Bill Clinton and Befriended Terrorists
Bill Clinton believes that the US should help the PKK and protect it from Turkey. After all, they’re good terrorists.
Bill Clinton, in prescient talks to 50 wealthy supporters at a fundraiser, off limits to the press, said (via the Huffington Post):
The two wrinkles in her policy that some of the purists won’t like, but I think she is absolutely right, are that she would leave some troops in the Kurdish area in the north because they have reconciled with each other and they enjoy relative peace and security…And if we leave them…not only might they be gone into a long civil war…the Turks might be tempted to attack them because they don’t like the fact that the PKK guerrillas sometimes come across into northern Iraq and hide after staging attacks in Turkey.
Those overly aggressive Turks! They “don’t like” it that the PKK commits terrorist attack after terrorist attack in Turkey, after which the terrorists quickly run to Iraq where they’re relatively safe. And Turkey has the guts to complain about that. How silly! Every other country in the world would be mightily fond of such an arrangement.
(Image to the right: a Turkish woman killed by Clinton’s befriended terrorists)
O, wait, the US invaded Afghanistan after one terrorist attack that killed 3,000. In the war between Turkey and the PKK 30,000 people have died and the PKK commits terrorist attacks against Turkish targets on a weekly (sometimes daily) basis.
As the HuffPo’s Blake Fleetwood points out, Clinton’s remarks are likely to anger quite some Turks. The idea he’s giving people is that America should protect not the Kurds, but the PKK from Turkey. The PKK is a terrorist organization. The US has labeled it such. The EU has done the same thing. It’s not just Turkey that considers the PKK terrorists, the rest of the world or at least the West does so as well.
(Image to the left: mothers hold up signs of sons killed by the PKK)
What a joke.
It’s also interesting to point out that, despite the fact that the US considers the PKK a terrorist organization, they’re using American weapons nonetheless. As Fleetwood writes “America is supplying arms to two “friendly nations” at the same time to fight each other!”
The message the US, and in this case Bill Clinton, sends? “The war on terrorism means war on terrorists that attack us, not on terrorists who only attack our allies.”
And they wonder why anti-Americanism is growing in Turkey. Well, you now know the answer.
To Michael van der Galien
You should have been more objective and realist in your post , because Clinton is.First of all there is no doubt that neither Clinton nor the Kurds condone the violence, both have called for the necessity of ending this conflict in a comprehensive peaceful manner.While Kurdish in general do not justify violence under any circumstances, I believe you need to look for a moment into the roots of the Kurdish problem in Turkey.Until very recently over 20 million Kurds not only were deprived and oppressed, but their very existence was denied.Turkey has always resorted to military option not even once tried to solve this issue through peaceful means and now is meddling in Iraqi Kurdistan affairs.
Second, you might not know but Mrs Clinton, Kurds, KRG and the rest of the American and Western establishments know the importance of the key role Kurds are holding in Iraqi equation. Do you really believe that Turkey will be allowed to destroy the only stable,secure and prosper part of Iraq, namely Kurdistan upon which the Shiite will dominate the country and fall in the Iranian lap and the possible dire consequences of that action?It is in everybody;s interest to keep Iraqi Kurdistan safe and secure.Any violation of that balance will create chaos not only in Iraq but in the whole region.Therefore American bases in Kurdistan are absolutely necessary since Kurds are welcoming them.
You keep ‘Kurdistan’ as you call it - by which you probably mean the Kurdish region of the independent state of Iraq - safe by pushing out the PKK, by forcing it to put down its weapons and to hunt down terrorists whenever they attack Turks. The PKK could reform itself to be the local army, but it should, then, vow not to attack its neighboring countries anymore (and if it does, it has to suffer the consequences).
If the Kurds don’t support the PKK (many do most certainly support it), they should do something about them. But, instead they allow the PKK to hide behind them when Turkey wants to strike back after being provoked time and again and after Turks have died due to cowardly attacks of PKK terrorists.
Actually, Turkey is trying to solve it through peaceful means. Since Erdogan has come to power, the situation has improved tremendously for Turkish Kurds. In fact, the awkward thing is that even though the situation has improved, the violence of the PKK has increased nonetheless.
O, and don’t tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about, when in fact I do - all too well.
And Clinton is way off on this one. Despite your defense of the PKK (kinda), it is a terrorist organization, recognized as such by the US, Turkey and the EU. When Turkey attacks, Turkey isn’t to blame: the PKK is, just like that the Taliban and Al Qaeda were to blame for the American attack against Afghanistan.
In other news concerning friendly terrorists, apparently the Brits are taking a liking to the Taliban.
"The SIS (Secret Intelligence Service) officers were understood to have sought peace directly with the Taliban with them coming across as some sort of armed militia," the intelligence source told the Daily Telegraph. "The British would also provide ‘mentoring’ for the Taliban." The meetings — of which there were up to six — took place in houses on the outskirts of Lashkah Gah and in villages in the Upper Gereshk valley in southern Afghanistan, the paper said. British infantry provided a security cordon and the meetings took place in the presence of Afghan officials, it added. "These meetings were with up to a dozen Taliban or with Taliban who had only recently laid down their arms," its source said. "The impression was that these were important motivating figures inside the Taliban." Earlier this month, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown ruled out direct talks with Taliban insurgents, telling the House of Commons: "I make it clear that we will not enter into any negotiations with these people."
Courtesy Yahoo News
Bob A.: ah, awesome. You see, terrorists aren’t bad, enemy terrorists bad, befriended terrorists good.
Damn terrorist splitters…thats the problem. Reminds me of Monty Pythons "Life of Brian"
Brian: Excuse me. Are you the Judean People’s Front?Reg: Fuck off!Brian: What?Reg: Judean People’s Front! We’re the People’s Front of Judea! Judean People’s Front! Cuh!Francis: Splitters.Brian: Can I… join your group?Reg: Nah, piss off.Brian: I didn’t want to sell this stuff, it’s only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody!Judith: Are you sure?Brian: Oh, dead sure! I hate the Romans already!Reg: Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you’d have to really hate the Romans.Brian: I do!Reg: Oh, yeah, how much?Brian: A lot!Reg: [brief pause] Right. You’re in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People’s Front.Stan: Yeah, the Judean People’s Front.Reg: Yeah. Splitters.Stan: And the Popular Front of Judea.Reg: Yeah. Splitters.Stan: And the People’s Front of Judea.Reg: Yea… what?Stan: The People’s Front of Judea. Splitters.Reg: We’re the People’s Front of Judea!Stan: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.Reg: People’s Front!Francis: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?Reg: He’s over there. [points to a lone man]Reg, Stan, Francis, Judith: SPLITTER!
So what were the US supported "freedom fighters" who fought against Nicaragua’s established government in the 80’s with terrorist tactics? One man’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist- depending on your perspective and your politics.
I’m not in the mood for moral relativism. Perhaps you should stop fighting against Al Qaeda and the Taliban then.
And if not, then don’t leave silly comments.
We were attacked by al queda who are supported by the Taliban, which puts them in a different category. All I’m saying is that its not always that black and white.
umm Kim
the PKK are attacking the Turks.
What makes that a different category though, Kim? The fact that WE were attacked? IOW, why is that different than what Michael describes, that the PKK attack Turkey and get safe haven in Kurdish Iraq?
It’s true that things aren’t black and white, but we shouldn’t then say that everything is just shades of gray. Black and white still do exist.
What the hell do you think the PKK has been doing, while hiding behind civilians and with the toleration of the Iraqi government?
Oh, and by using American made weapons!
Are you completely unaware of what’s going on in that part of the world, or do you just enjoy holding other countries to a different standard?
And if you start playing the victim card, like the first commenter did, perhaps it should be pointed out that Al Qaeda and alike believe that the West and especially the Middle East have been dominating their countries and influencing their politics and thereby oppressing the will of the people, etc.
To be fair to Kim though, she wasn’t necessarily justifying the PKK but she was criticizing a time when the US supported resistance fighters. Even in that situation though (a situation where I don’t believe the US’s policy was morally correct, but I don’t think any of the players involved were either), it was a resistance movement against the government that we were supporting, not terrorism against a civilian population.
Christine: this comment thread is about the PKK, Turkey and Clinton’s remarks. In other words, when someone leaves a comment about something else, I expect it to be related in that person’s mind (as it is according to her, see her "not all is black and white" comment).
As such, she’s most definitely defending the PKK: the line "the one man’s terrorist is the other man’s freedom fighter" reeks like moral relativism only the far left supports.
Lynx, for instance, is a liberal, but she would never say anything quite like that: she realizes that the ETA, PKK, IRA and Al Qaeda are all terrorists.
Frankly, remarks like those of Clinton and Kim remind me why it is that I don’t want a liberal dove to be the leader of the most powerful country on earth after 08.
LOL, I agree with that, and I certainly also agree that far too many people on the left side of the spectrum are unwilling to condemn anything that any other group or country does without offering up instances where they feel the US has also done something wrong. Those things can be discussed in a separate context, but you are right in that respect, Michael, that they shouldn’t be tied in with a discussion of acts that should be uncategorically condemned.
I see it as very similar to people who say that religious leaders should never talk about sin, for example, because they aren’t sinless either. You don’t have to be perfect in order to be able to examine things and find what is right or good and separate those from things that are wrong or evil. Demanding perfection before anyone can establish ethical and moral boundaries does nothing other than blur lines and create moral relativism, because no one or no country will ever then be able to be the arbiter or set standards.
Exactly.
Which is why they argue for it of course (since this is what they believe).
Well, that part I’m not so sure of. Certainly I think that some people feel that way, that they WANT the lines to remain blurred. But for others I think it’s a matter of guilty conscience, or feeling unable to take on the responsibility of setting the boundaries (because that would mean having to try to live up to those same ideals.) And for still others, I think they feel that ‘black and white’ is simplistic, so they believe that they have a more nuanced and intellectual perspective and they take that to extremes.
To Michael van der Galien
As I said before, Iraqi Kurds and KRG have not given PKK a safe haven.Where they are today is like No man’s Land "Qandil Mountains" is very rugged and inaccessible.If you have been following this issue from the beginning you will know that in the 1990’s Kurds fought with Turks against PKK.KRG is convinced that military option not going to solve the problem and it refuses to be part of that option. Instead KRG is welcoming any peaceful approach if Turks even once decides to resort over the military choice. Recent attacks have lead to civilian casualties and damage of property. People have fled their villages and homes. Many people including Christians who fled the violence of the center and south of Iraq and found shelter in Kurdistan has became refugee again.KRG agreed with Turkey on the existence of the problem but they differ on how to approach it. Turks insist on military option, Kurds say peaceful means need to be used.I say there must other ways besides the military option to solve this issue other than killing innocent civilians.Also Turkey for once need to seek a comprehensive solution to this cronical problem.Partial solutions are not going to be enough.What Turkey need is a courageous leadership that will overhaul the system and acknowledge the diversity of the citizens of the country and accept non Turks and non-Muslims, recognizing all.
The KRG is one big joke, and actively working with the PKK.
Do you actually know anything about Turkey? Have you ever been there? Turkey recognizes that, in fact, its policies have changed dramatically over the last couple of years and decades even.
You are wrong, KRG is the hope of millions of Kurds who have been victimized through out the last century by the surrounding countries.KRg came into existence after decades of constant struggle aganist successive Iraqi Governments that denied Kurds’ legitimate rights.Have you ever been to Iraqi Kurdistan? have you seen what KRG and Kurds have accomplished in relatively a short period of time? Hve you seen how KRG has all the democratic institution functining and running people’s affairs effectively? have been reading about the civil society Kurds are trying to build despite all the challenges and against many odds? The very concept of tolerance that is totally alien in Middle East, you can easily find it working in Kurdistan where all the people are living together in peace and harmony. Do you know that all the religious and ethnic minorities where granted their rights in Kurdistani constitution since 1992 for the first time in their modern history when they were stiil denied those very rigfhts under Saddam in other parts of Iraq?Don’t tell me I do not know about Turkey. It has been only few years since Turkey just allowed Kurds to be able to speak their own language.What about all the crimes Turkey committed against Armenians and Kurds and other minories. Turkey needs to come clean and admit to that past and write a new constitution where all are recognized and liberated from fear.Turkey is not a democracy and it has long way to go to be a real democracy.tell me this whereever you live, do you really wish Turkish democracy for your country? Would you and accept that?
mazouri, get it right will you. Kurds have always spoken Kurdish and written in Kurdish in Turkey. If they hadn’t the language would have been dead to them since it’s been almost 100 years since the founding of the Republic of Turkey. What the Kurds and others who speak other languages are not permitted is to insist that Kurdish or other languages become another "official" language used in public discourse as in used to conduct business in parliament, used as the only language in which education is provided to children, etc.
Come to the U.S. of A. where everyone agrees it’s a democracy and demand Kurdish or Spanish or Chinese become another official language of the U.S.A. and see what reaction you get.
Or better yet, go demand those rights in countries like Britain, Sweden or France who are so friendly with the PKK "rebels." In fact, let’s all ship them there to form their Kurdistan.
oh and eamed, the country in which Michael lives in, do you think they’d accept having Kurdish as another official language of their country? I think the majority would not. Michael please feel free to publicly chastise me if I’m incorrect here.
So, in your opinion, eamed does that make Michael’s homeland "undemocratic"? Or does it just make you unreasonable?
Actually, it sounds to me like such a dictate as you would impose to the majority by the minority sounds rather undemocratic.
Make no mistake about it, in Turkey people can speak whatever language they want at home, in the street, in restaurants, in pubs, bars, stores, any public or private space in which they are conducting private business, otherwise there’d be no tourism in Turkey.
one last thing, puhhhlease don’t try to sell us that there is a democracy in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq. Democracy for who?
How many Kurdish women have been killed in the last few years for "besmirching" their family’s "honor" and how aggressively are their family members prosecuted for those crimes?
In a democracy, women are treated as and given the status of equal human beings. Once the Kurds understand democracy and apply it to themselves then they can start criticizing other governments.
Actually Lazlee– in the United States, you can get government services in the language you speak, Spanish, Chinese, whatever. No one would be prosecuted for providing a service - yes, even a government service in another language. My children went to school in Chinatown, Los Angeles. Everything was done in three languages, first Mandarin, then Spanish, then English. It did not hurt my children, in fact they learned many things from being part of a multi ethnic society. In Turkey this would not be possible. Abdullah Demirbas of the Sur Municipality in Diyarbekir tried to institute this but he was immediately charged with several offenses. It would be as if Michael Bloomberg was facing trial for speaking spanish to his Puerto Rican constituents. Asking for the recognition of language rights is not the same as asking that Kurdish be the official language of Turkey, although historically, in those areas NO ONE SPOKE TURKISH until after Ataturk and the young Turks outlawed the Kurdish language. Weren’t the Turks concered that ethnically Turkish people in Bulgaria should have their language rights and cultural rights? Isn’t this the same thing as what the Kurds are asking for? Why is it such a threat to Turkey for Kurdish people to be allowed to speak their language and let it flourish in institutions as well as privately in the home? What you don’t want to look at is that the policy of Turkey towards the Kurds is one of cultural genocide, and its related to what happened to the Greeks and Armenians. Turkey would like to Turkify everyone.
I am a Turk.We don’t want to attack them but they killed our 13 soldiers last months.If they don’t stop we can attack on North Iraq immediately.I love my country and we won’t allow the Kurds to make Kurdistan.”Peace in home peace in world.”Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.