User talk:Stevertigo/Turkish atrocities against Kurds

Hey fellow Wikipedians, I've just seen the movie Ararat by Atom Egoyan! Anyone seen it? HuiHui --- Okay, now exactly where did this come from? An article beginning "A still harsher test" forces me to consider the possibility of plagiarism, with the less harsher test para. missing. Also, certain comments are not POV (justifiable outrage). Now for some information that this article lacks: Apart from being a diatribe against Turkey, the USA, and Israel, it contains no information about what the Turkish outrages are. How about the genocide under Ataturk? How about the language laws that were in force until a couple of years ago? How about the burning of villages? Does the author actually know the subject matter, or is he simply using it to attack other groups he believes are involved in the atrocities--which are summed up by the arrest of Ocalan. If it is the latter, it is a cynical use of Kurdish suffering (under Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria) to use it to attack the US and Israel. C'mon. Read up a little on the subject before using others' suffering to promote a personal agenda. Danny 05:32 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC) (who supports the establishment of a free and independent Kurdistan)

SV, so you intend to put something here that might resemble an encyclopedia article? All I see here now is a disorganized, unreadble mess of random notes, some of which looks like it might be under copyright. LDC

Hence the term notes
Im sure you all have other things to do besides be up my ass. - &#35918&#30505sv

ATROCITIES MANAGEMENT
Edward S. Herman

It is extremely easy to demonize by atrocities management. I became steeped in this subject during the Vietnam War era, and even published a small volume in 1970 entitled Atrocities in Vietnam: Myths and Realities. The marvel of that era was how easily and effectively the U.S. establishment and media focused on the cruel acts and killings of the indigeous National Liberation Front (NLF, "Vietcong") and made them into sinister killers ("terrorists"), when in fact the terror of the U.S. and its local and foreign proxies was worse by a very large factor. The violence of the Diem government in the late 1950s was extremely brutal, indiscriminate, and massive; and when the US entered the fray directly in the 1960s a new level of (wholesale terror) was reached with chemical warfare, napalm, fragmentation bombs, "free fire zones," and high level B-52 bombing raids on "suspected Vietcong bases" (i.e., villages). The NLF was always more selective in its killing, for strategic and political reasons--it had a mass base in the countryside that it did not want to harm or alienate. The Diem government, its successors, and the US, were less discriminating for the same reason--they had little or no peasant support, so that indiscriminate terror and mass killing was the understandable strategy of aggression.

But the U.S. media featured the relatively small and selective terrorist acts of the enemy, dramatized and personalized them with details, and gave correspondingly slight and more antiseptic attention to the horrendous behavior of our clients and ourselves, also presented as defensive and retaliatory. I recall being one- upped on a radio debate on the war when my opponent pulled out an article in Time magazine showing a picture of two Vietnamese, hands-tied, allegedly executed by the NLF. This may or may not have been an instance of NLF terror, but two things were clear: the political selectivity of Time here and in general completely distorted the overall truth regarding terror in Vietnam, and the selectivity and dramatization made for very effective propaganda. While the U.S. was destroying Vietnam in order to "save" it, the U.S. media found only the Vietnamese enemy evil; the U.S. failed there, but with the noblest intentions.

Another important result of the effective demonization of the NLF as terroristic was to paralyse many liberals and leftists, unwilling to be tagged as not only unpatriotic but siding with terrorists. Many lapsed into silence; others condemned both sides, calling weakly for restraint and compromise; and only "extremists" were willing to call the U.S. aggression and long struggle against Vietnamese self-determination by its right name. This paralysis and marginalization of a principled position weakened the oppositional movement to the war.

The U.S. also destroyed Cambodia in a "sideshow" to the Vietnam war (1969-75), and following the devastating four year rule of the Khmer Rouge, the US supported the ousted Pol Pot forces as the "enemy of my enemy" (Vietnam). The U.S. media focused intensively and indignantly on the Khmer Rouge genocide, but from 1969 to today have largely blacked out the atrocities of the "sideshow" years, the misdeeds of the Khmer Rouge during the period of U.S. support, and the fact of that support. Here again, the power of media propaganda has been such that calling attention to the U.S. role as the first phase genocidists and its badly compromised position as Pol Pot supporter after 1978 is virtually unheard of, and departures from an exclusive focus on KR crimes makes one an apologist for the KR. This process extends to the "left," with repeated illustrations in the Progressive and In These Times, and in an Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)-Interhemispheric Resource Center publication, Foreign Policy in Focus. In the latter case, a 1997 essay on Cambodia by Philip Robertson focused entirely on KR crimes, portrayed the US as a neutral party in that country and suitable adjudicator of policy, and supplied a list of policy recommendations for it to implement there, including U.S. support for war crimes trials for KR leaders.

Another sideshow of the Vietnam war was the mass killings in Indonesia in 1965-66, which destroyed the base of the Communist Party and brought Indonesia into the U.S. sphere of influence. This sideshow was greeted enthusiastically by the U.S. establishment. Given this approval, and 33 years of U.S. support for the Suharto dictatorship, atrocities management has required that the large- scale murders and rule by violence, and the mass killings in East Timor from 1975-1999, be kept under the rug. The U.S. media have done a great job here. There are no UN forensic groups over there looking at bodies, and there are no demands for ending Suharto's impunity.

Similarly, with the US "constructively engaged" with South Africa, Israel, and Turkey over the past several decades, the South African occupation of Namibia, assaults on the front line states, and support of Renamo and Savimbi, Israel's invasions and "iron fist" attacks on Lebanon, and Turkey's scorched earth policies and killings of Kurds, could proceed for many years killing hundreds of thousands unimpeded by any intense focus on atrocities or serious attention from the "international community." Turkey could even offer to lend armed support to the NATO effort in Kosovo, presumably diverting troops from killing Kurds, without eliciting the slightest sense of irony in the West.

Only when the Godfather needs atrocities--as with the NLF, PLO, or Serbs--do atrocities come on line, with intense focus and indignation. This is done with such assurance and self-righteous virtue that liberals and leftists jump on the bandwagon and welcome the Godfather's gracious willingness in this particular case to finally properly lead and bring justice to the targeted villain and area. The willingness of leftists to accept the U.S. (and NATO) as proper authorities to decide, judge and drop bombs is nothing short of astonishing. Some of them might the previous week have condemned the murderous U.S. sanctions that are killing more Iraqi children each month than the aggregate casualties in Kosovo, U.S. support of the Turkish war against the Kurds, the U.S. bombing of the Sudan, etc., but still their political vision is so limited, their response to atrocities so elemental, that they collapse intellectually and morally. One leftist is reported to have said that the Serbs are pulling people out of houses and killing them, implying that this justified the NATO bombing of Serbia. On this kind of reasoning, Israel would have been bombed after Sabra- Shatila and on many other occasions; and of course the governments of El Salvador and Guatemala would have been bombed incessantly in the 1980s, instead of being supplied and protected by the US.

With Milosevec and the Serbs effectively demonized, the left even puts forward spokespersons who openly favor the NATO bombing. Both IPS and Mother Jones offer as an expert and spokesperson Albert Cevallos of the International Crisis Group, who urges "the need of bombing to bring Serbia back into the peace process," to be followed by an international peacekeeping army in Kosovo. Mother Jones also provides Doug Hostetter of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, who proposes that as Milosevic is carrying out "genocidal acts" the U.S. should seek to bring him before the war crimes tribunal. Reminiscent of the Vietnam War paralysis, the IPS and Mother Jones leftists oppose the bombing (Cevallos excepted) mainly because it won't work in achieving purportedly humane goals, whose substantive primacy is taken for granted. Not one of these experts condemns the U.S. and NATO for tearing Yugoslavia apart, for violating international law in the bombing, and for their political selectivity and gross double standard in choice of innocents to be protected from crimes against humanity.

Atrocities management works, but it also requires a complementary gross misunderstanding of the issues at stake and context of the actions taken. The Serbs have committed terrible acts in Kosovo and deserve condemnation; and international efforts to end that crisis are eminently desirable. But past NATO policies have contributed to the ongoing violence and are part of the problem--their bombing strategy is the culmination of policies that have exacerbated the crisis. The bombing is not merely immoral and illegal, it is part of an ugly and destructive policy sequence rooted in self-serving geo-political strategies. _

From: LabibKobti@aol.com Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 02:01:28 EDT Subject: Iraq / Kurds, Turkey and USA

Subj: US permits Turkey to enter Iraqi no-fly zone to kill Kurds (do you understand th Date: 7/8/99 10:56:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Bettym8 To: Bettym8 BCC: LabibKobti

Do you understand this? The U. S. protects its buddy, Israel, who frequently bombs and who illegally and in violation of UN resolutions, occupies Lebanon, and its other buddy, Turkey, who frequently enters Iraq to kill the Kurds in the no-fly zone which the U. S. and the U. K. have established in Iraq to protect the Kurds, said zone having been established following the Iraqi invasion into Kuwait resulting in the war against Iraq for having invaded another country. Got that? Betty Molchany

_________________________________ TURKEY HUNTS PKK IN IRAQ AS

TURKISH TROOPS swept through northern Iraq in pursuit of Kurdish guerillas yesterday as reports emerged of a split among the rebels.

About 10,000 troops backed by helicopter gunships are hunting down Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) guerillas nine miles inside Iraqi territory, according to Turkish news reports. Military officials confirmed troops had crossed into northern Iraq on Friday in pursuit of the rebels, but refused to comment further.

There were reports that the troops were operating close to the Iraq-Iran border, which could create tensions between Ankara and Tehran, which Turkey accuses of supporting the PKK.

Turkish troops often pursue PKK rebels into northern Iraq, a Kurdish- ruled enclave outside Baghdad's control. But the timing of the latest incursion is almost certainly linked to a resurgence of the urban terrorism that Turkey witnessed after the capture of the Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan in February.

In the most recent attacks, 14 people were injured when a 19-year-old woman detonated explosives strapped to her body, killing herself, in the southern city of Adana. In Istanbul, one man died and over 20 were injured by a bomb hidden in a dustbin.

Turkish officials blame the PKK for the attacks. Although the guerrillas have not commented on the bombings, they have claimed responsibility for another incident in south-east Turkey, when gunmen shot four people dead in a cafe.

Turkish commentators say there are signs of a split in the PKK between those who back Ocalan's calls for a peaceful settlement with Ankara, and those who want to step up the violence. There are claims that hardline rebel commanders confiscated radios from guerrillas so they would not hear reports of Ocalan's peace calls.

But many here believe both factions would like to see Ocalan hanged - the doves to rid the PKK of a figurehead tainted by years of brutality, the hawks to give the rebel movement a martyr.

the guerrillas should defend themselves, but that there should be no atrocities in cities and towns," said the lawyer who passed on Ocalan's message. _____________________ The blessings of peace and justice,

http://www.kurdish.com/articles/kwr-article-13.htm

Mr. Pruden:

The extreme diplomatic pressure administered by the Clinton Administration and the State Department to the Cypriot government leading to the December 30, 1998 decision of President Clerides not to deploy the defensive S-300 missile system on the island of Cyprus is a tragedy. The official government of the island of Cyprus has a 10,000 man army, a 2 patrol boat navy, no air force and no other effective air defense to defend against a threatening Turkish government which has already invaded Cyprus illegally occupying 1/3 of the island with 30,000 troops(470,000 more available if needed), hundreds of tanks, 240 F16 aircraft and 70 F4 fighter aircraft at their disposal.

This leaves Cyprus at a more than slight disadvantage militarily. Yet when the Cypriot government tried to acquire the S-300 defense system which it so desperately needs and the Turkish government made the ridiculous claim that these surface to air missiles may be used to attack the Turkish mainland, the Clinton administration, again, became Turkey's yes man. The State Department's heavy diplomatic pressure persuaded European countries to leave the path of logic and threaten Cyprus by saying they will make it difficult for Cyprus to attain European Union status if the missiles are deployed. They claimed that these missiles would increase tension in the area even though the origin of this tension comes from the government of Turkey.

The State Department claims that steps must be made to keep good relations with Turkey because Turkey is of "geopolitical importance." However a if logical person weighs location-location-location against the turmoil which Turkey has caused in that part of the world, that person may beg to differ:

Turkey has invaded the northern 1/3 of the country of Cyprus under the pretense of thwarting a coup by the then dictatorship of Greece. The problem with this story is that this coup was already thwarted by Cypriot troops. During and after this invasion there were massive atrocities to civilians including rape, murder, torture and harassment. Turkey has occupied Cyprus since, despite numerous UN resolutions calling for Turkey's withdrawal and despite the 1963 Treaty of Guarantee which Turkey signed that specifically states that the intervention into Cyprus by Turkey, Greece or Britain must be for the "sole aim" of restoring the government of the 1960 treaty. That government is the presently recognized government of Cyprus. Furthermore, although Turkey has tried to change the demographics of Cyprus by inviting Turkish settlers to live in occupied Cyprus, there is a large number of Turkish Cypriots who have voiced the desire for enosis with their Greek Cypriot neighbors. Many of these voices, however, have been muffled by the Turkish leadership. . . permanently.

Turkey has a history of massive violations and disregard of international law. This includes daily infringements of Greek and Cypriot airspace by military aircraft, constant threats, invasions and infringements of internationally recognized sovereign territories of Greece (Imia for example), the disregarding of international treaties(Treaty of Lussane, Treaty of Guarantee) and the refusing to take disputes to the International Court at the Hague.

Turkey has hideous human rights record. To be honest, the actual numbers innocent men, women and children viciously killed by the Turkish government may be largely underestimated. In Turkey there isn't and never was a free press. For this reason it can be sometimes difficult to prove accurate numbers. For example, if one is a journalist in Turkey and prints or broadcasts something other than that of the desire of the Turkish government, that journalist is surely jailed, most likely tortured, and many times even killed. It has been estimated by various sources that just in the years between 1912 and 1925, at least 3 million innocent civilian Armenians, Greeks, and Kurds residing in Turkey were massacred by the Turkish military. It has been the same throughout this century. There were, however, no Nuremberg Trails. In the last 14 years the situation has gone unchanged. The so-called western-style secular government of Turkey still murders innocent Turkish Kurds without remorse of any kind. Only excuses. In addition, up until recently, Kurds have been forbidden to speak Kurdish, sing Kurdish songs or dance Kurdish dances under penalty of jail time, torture or even death. In short they are forbidden to be Kurds. So far over 3500 Kurdish villages and whole Kurdish sections of cities have been leveled by Turkish troops using U.S. made and U.S. taxpayer paid for weaponry. Over 35,000 Kurds have been massacred and counting. Pictures of smiling Turkish soldiers holding the severed heads of Kurdish civilians by the hair have been published and distributed by the European press. Lawyers in Turkey representing Kurds have been jailed. Numerous Kurdish politicians have been assassinated. Journalists in Turkey reporting the Kurdish point of view have been jailed, tortured and killed. The Turkish government would like you to think that the Kurdish organization PKK is responsible for all this. While the PKK responsible for some deaths, the government of Turkey is responsible for the vast majority of the killing of innocent civilians. The wife of Illinois Senator Porter has gone to see it for herself. She has seen these atrocities nfirst hand and has experienced bullets whizzing by her head in the process. She'll tell you that the Turkish government is responsible and so will human rights watch groups all over the world. Turkey is a textbook example of a terrorist state. The Clinton administration has ignored this.

Turkey likes to claim that it is a democratic government. Not so. Turkish politics are closely watched and regulated by the military. Themilitary cancels the government at its discretion. The civilian government is purely cosmetic as are promises by this government to improve its human rights policies.

A logical person would come to the conclusion that the government of Turkey is more similar to that of Saddam Hussien than that of a democratic government. After all they have both indiscriminately murdered their own Kurdish population. They have both invaded and occupied a neighboring country despite numerous UN resolutions calling for their withdrawal. They have both unlawfully infringed the internationally recognized sovereign territories of other countries not including the countries they invaded, and last but not least they are both governed by a ruthless military regime which is above any law.

I do believe that we have betrayed a small peaceful country which is trying to do nothing more than insure its own security. With Cyprus' defensive S-300 missiles in place it would be extremely risky for a Turkish military aircraft to take an offensive posture against Cyprus inside the missile's 90 mile radius defensive capability. Because of this, it would contribute to a balance of power in that part of the world.

It is obvious why the Turks don't want these missiles. They have no intention of finding a solution to the Cyprus question and furthermore it proves that they have designs on the rest of Cyprus. All they need is an excuse. The S-300 missiles would ruin their dream of including the whole of Cyprus on a Turkish map or at least make that dream more complicated to achieve.

If the Clinton administration wants the U.S. military to be the police of the world, they should do so with a consistent policy. If we hold Bosnians responsible for killing each other, the Serbs responsible for the deaths of 45 Albanian rebels, and Saddam Hussien responsible for the killing of Iraqi Kurds, shouldn't we hold Turkey responsible for the murder of more than 35,000 Kurdish civilians and the torture and rape of others? A slap on the wrist is not enough. Instead we are rewarding them.

Iran had "geopolitical importance" in the early '70s and we were allies. We were even once allies with Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. The next thing we new, we were at war during desert storm. I guess we will never learn from history.

Does "geopolitical importance" outweigh all these atrocities?. I can not believe that the well informed U.S. citizen would agree. After all, this is the type of government we fought against in WWII.

When will this article be ready? Kingturtle 19:43 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

A few links you may be interested in

 * Free-speech case can't hide progress
 * In economic growth, lots of company
 * EU divided on plans for talks with Turkey
 * The Turkish identity
 * Death to the Crusade
 * How Turkey fails its Kurds

Cheers, Davenbelle 08:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)