, nationalists.

I think the Turk's refuse it on a matter of pride (not that this is necessarily a bad thing) as it can be argued the the Armenians weren't exactly peaches to begin with either. I don't condone mass killings of any kind, (der) but I'm of the belief that this was an armed uprising handled very very incorrectly, not a genocide.

As much as I love a smack in the chops to the freakishly nationalistic state Turkey, this was just stupid pandering to Armenian constituents by US Senators like Pelosi (I'm sure there were Republicans doing the same). Every living Secretary of State signed a letter to the House saying this was stupid.

Hey, this was a predetermined mass murder perpetrated by the Ottoman military, commanded by Enver Pasha, as the main act in the Ottoman part in a period of major and incredibly bloody violence between Muslims (Turks, Kurds, Laz) and Christians (Armenians, Assyrians, Russians) in the Eastern part of what remained of the Ottoman empire, bordering Russia. The Armenians and their Russian buddies did plenty of killing too (this is where the official Turkish view on things is correct), just that they didn't resort to forcing thousands upon thousands of people to walk halfway across the Middle East without food or water.

Besides that, Congress has adapted resolutions like this before. The only consideration that can (and should) play is: is it worth doing the right thing (recognizing the existence of a genocide on Armenians, with the anecdote that the Armenians weren't exactly lambs for the slaughter either) if that can lead to your men and women trying to do their life-threatening job somewhere getting in big, big trouble? Considering it's unlikely the Turks can stare Washington down, I'd say yes.

I have to post but I don't really want to say too much, I'm far too biased.

We're all brothers: Armenians, Georgians, Turks, Azeris, and we should act brotherly. I don't blame Turks for the Genocide. I don't blame the Turkish government for the Genocide. All the people who are responsible are dead. However, the denial of it is incredibly insulting and it feels like a kick while one is down.

Now, I am not going to play the innocent card, many of us were rather angry with the government at the time, especially after the Hamidian massacres. I don't endorse the retalitory acts by Armenians, but I could see why the relationship quickly took a turn for the worse.

The use of the word 'deportation' is just plain wrong for a few reasons, but chiefly, why are people burnt, shot, and stabbed for a deportation? The burning is what really gets me, that is too obvious.
I doubt the U.S. will approve of this bill because the higher ups prove time and time again that they care about one thing: power. If they do this, they sour a relationship with a powerful friend.
I don't buy this "set-back for Turkish-Armenian relations" rot. This is a step forward!
Why does the Turkish government deny the Genocide anyway? They didn't do it, the Turkish people didn't do it. It was put into action by a few crazy nationalists-- who, tragically were in extreme positions of power-- and carried out by large amounts of convicts and like minded nationalists.
I seriously do not understand the nationalism behind this. Why could someone be so naive as to think their country has done no wrong? Hell, my country has, even recently in the Azerbaijan conflict.
I am puzzled, truly confused as to why the Turkish government cannot admit it. Are they afraid the Grey Wolves will attack? Why do they continue?

Again, I'm really biased, but I would like to read potential answers to the questions posed.

You too, eh? Quite a déjà vu.

Bad timing eh , a day after cross border shelling and a week before a vote on invasion .

Yes, really. And they think we work with the PKK! I support the idea of a Kurdish nation in Northern Iraq, but I will not tolerate terrorism or the killing of innocents. I really hope that with this we can join Georgia in being supported by the US rather than Russia. Georgia really came out of the USSR firing on all cylinders, which I truly do admire-- although they didn't have to deal with a devastating earthquake and some stupid conflict caused by nationalism and a lack of truly caring leaders.
Why the cynicism? We're human but we're not evil.

I apologize, I seem to display the Armenian stereotype of being a political one-trick horse. We're not actually like that, but I don't really think that the crowd here at the .Org is the closeminded generalisation favoring group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Bad timing eh , a day after cross border shelling and a week before a vote on invasion .

---

Yes, indeed. If Turkey, further emboldened by anger at the US resolution, launches anti-PKK attacks into northern Iraq, what leg has the US to stand on if Iran does the same, to respond to their PKK cross-border attacks? Repel Iran, but not Turkey? Or repel both Iran and a NATO ally? Or stand there crying "stop"?

And, as a side note, if we're gonna offocially deplore genocides (a term not coined until 1943), how soon will we see the resolution deploring the genocide of native americans?

Irish Armenian, I like to hear your opinion and to me (ok, I don't really know a lot about the topic :sweatdrop: ) you don't sound very biased. Maybe biased towards peace and understanding. :2thumbsup:

That said, I don't know what's so bad about acknowledging the bad things someone else has done, is it just because he happened to be born inside the same national borders? :inquisitive:

I don't know why the US even thinks about how to look upon this but then big organizations always want to say something about events that hardly have anything to do with them.
Guess it's to show support for the armenian community as some said.

Now heres a thought that perhaps one of the Turkish members could ponder .
If people in Turkey campaigned against 301 which is used to cover prosecution for calling the events genocide , would they be breaching that law by their actions?

I just don't believe the USA has any right to call the Turkish-Armenian Situation a Genocide, if we can't even fess up to our own.

I don't support the idea that governments are to decide history.

That should be left to the historians. And laws constricting their research(both ways, of course) are idiotic and pointless, and serves only to poke at each other. The turks pokes at armenians by jailing people calling it a genocide, now other countries wants to poke the turks for not calling it genocide. A pointless role for a state to play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

I just don't believe the USA has any right to call the Turkish-Armenian Situation a Genocide, if we can't even fess up to our own.

---

The Native American condition is very well documented and taught in public schools. I believe the government has "fessed up" to it in many ways, including financial aid and other benefits given to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Now heres a thought that perhaps one of the Turkish members could ponder .
If people in Turkey campaigned against 301 which is used to cover prosecution for calling the events genocide , would they be breaching that law by their actions?

---

It depends on the judge. 301 has such a broad range, that in theory even saying something like "Turkish soccer team sucks" may get you in trouble:laugh4: But of course they don't exaggerate it that much. There are many people protesting 301.

I don't think the real question here is whether there was a genocide or not. The question is whether a political body has the right to make a judgement for something that has happened in history. Of course a genocide that happened 5 years ago should be discussed as you can do something about it, like bringing the ones that committed the crime to trial etc. But this has happened almost 100 years ago. None of the people responsible for it are alive. What purpose do such bills have(other than pleasing Armenian voters)? They only result in fueling the hatred between Turks and Armenians. Every time such a vote is discussed, the voice of Turkish extreme nationalists gets stronger. If this issue was not discussed by foreign countries so much, I am sure Turks would eventually accept what has happened.

Actually I hope the bill will be passed this time, so we will not hear anymore about it. But I doubt it will pass. Until now USA played both to Armenians and Turks; discussing it for Armenians sake, and then not passing it for Turks sake. It will probably continue that way.

Quote:

---

The question here is how far are the Turks willing to go. If they cut off U.S. air supplies they're risking a whole lot -- their position in the NATO and their supply of fresh craft for their air fleet. I don't think they'll try stuff like that; in a bluffing game it's big ol' Uncle Sam that's got the cards.

---

That's not really important. What matters more is the EU, if they want to be in it they will have to say the Genocide happened ... or don't deny it the way they do ... sure this has nothing to do with America, but most Europeans aren't as stupid as they look, they also hear with Turkey says about this now. And they might not like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

That's not really important. What matters more is the EU, if they want to be in it they will have to say the Genocide happened ... .

---

No. Officially there is no such precondition for Turkey's admittance to EU, even though the European Parliament insisted that Turkey should do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Komutan

What purpose do such bills have(other than pleasing Armenian voters)?

---

Apart from propaganda value, not really.

I agree that a place like Congress is the most appropriate to discuss historical issues, unless there's a diplomatic agenda at work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Komutan

If this issue was not discussed by foreign countries so much, I am sure Turks would eventually accept what has happened.

---

Oh, but that is a problem, you see, because meanwhile the Turkish government and whatever extreme nationalist scumbags within it will proceed to brainwash your nation from the roots: by whitewashing the history textbooks. The consequence of that, if successful, would be for the genocide to be forgotten forever, unacknowledged.

The activists and I suppose some historians cannot accept that, so they continue to raise the issue, even if the calm from controversy might just as well be the thing the Turkish people needs from another perspective. As long as the controversy continues no one will forget.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

The Native American condition is very well documented and taught in public schools. I believe the government has "fessed up" to it in many ways, including financial aid and other benefits given to them.

---

Have you ever been to a reservation? These places are the dirtiest, poorest, and most crime ridden places in the USA. The Crow Indian Reservation outside of Billings qualifies as the poorest place in the USA, and just by looking at it you'll see exactly why. Yeah, we were taught that we weren't be nice the Natives in School, but they don't ever tell you to what extent, you have to see it for your own eyes and you can. The very idea that the Natives Must stay in these dirt poor hovels, without guarantee of a job, or electricity, or clean water just so that they can get a Federal Aid Check every 2 months is just barely enough for them to stay, because most of them are afraid that they'll lose what little shreds of the Cultural Pride they have left if they leave... not exactly what I would call "Financial aid and benefits".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

Yeah, we were taught that we weren't be nice the Natives in School, but they don't ever tell you to what extent, you have to see it for your own eyes and you can.

---

Um, but neither do we deny the genocide of the Native Americans. I get what you're saying -- they were treated deplorably, are treated deplorably, so the 'fessing up doesn't matter. But that's a sort of misdirection on your part.

America, as a nation, does not deny the genocide of the Native Americans. Full stop. For the purposes of this discussion, I think that's enough. How much worse would it be if every American schoolchild were taught that Indians were really terrorists who vanished 'cause, um, 'cause they just kinda did.

You feel that we have not done enough to compensate the survivors of the Native American genocide? That's a legitimate point of view, but it doesn't create moral equivalence with genocide deniers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

Have you ever been to a reservation? These places are the dirtiest, poorest, and most crime ridden places in the USA. The Crow Indian Reservation outside of Billings qualifies as the poorest place in the USA, and just by looking at it you'll see exactly why. Yeah, we were taught that we weren't be nice the Natives in School, but they don't ever tell you to what extent, you have to see it for your own eyes and you can. The very idea that the Natives Must stay in these dirt poor hovels, without guarantee of a job, or electricity, or clean water just so that they can get a Federal Aid Check every 2 months is just barely enough for them to stay, because most of them are afraid that they'll lose what little shreds of the Cultural Pride they have left if they leave... not exactly what I would call "Financial aid and benefits".

---

I think we're talking on two different levels.

Like Lemur said, I certainly am not arguing that the Native Americans are treated well or that the US has or is repairing the damage. Im just saying that the US government does not deny what was done to them and in fact it has become an increasingly large part of American History classes. I remember in school there was a whole chapter devoted to the treatment of the slaves, the Native Americans and the immigrant Asian workers, along with descriptions of the treatment of the Indians in other chapters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Um, but neither do we deny the genocide of the Native Americans. I get what you're saying -- they were treated deplorably, are treated deplorably, so the 'fessing up doesn't matter. But that's a sort of misdirection on your part.

America, as a nation, does not deny the genocide of the Native Americans. Full stop. For the purposes of this discussion, I think that's enough. How much worse would it be if every American schoolchild were taught that Indians were really terrorists who vanished 'cause, um, 'cause they just kinda did.

You feel that we have not done enough to compensate the survivors of the Native American genocide? That's a legitimate point of view, but it doesn't create moral equivalence with genocide deniers.

---

Well... this is kind of tricky actually, because while as Americans we do not deny the genocide of Natives it doesn't actually read the same on paper; its sort of the exact opposite situation that the Turks face. Americans don't deny it, and our government doesn't either, but it's not willing to "Officially" Recognize it as a Genocide because the Federal Government feels it compensated the Natives by giving them Federal Aid and their own respective Sovereign Nations (albeit fully in control by the Federal Government). But the Reservation System while a good idea in theory, was seriously taken out of context in the 1880s-1890s, because the Government really didn't want to pay for it, nor do anything to solve the situation. after most of the population had already been massacred they just corralled them into their own neighborhoods and threw money at them, even if they never had any use for it to begin with.

And being a Montanan and living around some of these Neo Nazi...*bleh* Hill Folk, I can certainly tell you that to some people living around here, have to some extent a bias (though never spoken of publicly) they don't believe the Genocide ever took place, or wish they would have fully finished the job. Its really disgusting, considering some of the best friends I've ever had in my life were Natives (mostly Blackfoot and some Sioux). And these people STILL believe that the Federal Government are just trying to throw money at the problem instead of attempting to build up commerce, or put some kick in their economy so that they can live a higher standard of life (and this doesn't include Indian Casinos as most Natives believe these aren't the positive kinds of change they want).

We don't deny our own genocide. But we're unwilling to do anything in earnest to solve it 110 years later. I don't know which ones worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Komutan

No. Officially there is no such precondition for Turkey's admittance to EU, even though the European Parliament insisted that Turkey should do it.

---

Believe me, if they want to join they'll have to admit it happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

Believe me, if they want to join they'll have to admit it happened.

---

Not really, just have them stop prosecuting people for talking about it should be enough.

Although I do suppose the french could behave like idiots and demand idiotic things...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

Believe me, if they want to join they'll have to admit it happened.

---

Yeah right, the only thing that stops Turkey from joining is Turkey not doing so. Who or whatever is running the EU has already decided.

Does the US government actually call what happed to the native Americans genocide or do they call it exploitation and other non committal words?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

Does the US government actually call what happed to the native Americans genocide or do they call it exploitation and other non committal words?

---

Unfortunately, it's a little bit complicated. The word "genocide" wasn't an accepted term until 1948, whereas the Indian Wars were entirely over by 1895. So the legal frameworks and administrative bodies for handling the survivors were all in place well before the word "genocide" was being bandied about.

Another complicating factor is the "virgin soil epidemic" in North America. Put simply, European settlers brought some nasty pathogens with them, such as smallpox, measles, influenza, whooping cough, diphtheria, typhus, bubonic plague, cholera and scarlet fever. All of these diseases were minty-fresh to the Americas. The best estimates are that 75 to 90 percent of the deaths of Native Americans came from these pathogens. Entire tribes went extinct without any war or effort on the part of the Europeans. Does this qualify as a genocide?

And yes, there were deliberate efforts to spread disease among the natives, but the historical evidence is thin. Admittedly, people engaging in early biological warfare wouldn't be eager to document their actions, but given the morals of the time, I can't see that they would be worried about any efforts made to kill people they would have regarded as red-skinned, godless heathens, either. The only recorded incident where smallpox was deliberately spread among Native Americans was in 1763, when Sir Jeffrey Amherst ordered that blankets from the smallpox hospital be distributed among the Ohio tribes. What the British authorities did not know was that smallpox was already raging among the Ohio, so it's debatable whether Sir Jeffrey's episode of biological villainy had any effect.

Ye gods, this is a huge topic. Don't forget that the Indian Wars occurred over centuries, with many different tribes and many different Europeans battling or allying over a wide variety of causes.

I think by the 1800s, with the Europeans so entrenched and powerful, and the Native Americans so decimated and scattered, it became something very similar to genocide. A lot of politicians saw the Indians as a problem in need of solving. I can't seem to track down the exact quote, but a Civil War general was sent west to evaluate the Natives and see what could be done with them. Could they be integrated into American life? Could they be preserved? Could we co-exist or not? He wrote back a chilling letter with a line that burned itself into my brain: "If they are to survive, it will only be as a species of beggar."

That's getting close to calling for a Final Solution.

Many historians call it genocide, and the U.S. government has never disputed it. Some historians argue the accuracy of the term. Here's an example:

In the end, the sad fate of America's Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values. Despite the efforts of well-meaning people in both camps, there existed no good solution to this clash. The Indians were not prepared to give up the nomadic life of the hunter for the sedentary life of the farmer. The new Americans, convinced of their cultural and racial superiority, were unwilling to grant the original inhabitants of the continent the vast preserve of land required by the Indians’ way of life. The consequence was a conflict in which there were few heroes, but which was far from a simple tale of hapless victims and merciless aggressors. To fling the charge of genocide at an entire society serves neither the interests of the Indians nor those of history.

Personally, I think it was a genocide, if a complicated one that doesn't necessarily fit into our collective vision of total guilt on one side and total victimhood on the other. I don't know if the U.S. government has taken a particular stand on the issue, and would be grateful if anyone could dig up something official.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Unfortunately, it's a little bit complicated.

Personally, I think it was a genocide, if a complicated one that doesn't necessarily fit into our collective vision of total guilt on one side and total victimhood on the other. I don't know if the U.S. government has taken a particular stand on the issue, and would be grateful if anyone could dig up something official.

---

Hoh-ho! This is our genocide. Most of the hard work was done before the end of the 18th / early 19th century.

That just to further complicate matters. ~;)

Spain, Portugal, France, the Netherlands and Britain are the first responsible for the depopulation and repopulation of the Americas. Later followed by their successor states. Was it a genocide, that is, a deliberate extermination campaign(s)? Well that is indeed very complicated, but on the whole, a quick comparison between wars in Europe fought by these states and the wars they fought in the Americas shows a clear difference: extermination, slavery and repopulation were, not unknown, but incidental and somewhat limited in Europe, but the norm in the Americas. Hence, yes, there was a clear pattern of culpable, genocidal ideology.

I don't know about the official stance, tbh. I think that in the public opinion it is not really a cause of much debate or concern. The general idea is, that France was the least genocidal of the lot. More concerned with trade and less with depopulation and resettlement. (On the continent, not in the Caribbean, mind). And that hence French colonisation has ultimately been limited to the frosty plains of the St. Lawrence river. Whereas Spanish, Portuguese and English are spoken over vast areas multiple the size of Europe. Come to think of it, I think the reluctance to genocide vast areas is somewhat deplored nowadays...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Irish Armenian, I like to hear your opinion and to me (ok, I don't really know a lot about the topic :sweatdrop: ) you don't sound very biased. Maybe biased towards peace and understanding. :2thumbsup:

---

Alright, you asked for it.
It is stupid that such an issue is debated by the American congress. They may be the ones who decide what to do about it, but they are politicians, not historians!
Of course its Genocide! Such an affront to human rights is generally called a genocide, yes? The American Indians, the Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies and others in World War II and many others serve as examples. Real 'repopulation attempts' include provisions, whereas Armenians were marched into the desert with absolutely nothing, shot if they stopped! Real 'repopulation attempts' do not involve gang-rape and burning at the stake. The once prosperous and esteemed Armenian population--known to some historians as 'The Jews of the Ottoman Empire' in that they were an ethnic and religious minority that held mostly financial and administrative positions--suddenly dissapeared should've raised a few eyebrows, and it did amongst many people, including many Turks, who thought of us as a productive and respectful people. All of a sudden, we were no where to be found. We couldn't've possibly fallen of the edge of the earth, so what happened? Its quite obvious when one pursues the facts.
I'm also disgusted with my wayward brothers who seek violent revenge against the Turkish people for it, though. Sure, I think that we were wronged and well, got the shaft when Armenia emerged--Lake Van and Ararat are all I ask, but I digress--but pinning this on the Turkish people or the Turkish government is simply idiotic. As I stated earlier, the Genocide was the work of nationalists and the scum of the empire, recruited from the prisons. Sure, the Turkish government has downplayed the Genocide in a rather insulting fashion, trying to cover something up that was in no way their problem, inadvertently making it their problem, but they didn't commit the Genocide. The Turkish people didn't do it, come on, many hid us from the authorities, risking their lives and the lives of their families*. That is true brotherhood! It saddens me that many of our Turkish brothers have been indoctrinated by their government, but they might be saying the same about me, so that is a pointless endeavour.
Still, people are entitled to their own opinion. The law that was put up--did they succeed?--in France really hurts the cause. That idea of making it a law would reduce France to the level of the present Turkish government, which can arrest one on the grounds of 'Insulting Turkish Identity', which is a load of rot!
The whole situation makes me excruciatingly angry. If there was admittance, compensation, we could go on living our lives as brothers, but no! Some ten-watts on both sides think that compromise for the weak. What fools! They are obviously blind to the way the world works.
I admit, some Armenians, in retaliation for the Hamidian Massacres of the late 19th century, in which hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed, massacred some Turkish towns. Terrible! Atrocious! I am truly ashamed that they did that in the name of Armenia and the Armenian people!
What wee need is to forgive, have a coming together, and the prosper as brothers, as we should! "No!" says the nationalist, "We should punish them for their insolence!" The politicians cater to what they percieve as the masses, but if they looked to the real masses, they'd see people tired of feuding and wanting to set their differences aside. No politicans want that, though, then people actually unite, which politicans fear the most.
This is merely an issue of people thinking that through adament denial, they can rewrite history, which is absolute bollocks.
*"There is no evil without the smallest measure of good"
--Armenian proverb

One US political pundit has opined that the recent foray by Congress into a condemnation of the Armenian genocide (our 2nd or 3rd thereof) was done to:

1. Piss off Turkey so that

2. Turkey would invade and hammer the Kurdish militant/terrorists and thereby

3. Screw up Iraq and the fledgling successes of the last few months therein allowing the

4. Democrat party to keep hammering Bush and undercut ANY chance of him claiming success in Iraq because the key thing to do is harm G. W. Bush.

Thoughts? Plausible scenario?

Seems sadly plausible to me.

Heck, seems like the most probably reason for this vote. They get to be morally righteous and kick Bush in the pants.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Plausible scenario?

---

Anything's possible, but this does sound a bit tinfoil-hat-esque. Remember the modern version of Occam's Razor -- never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

One US political pundit has opined that the recent foray by Congress into a condemnation of the Armenian genocide (our 2nd or 3rd thereof) was done to:

1. Piss off Turkey so that

2. Turkey would invade and hammer the Kurdish militant/terrorists and thereby

3. Screw up Iraq and the fledgling successes of the last few months therein allowing the

4. Democrat party to keep hammering Bush and undercut ANY chance of him claiming success in Iraq because the key thing to do is harm G. W. Bush.

Thoughts? Plausible scenario?

---

I'm with Lemur. Sure, it's possible. Likely? Nah.

Maybe Turkey will just return the favor, and vote a parliamentary resolution deploring America's genocide, instead of authorizing self-defense cross-border incursions.

Then the deplore-o-meter will be back in the center.

And the coalition forces can enforce Iraq's borders, something we're obviously not very good at, home or abroad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Seems a bit late and pointless to denounce it really, what purpose does it serve? How is the current Turkish government responsible.

---

What's the purpose? Well its so the dems and there 5th column liberal buddies can cut of the supplies to the troops they're always talking about "supporting". There was a time when citizens of the United States and their representatives wanted whats best for the country, not anymore. San Fran Nan should be tried for treason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Anything's possible, but this does sound a bit tinfoil-hat-esque. Remember the modern version of Occam's Razor -- never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence.

---

Tinfoil hatesque? Get real, of course this is what they are doing. But who cars if it gets more of our troops killed as long as it keeps your favorite party in power right Lemur. I wish you guys and your political leaders on the left didn't "support the troops" so much.:no:

In other words, according to our pet conspiracy theorists:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...nia/ackbar.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

In other words, according to our pet conspiracy theorists:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...nia/ackbar.jpg

---

Get a good laugh my friend. Its a real side splitter. I'm glad I'm not in the military anymore since over half the legislative branch is doing their best to stab you in the back and atleast have of the civilian population could give a ####. Oh I forgot, but you still support the troops right Lemur?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Oh I forgot, but you still support the troops right Lemur?

---

Well, I don't accessorize with an American flag lapel pin, and my car does not have a yellow ribbon magnet on it, so I guess I must not. Really DD, it should be easy for you to pick out the anti-American traitors.

Well played, Lemur.
Anyway, it really angers me that politicians are abusing the Genocide. They're only bringing this up so Turkey doesn't invade Northern Iraq.
Big disappointment, I know! Politicians are, in fact, dirty, terrible people.

Kukri, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishArmenian

...Kukri, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

---

I mean I think it's none of my congress's business to deplore someone else's ancient politico-military decisions, particularly when our own are equally deplorable.

And that this kind of action does nothing to address or improve the situation on the ground in the (not-ancient, but current) warzone, where young men - Turk, Kurd, Iraqi, American, and others - stand to lose their lives in greater numbers than they might have without these thoughtless, pandering, so-called resolutions.

Full disclosure: my army son is stationed near the Turk border.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

I mean I think it's none of my congress's business to deplore someone else's ancient politico-military decisions, particularly when our own are equally deplorable.

---

Agreed. I really wonder about these sorts of things. Truths do not need to be endorsed by law. Pi will be pi whether or not Congress votes on the matter. Note that our Constitution does not enumerate any truths, virtues or Darn Good Moral Lessons.

Next I would like a resolution declaring water to be wet, except when it's frozen. It's okay if the frozen clause comes as a rider or a second resolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

One US political pundit has opined that the recent foray by Congress into a condemnation of the Armenian genocide (our 2nd or 3rd thereof) was done to:

1. Piss off Turkey so that

2. Turkey would invade and hammer the Kurdish militant/terrorists and thereby

3. Screw up Iraq and the fledgling successes of the last few months therein allowing the

4. Democrat party to keep hammering Bush and undercut ANY chance of him claiming success in Iraq because the key thing to do is harm G. W. Bush.

Thoughts? Plausible scenario?

---

You can wonder about their intent, I guess, but the practical effect of their actions isn't too much in doubt- putting a chill on relations with Turkey and reducing our influence with a vital ally in the region.

Democrat lawmakers can't be so stupid as to not know this, so why are they doing it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I'm glad I'm not in the military anymore since over half the legislative branch is doing their best to stab you in the back and atleast have of the civilian population could give a ####.

---

Do I see a new "Dolchstoßlegende" in the making? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Do I see a new "Dolchstoßlegende" in the making? :laugh4:

---

Its quite adorable watching you attempt to deflect your nations immorality upon myself and my country. The FACT that your ancestors (perhaps very recent ancestors, Uncle Wolfgang, Granpa Wilhelm perhaps) are the cause for not just millions, but tens of millions of lives to be snuffed out cannot be compared to my request of a fellow citizen to show a little patriotism or allegience to his country. Germany will ALWAYS be rememberd for the FACT that it caused the deaths of millions and will always be remembered as the one country that has caused the most death and destruction world wide. Maybe it doesn't read that way in your school textbooks or something. No matter how much moral deflection you attempt, it will never wash the blood off your hands. My country has the blood of the Native American, but that can also be a result of European colonilalism, which hasn't been the beacon of light for the world either has it my little self rightous European friends. So next time you little preachers of truth, justice, and the European way want to give a sermon about morality, maybe you guys should take a long look in the mirror. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Do I see a new "Dolchstoßlegende" in the making? :laugh4:

---

Jibes comparing a person's views to the Nazis have a tendency to provoke offense, and we all ought to know better.

A response has been posted, which I will allow to stand, in that it underlines rather eloquently the point made above - but I don't want this thread derailed any further, nor personal attacks to continue against any poster.

Dave, I've explained before that I don't see blood on my hands if my ancestors did anything wrong, neither do I blame you for what your ancestors may or may not have done to the native Americans.
Everybody is responsible for his own deeds in my view and that's why I'm not going to take the blame for what the Nazis did, I'd rather make sure it doesn't happen again.

That said, AFAIK the Dolchstoßlegende was used by the Nazis but originated from royalists in the german army after WW1, I'm sorry if I sounded like you were a Nazi, that wasn't my intention, I just wanted to point out that your view sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I just wanted to point out that your view sounds like a conspiracy theory.

---

But how can it be simply consiracy. Nancy sees the same intelligence reports and gets same reports from the State department and would know EXACTLY what this would do with our relations with Turkey. Would Churchill have preasured Parliament to vote on a resolution stating that the US commited genocide agains the native American in 1943? This is a strategic political move made by the democrats in order to cause the supply chain to their own troops to be cut off. This is sickening and even moresickening that many of my fellow citizens are defending this act of treachery. This is a calculated move plain and simple and one would have to be completely blind or of complete disregard for the well being of their fellow citizen on the battle field not to see this. For those on this message board who are United States citizens and do not condemn this act, you are just as guilty and should be ashamed that you would allow your political views out weigh the well being of those in harms way. Shame....

Well it appears that the military is trying to compensate with the treachery of those that sent them to Iraq in the first place (before i get 50 responses of "Its Bush's War!!!" remember Hillary and most dems gave Bushy the authorization to go into Iraq).
http://breitbart.com/print.php?id=07...cle=1&catnum=3

Oh and as I'm posting this, it appears that the Turkish government are voting on whether or not to invade northern Iraq at this hour. Unbelievable....:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

One US political pundit has opined that the recent foray by Congress into a condemnation of the Armenian genocide (our 2nd or 3rd thereof) was done to:

1. Piss off Turkey so that

2. Turkey would invade and hammer the Kurdish militant/terrorists and thereby

3. Screw up Iraq and the fledgling successes of the last few months therein allowing the

4. Democrat party to keep hammering Bush and undercut ANY chance of him claiming success in Iraq because the key thing to do is harm G. W. Bush.

Thoughts? Plausible scenario?

---

Why is a key thing to hammer G.W. "president with lowest ratings ever" Bush? He's pretty much politically dead nowadays from what I've understood. Anyone competent enough to pull this off would be looking at least onto the next election.

You can probably run something in the lines of pushing a withdrawal before the next election or getting the situation so bad that it's blatantly obvious that retreat is the only practical option, if you want to find a conspiracy theory though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Tinfoil hatesque? Get real, of course this is what they are doing. But who cars if it gets more of our troops killed as long as it keeps your favorite party in power right Lemur. I wish you guys and your political leaders on the left didn't "support the troops" so much. :no:

---

You mean like the support the troops have gotten from Bush & company? :no: The Iraqi war and aftermatch have been a political game since day one, with Americans and Iraqis paying for it with thier blood. And US taxpayers paying the money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

You mean like the support the troops have gotten from Bush & company? :no: The Iraqi war and aftermatch have been a political game since day one, with Americans and Iraqis paying for it with thier blood. And US taxpayers paying the money.

---

Again, the democrats are as much to blame for this. They voted FOR this. They have an obligation to truelly support the troops, not attept to get their supply lines cut. I can't believe that for a bunch of Total War armchair generals posting here can't see the obvious strategic move that the dems are making. If I'm paying the bill I want to win, not leave my guys with their ####s in the wind with no suplly line.:wall:

The plot thickens. Also looks like some of the Congressional Dems are waking up to the possible consequences of this empty vote.

Although a Congressional committee has supported the motion, its chances of passing a full vote appear to be waning.

Key Democrats in the US House of Representatives have joined Republicans to warn that US strategic interests could be damaged by the largely symbolic resolution.

There we go, but what I don't understand that well is why Turkey is necessary for supplies? Can't they just deliver the supplies directly to Iraq?
Iraq has ports and airports for such deliveries or are they somehow not able to use them for supply shipments? I understand a lot of the US Air Force is stationed in Turkey as the planes would probably be targeted by mortars etc if stationed in Iraq, but supplies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

There we go, but what I don't understand that well is why Turkey is necessary for supplies? Can't they just deliver the supplies directly to Iraq?

---

At the moment the majority of our supplies transship Turkey. Certainly we could route things in other ways, but it would be inconvenient and troublesome to do so.

On the other hand, if Turkey were to attempt to prevent us from using their ports and airfields for shipping, this would be seen as a direct provocation, just short of declaring war. It's hard to picture the Turks denying FedEx and the U.S. military air rights unless they intended to begin open military conflict with the U.S.A.

Don't forget that Turkey believed we would never invade Iraq unless we could do so with a northern front, which is why they denied us the option of moving troops in from the north at the last minute. They believed they could veto the second Iraq war, and they were wrong.

Open hostilities between Turkey and the U.S.A. would be a disaster for both of us, no matter what extremist politicians may say when pandering to their base. Which isn't to say it can't happen, eh? Just ask Gary Busey and Billy Zane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

There we go, but what I don't understand that well is why Turkey is necessary for supplies? Can't they just deliver the supplies directly to Iraq?
Iraq has ports and airports for such deliveries or are they somehow not able to use them for supply shipments? I understand a lot of the US Air Force is stationed in Turkey as the planes would probably be targeted by mortars etc if stationed in Iraq, but supplies?

---

Air space. Iraq has a small coastline, accessible through the Persian Gulf only. To get there from the West, slow freighters would need to take the Med/Suez route around the Arabian penisula, or go around Africa. Either one would also need to go past the Strait of Hormuz, under Iranian missiles. To fly in supplies without Turkish permission, we would need to fly through Syrian, Iranian, Jordanian, or Saudi airspace. Permission to fly US arms through any of those would be unlikely, at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

extremist politicians

---

You mean Nancy and Reid are extremists? Aren't they the leaders of the Congress and the Senate? Can you possibly understand the significance of this? And who are these "key" democrats stated in the article? It must be getting hard on the arms carrying so much water for your boys and girls in Congress huh Lemur....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Again, the democrats are as much to blame for this. They voted FOR this. They have an obligation to truelly support the troops, not attept to get their supply lines cut.

---

I would say that the one creating the bandwagon needs more blame than the ones jumping on it (that's still bad though).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I can't believe that for a bunch of Total War armchair generals posting here can't see the obvious strategic move that the dems are making.

---

There's more than one way to move in supplies, so I doubt that the troops will suffer supply depletion. It will probably cost more though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

If I'm paying the bill I want to win, not leave my guys with their ####s in the wind with no suplly line.:wall:

---

Point is, you did never pay enough to win and the limited resources where wasted thanks to general screw-ups on a lot of stages.

So now you can choose into either massivly increase resources (a polictical suecide and won't go thruogh congress as both parties will shut that down).

Or continue as now in a nice quagmire (where even with greater success militarily, the harder political part is still left. Applies for the first option as well).

Or cut and run. With the effects that will mean (a definite reputation loss, a possible increase for imported terrorism (for short to medium term), poor days of being an Iraqi, better days of being in US military, etc, etc.

Lovely choises aren't they?

The big question though is if keeping the current situation is supporting the troops?

So Ironside, it makes more sense to make a difficult situation more difficult for the troops by alienating an allie and having them cut off the main supply line? Do you not understand that most supplies come out of Turkey for the troops? I'm so thankful I'm no longer in the military, my country and its citizens are no longer worthy of protection and neither is the rest of the world. The rest of the world is only happy when the US signs the check and sits silent. I hope that we pull back every troop in every country AND cut all foriegn aid. That is what needs to be done. We'll see how long it takes for all hell to break loose. I just hope I live that long to see it.

DevDave, the situation between Turkey and the U.S.A. is worrysome, and bears watching, but I'm not understanding the basis for your increasingly shrill and hysterical comments. And what sort of sense does it make to declare "my country and its citizens are no longer worthy of protection" in the middle of a thread where you're accusing others of being unpatriotic, back-stabbing surrender monkeys?

Ease up on the freak-out, friend.

Drone, wouldn't a total denial of airspace be seen as a pretty extreme measure at this point? Especially given the security relationship between Israel, Turkey and the U.S.A.?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

So Ironside, it makes more sense to make a difficult situation more difficult for the troops by alienating an allie and having them cut off the main supply line? Do you not understand that most supplies come out of Turkey for the troops? I'm so thankful I'm no longer in the military, my country and its citizens are no longer worthy of protection and neither is the rest of the world. The rest of the world is only happy when the US signs the check and sits silent. I hope that we pull back every troop in every country AND cut all foriegn aid. That is what needs to be done. We'll see how long it takes for all hell to break loose. I just hope I live that long to see it.

---

Depends on goal and aviable resources. If you consider the best move is to change policy, while not being able to change policy, then the other option is to force a policy change in another way. Forcing the supplies to take another way is a (severe) annoyance, but not a vital blow.
Do you agree that if you would consider Iraq as a lost cause in either case, forcing a faster retreat would be actually caring about the troops dieing needlessly?
If you still think that you can win, it's another matter, but when did people decide something based on someone elses view?

This is pure speculation btw DD. The factual reasons can be more politically stupid, a mark, a more advanced plan etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

DevDave, the situation between Turkey and the U.S.A. is worrysome, and bears watching, but I'm not understanding the basis for your increasingly shrill and hysterical comments. And what sort of sense does it make to declare "my country and its citizens are no longer worthy of protection" in the middle of a thread where you're accusing others of being unpatriotic, back-stabbing surrender monkeys?

Ease up on the freak-out, friend.

A.?

---

I'm just very very PISSED about this and how the media and many on your side of the political spectrum refuse to connect the dots on this.

Look, if the genocide vote was, in fact, a conspiracy to push Turkey into invading Iraq, then Democratic lawmakers would be pleased with Turkey's new belligerence, correct? And they would push the vote through regardless, since a new war would be their aim.

In fact, the opposite is happening.

Worried about antagonizing Turkish leaders, House members from both parties have begun to withdraw their support from a resolution supported by the Democratic leadership that would condemn as genocide the mass killings of Armenians nearly a century ago.

Almost a dozen lawmakers had shifted against the measure over the last 24 hours, accelerating a sudden exodus that has cast deep doubt over the measure’s prospects.

I hate to repeat myself, but never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence. Large conspiracies are difficult to coordinate and almost impossible to conceal. Groups of people behaving stupidly, however, are as common as dirt.

DevDave, I have never said that I thought the genocide resolution was a good idea (in fact, I have stated the opposite). All I have argued was that lack of planning and brains was a more likely explanation than a plot to destroy America. If this makes me Nancy Pelosi's secret cabin boy in your eyes, then what's to say? Much like your chosen political party, you are defining your circle of friends in ever-diminishing radii.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Drone, wouldn't a total denial of airspace be seen as a pretty extreme measure at this point? Especially given the security relationship between Israel, Turkey and the U.S.A.?

---

Extreme, yes. I'm sure they would allow wounded/KIA flights back to Germany. But closing the border on the ground and disallowing flights with military supplies or airborne sorties into Iraq would not be beyond the realm of imagination.

For those of you that think this would not be that big of a deal, go to GoogleMaps and look at Iraq and the surrounding area. Combine the political boundaries with the political realities, and the current effort would be in a world of hurt.

I don't think the Democrats are smart enough or organized enough to deliberately sabotage Bush (and the troops) through this measure. And don't forget, we are talking about the House of Representatives, not exactly the most savvy individuals when it comes to foreign affairs. All they see are potential votes, not long-term ramifications.

Good to see our lawmakers back-pedaling a bit and trying to reassert SOME modicum of rationality.

My read on Turkey -- based on articles provided during other discussions in this forum -- is that Turkey is dead-gum serious about this issue and view themselves as having exercised a lot of forbearance already in not having gone into Kurdish Iraq with heavy firepower already. Turks appear to have a strong sense of national identity and to be very touchy about the events of 1918-1919.

U.S. lawmaker's have this wonderful ability to operate in a bubble at times -- and they're NOT members of the executive branch with layers of cut-outs etc. Get them inside the Beltway and they start to mentally implode.

Quote:

---

My read on Turkey -- based on articles provided during other discussions in this forum -- is that Turkey is dead-gum serious about this issue and view themselves as having exercised a lot of forbearance already in not having gone into Kurdish Iraq with heavy firepower already.

---

Yep they had cut down on scale and frequency of their crossborder raids , they stayed relatively mute when the Iraqi/Kurdish assembly threatened a terror campaign within Turkey itself , they repeatedly appealed to both the coilition and Iraqi government to take action ...yet nothing .
Its no wonder the Turkish assembly passed the vote , it is exactly the result that they said would be inevitable before the American led invasion and the reason they opposed that invasion .

Quote:

---

I'm just very very PISSED about this and how the media and many on your side of the political spectrum refuse to connect the dots on this.

---

Connect the dots Dave , you supported the fiasco that led to this .:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

If I'm paying the bill I want to win, not leave my guys with their ####s in the wind with no suplly line.

---

Well duh .... you should have thought of that back in 2003 .

Quote:

---

Oh and as I'm posting this, it appears that the Turkish government are voting on whether or not to invade northern Iraq at this hour. Unbelievable....

---

That issue has been on for a while, before the whole "genocide resolution" thing. I imagine that at this point the Turkish government will be less reluctant to attack the Kurds in north Iraq, since a similar resolution might be proposed and passed should that eventuality occur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

That issue has been on for a while, before the whole "genocide resolution" thing. I imagine that at this point the Turkish government will be less reluctant to attack the Kurds in north Iraq, since a similar resolution might be proposed and passed should that eventuality occur.

---

The two issues are only slightly linked. For Turkey, PKK is a much more serious problem than the genocide bill. No matter what USA does about the genocide, Turkey will not tolerate PKK attacking from northern Iraq.

I'm just hoping that:
1) The Turkish military does conduct a fair, just search for PKK members, but I expect nothing less, as the Turkish Soldiers I've met are rather professional. However, searching for terrorists is never pretty.
2) People shut up about us housing the PKK!
3) That the past is acknowledged, there is a coming together and that we get on with this. Politicians have no value of human life!

I was under a Turkish Operation against the PKK, just after Restore Hope and Provide Comfort operations. I remember the F4- Phantom bombing the village near Erbil… I remember evacuating the dangerous 70 years old women terrorist with few bullets in her chest, the man talking about the Special Forces killing his son and his sheep… This was a terror campaign, but because it is done by soldiers, it is not a terrorist attack? How long the Kurds should tolerate the Turkish attack from the south of Turkey?
I can still heard the noise, the terror when 2 planes just aligned the village I was working in rebuilding a Rural Health Centre, the black smoke from the planes, the population coming around me like if, as a foreigner, I could protect them… My thought as I believed that my time was coming… Why they didn’t attack, I never know…

“The Turkish military does conduct a fair, just search for PKK members, but I expect nothing less, as the Turkish Soldiers I've met are rather professional. However, searching for terrorists is never pretty” How do you do that in bombing campaign, air strikes and heavy bombardments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

I was under a Turkish Operation against the PKK, just after Restore Hope and Provide Comfort operations. I remember the F4- Phantom bombing the village near Erbil… I remember evacuating the dangerous 70 years old women terrorist with few bullets in her chest, the man talking about the Special Forces killing his son and his sheep… This was a terror campaign, but because it is done by soldiers, it is not a terrorist attack? How long the Kurds should tolerate the Turkish attack from the south of Turkey?

---

There is a difference between action and reaction. You can't say for example, that the Allies were to blame for invading Germany in 1945.

I don't doubt that civilians die when Turkey attacks PKK. But such things are inevitable in war. Maybe all wars can be considered terrorism.

Brenus, I had never heard first hand accounts. That's terrible!
Komutan, civillians shouldn't die! Don't write it off as an inevitability of war! These are human lives! Don't you get it?

There is a difference between action and reaction. You can't say for example, that the Allies were to blame for invading Germany in 1945.Yes, action and reaction: So an outlaw attack a bank so the police bomb and slaughter his home village…
If you (well, the Turkish government) considers the PKK as a terrorist organisation, they should act like against a mafia, a group of outlaw… Because in speaking of a KURDISH separatist organisation the Turks just recognise the fact that they are nor Turks or Iraqis…
We had terrorist action from so-called Ethnic minorities. I don’t remember the Foreign Legion starting to burn the villages supported by the attack helicopters, or burning crops and killing livestock… A police operation has as aim to bring outlaws in court…
Nazi Germany was a criminal state which invaded all its neighbours. If Hitler would have been a gang of Germans attacking villages in Poland, Czechoslovakia or France to support his claim of a united German Population, the different polices would have done with him, like in 1933.

I don't doubt that civilians die when Turkey attacks PKK. But such things are inevitable in war. Maybe all wars can be considered terrorism. So, you admit the Kurds have right to retaliate again the Turkish occupiers and the inevitable –according to your statement- collateral damage on Turkish civilians?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

[B]We had terrorist action from so-called Ethnic minorities. I don’t remember the Foreign Legion starting to burn the villages supported by the attack helicopters, or burning crops and killing livestock… A police operation has as aim to bring outlaws in court…

---

Most of our countries have to be careful when throwing our rocks from the safety of our glass houses.

Surely the atrocities perpetrated in Algeria against civilian "supporters" of those "terrorists" fit neatly into this category? And perhaps we shouldn't mention the Legion's current participation with the wickedness in the Central African Republic in support of Bozize?

:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

So an outlaw attack a bank so the police bomb and slaughter his home village…
If you (well, the Turkish government) considers the PKK as a terrorist organisation, they should act like against a mafia, a group of outlaw… Because in speaking of a KURDISH separatist organisation the Turks just recognise the fact that they are nor Turks or Iraqis…
We had terrorist action from so-called Ethnic minorities. I don’t remember the Foreign Legion starting to burn the villages supported by the attack helicopters, or burning crops and killing livestock… A police operation has as aim to bring outlaws in court…
Nazi Germany was a criminal state which invaded all its neighbours. If Hitler would have been a gang of Germans attacking villages in Poland, Czechoslovakia or France to support his claim of a united German Population, the different polices would have done with him, like in 1933.

---

PKK is of course not as powerful as Nazi Germany. But neither is it comparable to an outlaw or a gang, easily taken care of by the police.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

So, you admit the Kurds have right to retaliate again the Turkish occupiers and the inevitable –according to your statement- collateral damage on Turkish civilians?

---

PKK does not have access to heavy weapons like aircrafts and artillery and therefore uses infantry weapons. Such weapons are more selective than bombs and won't do any collateral damage if they are not directly targeting civilians.

But anyway, I think whether PKK is a terrorist organisation or not is very irrelevant at this point. If you want, be my guest and call them a non-terrorist organisation attacking Turkey. This still gives Turkey a very justified reason to strike back.