To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » Turkey and the Tyranny of Business

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

9

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky
Bio: (More)

All Chomsky Blogs

Recent Chomsky Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books
Zvideo_icon ZStores

Turkey and the Tyranny of Business

By Noam Chomsky at Aug 07, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
In the US and elsewhere, the government is often the "tyrant" of business. That's why business so bitterly opposes government regulation when it cannot control the system itself (as it sometimes but by no means always does). And there are many clear examples of the government simply ordering even the most powerful corporations to do its bidding. To take one, after the overthrow of the Mossadegh regime in Iran, the US ordered the energy corporations to take over 40% of the former British concession, which they did not want to do for very good reasons of short term profit and advantage, but had to agree under threat. There are many other cases. As for the Turkish state that developed out of the former Ottoman Empire after World War I, it has been extremely brutal towards "the people." The biggest ethnic minority (the Kurds), for example, denied even existence after the earliest days (they were "mountain Turks"), and subjected to extreme repression to the present. Some of the worst human rights violations anywhere in the 1990s were the (US-backed) Turkish counterinsurgency operations against the Kurds. And Turks have suffered terribly too under regime repression. It's also very misleading, to put it mildly, to say, for example, that horrendous torture of dissidents and denial of even the most elementary rights to Kurds (let alone what happened mainly in the 90s: destroying 3500 villages, devastating the countryside, killing tens of thousands, and creating probably millions of refugees) was following the orders of big business.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (24)

Person

tercüme

By Cevirihizmetleri, Tercüme at Jun 29, 2007 16:15 PM
As for the Turkish state that developed out of the former Ottoman Empire after World War I, it has been extremely brutal towards "the people." The biggest ethnic minority (the Kurds), for example, denied even existence after the earliest days (they were "mountain Turks"), and subjected to extreme repression to the present. Some of the worst human rights violations anywhere in the 1990s were the (US-backed) Turkish counterinsurgency operations against the Kurds. And Turks have suffered terribly too under regime repression. It's also very misleading, to put it mildly, to say, for example, that horrendous torture of dissidents and denial of even the most elementary rights to Kurds (let alone what happened mainly in the 90s: destroying 3500 villages, devastating the countryside, killing tens of thousands, and creating probably millions of refugees) was following the orders of big business. tercüme ingilizce tercüme elektrik emlak çeviri tercüman link ekle kiral?k ev

Reply this comment

Person

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Oct 02, 2005 05:21 AM
Chomsky is being self-contradictory in regards to his often quoted remark by John Dewy that "government is the shadow cast on society by business" in this article.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Turkey and the Tyranny of Business

By Otto, Steve at Sep 03, 2005 18:30 PM
Why is there so much animosity against the PKK. The US dumps $ millions in military aid to a country that executes people, arrest people for belonging to “illegal” political parties that the government has outlawed and tried to crush an ethnic minority. (Isn't that called ethnic cleansing?) So the PKK has killed some Kurds? Didn't the French underground kill collaborators during the NAZI occupation of WWII? Why is it such a big deal that an oppressed minority is fighting back? They are fighting a barbaric government, that deserves to be overthrown. Do they need the permission of US liberals for every action they take?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Turkey and the Tyranny of Business

By Superbukalemun, Cynicmystic at Sep 03, 2005 17:11 PM
PART IV (due to word limitations) It is only natural that the US would back and arm the Turkish army, and indirectly the "Kurdish" ashiret lords to fight against the PKK. The US doesn't control the PKK movement, and the objectives of the PKK movement are a threat to the US interests and plans in the region. For example, if an independent Kurdish state is to be formed, it can only be formed under the exclusive control of the US, and not by the efforts of a European backed PKK. For this very reason, the EU, for many years, has supported the PKK movement by calling it a political rebellion of an oppressed people. The PKK was and still is the European pawn against the US interests in the region. Every time the Turkish government has demanded EU authorities to hand over a suspected terrorist, the European response was the same: the suspected terrorist was not a terrorist and was actually a political criminal - hence could not be handed over. I don't intend to make this post too long. What I am briefly trying to say is that it is naive to approach the issue of PKK without taking the above-mentioned factors into account. It is equally, naive, and rather misleading to portray the situation as Chomsky did in his blog post. I am sure that he is aware of the factors that I have listed, but for some reason, he chooses not to include or mention them in his criticisms.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Turkey and the Tyranny of Business

By Superbukalemun, Cynicmystic at Sep 03, 2005 16:29 PM
PART III (due to word limitations) Neither the American geopolitical nor the Turkish national interests favor the dissolution of the oppressive and rather draconian ashiret system in the areas occupied by Kurds for a very simple reason. Ashirets are easy to manage, manipulate and highly useful. During elections, all one has to do is to convince the ashiret leader, and if he gives the thumbs-up, you have 10,000 votes from this ashiret and 17,000 from the other etc. The ashiret system, in other words, has been an ideal tool for keeping Kurds under control. In a way, it is similar to the support the oppressive Saud family receives because they serve the American and European interests. As long as the Saud family "obeys" their orders, the west is perfectly find with the dictator-like oppression they impose on the Saudi population. The ashiret system is very similar in that sense. What I am trying to say is that Chomsky is highly mistaken to equate that PKK is exclusively a Kurdish movement and all Kurds, either explicitly or secretly, support the cause. He is dead wrong on that issue. The people who were disturbed the most by the PKK movement were actually the "Kurdish" ashiret lords because the PKK movement threatened their feudal system. That is precisely why the Turkish army "armed" thousands of "Kurdish" ashiret warriors to fight against the PKK and that is also the main reason why PKK had to fight and kill quite a few "Kurds" as well as Turks.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Turkey and the Tyranny of Business

By Superbukalemun, Cynicmystic at Sep 03, 2005 15:54 PM
PART I(Due to word limitations) What is missing in Chomsky's post is not actually the omittance of PKK violence. What he fails to clarify is the proper definition, background and the ideology of the PKK. It is suggested that the PKK movement is fully supported by Kurdish people as a rebellion, which is not the case. For example, PKK had to kill more Kurds than it had to kill Turks. Before you burst into flames, let me clarify this. The area in the M. East that is occupied by Kurdish people covers South Eastern Turkey, Northern Iraq and North Western Iran. The structure of the Kurdish society in this large area is based on "ashiret" (clan) system which dictates that, as a Kurd, you are born into an ashiret and, from the day you are born to the day you die, you have to obey the strict and almost slave-like hierarchical structure of the ashiret. Your ashiret leader is the head and holds a king-like status. As a Kurd, going against your clan lord means total isolation, excommunication from the group, and at times, extermination at the orders of the leader. If you do not accept your subservient position in the ashiret, you and your family's chances of survival are minimal unless you are wealthy and connected enough to move o western Turkey and start a new life or business or whatever. If you stay in the ashiret, you have to accept the reality that you and your family literally belong to the ashiret lord.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Turkey and the Tyranny of Business

By Superbukalemun, Cynicmystic at Sep 03, 2005 15:19 PM
PART II (due to word limitations) The PKK movement, which was secretly founded and financed by Germany and some other European states, is a movement that primarily capitalized on the ashiret system. Majority of young Kurdish men, who felt oppressed not only by the Turkish government, but also by the slave-like imposition of the ashiret system into which they were born felt that they had no prospects. Naturally, PKK was an ideal platform for the stressed, oppressed and angry young Kurds who wanted a better life than the compulsory one offered by the ashiret they were born and slaved into. What they rebelled against, on the other hand, was not the Turkish government that did not allow them to speak or broadcast in their own language, but the Turkish government that favored and supported the ashiret system for political purposes.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Turkey and the Tyranny of Business

By Cihanb, Cosmicparoxysms at Aug 21, 2005 14:29 PM
Even if PKK did have wide support (I don't know if it does), it still wouldn't be a legitimate reaction. Bush has %50 of the votes and that doesn't make the Iraqi war any legitimate. Nor it would if Bush had %80-90 of the votes. Let me stress it in order not to fall into the same pitfall. The Turkish government of the 90s may have had the majority of votes but that still doesn't make state-terrorism legitimate. I don't think offering alternative viewpoint means to offer a reversely biased account so that when the main stream view and the alternative view clash you get a balanced view. This is simply wrong and the reason is that ,as I said, most of my (or for average reader's for that matter) Chomsky reading is exposure. I have contacted Chomsky personally and here is his response (too long to put here): http://iggzactitude.blogspot.com/2005/08/chomsky-episode-ii.html His reason doesn't satisfy me.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Turkey and the Tyranny of Business

By Cihanb, Cosmicparoxysms at Aug 21, 2005 04:59 AM
"The actions of the PKK may or may not be "legitimate;" that's a judgment call. But they are certainly a reaction to illegitimate state aggression." I think this is simply wrong. I don't know if you are a PKK sympathizer but if you condemn the actions of the Turkish state against Kurds, you must also condemn the actions of PKK, since these both are terrorizing of civilians. You condemn the Turkish state without discussion, I agree, but then claim that PKK's actions are open to debate. This is unacceptable, I am sorry. You say history is well known. I don't think this is the case. History is filled with ambiguities, open debates. Chomsky usually mentions unknown events (take East Timor) or the Kurdish problem (unknown for most westerners I'd suppose). I think he has a duty to give a balanced view and not to leave out important details(such as PKK), since the reader is freshly exposed to the issue(most of my Chomsky reading is exposure). Now if he is doing also what you mention in your last paragraph, I need to read other, more objective sources before delving into Chomsky, since that way I will get a more complete picture. (Hopefully)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Turkey and the Tyranny of Business

By Cihanb, Cosmicparoxysms at Aug 21, 2005 03:42 AM
"...he can't afford to take the time to write much on the PKK..." Look, I am not expecting him to write "much" on the subject. If you could refer me to his brief comments about PKK (just mentioning in the passing), I'll be happy. But what is surprising is that there is almost no reference to PKK when the Kurdish issue comes up. At least, none that I could find. It's like New York Times speaking about the Sandinistas. I agree with Chomsky or find his view point interesting on a host of issues. It's just this issue is baffling to me. And I'll tell you why I think that's the case. I think the reason, I am suspecting, is that PKK is a leftist organization who wants establish an independent socialist Kurdish state. However as anyone else, Chomsky might have his own biases. He explicitly said that an independent Kurdish state should be established. And these people, by killing civilians and soldiers, try to make that end. "In any case I think crying "PKK! PKK!" when discussing Turkey and the Kurds would be like saying "focus on the Maquis and the Partisans!" when talking about the Nazis in Europe" I don't know who Maquis and the Partisans are but I'd like to know about them, if they played a role during the Nazi era. You don't have to "focus on" or "cry about" them "much". And I think the actions of the PKK are not really a legitimate reaction to the state oppression. I advise you to inform yourself more about their actions.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Turkey and the Tyranny of Business

By McBride, Jared at Aug 12, 2005 04:17 AM
Look I'm not sure what your agenda here is, but just as jbrownil said, examine the context in which Chomsky is talking about the events. 9 times out of 10 he's talking about from a US involvement standpoint so he's not going to meander off of on PKK activities. I'm sure we can all agree here and Chomsky included, that any group who kills innocents to promote their own goals is a terrorist group. So what point are trying to make? Chomsky is a hyprocrite cause he doesn't specifically talk about PKK crimes everytime the word Turkey comes up? Anyone familiar to these boards has already played this game - if the almighty Chomsky doesn't condemn every evil act that has occurred from the dawn of time until now he's a hyprocrite. Who cares - waste of time - not a useful discussion (unlike the info you provided on the PKK, which was interesting and I learned something from it). And hey if you really want to know why he passes the PKK by - just email him: chomsky@mit.edu

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Turkey and the Tyranny of Business

By Cihanb, Cosmicparoxysms at Aug 11, 2005 13:35 PM
I think any historically accurate discussion of the Kurdish problem in Turkey must include the deeds of PKK, for PKK has greatly contributed to how the problem has unfolded. I don't think I am being any biased. By the same logic, I would also stand by the inclusion of IRA when discussing Ireland-related problems, or the killings of PLO when discussing Israel-Palestine relations. I think a historically accurate discussion must involve the evil deeds of not only big states but what we might call oppressed minorities. Chomsky is well aware of the PKK for he wrote: "As for Randal, you condemn as unreliable, I would be interested to know your specific criticisms and your evidence for them. In fact, I would be interested in knowing whether you have even seen the book that you condemn. What you write indicates that you have not; for example, you make it clear that you are completely unaware of what he writes about the PKK." See: http://www.politics.ankara.edu.tr/eski/html/eng/ceko/isikli_Chomsky-eng.htm I would like to know his reasons for "bypassing" PKK almost whenever the Kurdish problem comes up.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Turkey and the Tyranny of Business

By Jbrownil, Jbrownil at Aug 10, 2005 23:31 PM
Cosmic, I have to agree that from a strictly historical POV you have to tell the whole story. However, depending on the discussion (in this case US involvement) it simple may not be necessary. I guess that has to do with your personal perspective as well. I have read bits here and there about the PKK and may not know as much as I'd like but, I can't demand or assume the topic be engaged in a specific way(unless I start it). I mean we can talk about every aspect of the issue if that's what's to be discussed or we can talk about just a portion of it. So if the topic is US involvement and those are the terms to which we are limited then that's that. I guess in a general talk there is no right or wrong way to go about it, maybe we can see what unfolds? But, of course, historic documentation is another matter.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Turkey and the Tyranny of Business

By Cihanb, Cosmicparoxysms at Aug 10, 2005 20:21 PM
jbrownil, I think you have a point but I don't think it still resolves the problem with Chomsky's approach. You are right in asserting that we are responsible for "the predictable consequences of our actions" (Chomsky's mantra for explaining why he concentrates on the US) and since the Turkish Republic is at least a formal democracy, there is a chance that we can change its behaviour towards Kurds through democratic means. For the actions of PKK, we have even less control and only indirect means (such as education, persuasion) to stop their violence. Nevertheless, this still doesn't justify simply leaving PKK out of the picture. Even though I am against the Iraqi war, if the history books in say 2050 or something did not mention 9-11 or Al Qaide, I would still feel that that's not an accurate representation of what happened. Similarly, if we want to get close to anything resembling the truth of the matter, PKK must enter the domain of discourse - not left out of "the limits of debate", the way western media operate as criticized by Chomsky. Hellbender, as for PKK ceasefire, I only wish it were so. If you check the Turkish press, you will hear about new martyrs everyday.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Turkey and the Tyranny of Business

By Otto, Steve at Aug 10, 2005 19:35 PM
The PKK was considered a terrorist organization when it fought for the simple rights, such as to use its own language. The Turkish government is so absurd that it claimed the PKK bombed the busses in London: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4690181.stm That the US openly aids the Turks human rights violations is bragged about on a site called: http://www.byegm.gov.tr/YAYINLARIMIZ/CHR/ING2004/08/04x08x19.HTM The Kurds are also represented in Turkey by the HPG (People's Defence Forces) http://www.dozame.org/ , A World To Win deals with the Kurdish issue, http://www.awtw.org/back_issues/turkey_kurdistan.htm , and gets regular correspondence from Communist Party of Turkey Marxist-Leninist [TKP ML], which also has a Kurdish faction in it. They PKK have called for an end the war, a call that the Turkish government ignored, yet they have no where near the autonomy the Kurds in Iraq have. The Iraqi Kurd parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), http://www.kdp.pp.se/ , And the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, http://www.puk.org/. have served US interests well in hat region so they get better treatment. They have more autonomy and a stake in the system, but are obvious lackeys and stooges to the Bush administration.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Turkey and the Tyranny of Business

By Jbrownil, Jbrownil at Aug 10, 2005 19:25 PM
Well, I can tell you from reading much of Chomsky's work that he takes a specific position on these types of issues. He understands, as any sane person would, that murder and terror by anyone is outrageous. So it's more or less understood that what the PKK is doing is wrong. I believe he would argue (as I have seen him do before) is that we should be concerned for what WE do. We can have a discussion and criticize, rightly so, the PKK's actions but it's more or less meaningless because it has no "moral value" because we can't really control it and have nothing to do with it. So yeah, the PKK has committed horendeous crimes but we should be concerned first and most importantly about our crimes. It's similar to the case of Bin Laden. Yes, he's a terrorist but that's just basically understood, so why talk about it as an excuse to ignore what we did in Afghanistan? I know that's not your point but, that's the point of a majority of the establishment (media, politicians, etc.).

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Turkey and the Tyranny of Business

By Cihanb, Cosmicparoxysms at Aug 10, 2005 17:40 PM
I don't really know what counts as "a large amount" but do 30 thousand people qualify as such? (Not only soldiers but also civilians including women and villages. And yes, PKK did bomb innocent villages since some of the villages cooperated with the state.) I would also add to this 30 thousand PKK's (forced) suicide bombings, the death of Kurts recruited by PKK but this point seems more contestable. The Turkish state, like any other state, was perhaps brutal to Kurds but this doesn't explain the whole story. Once you accept that PKK's deeeds are not trivial, I am just curious why Chomsky never mentions THIS SIDE of the story. I mean I'll be glad if you can find one reference by Chomsky to the deeds of PKK - it will relieve my heart, but so far my attempts have been fruitless. But if you think about it, you'll see that the picture you have is sort of like a New York Times reversal. Just like you can't find any reference to East Timor or other US atrocities, you can't find any reference to PKK when it comes to Chomsky's thoughts about Turkey. Look I'll be happy if you can refer me to Chomsky's comments on PKK. As of now, I am afraid I am beginning to give credit to some of Chomsky criticism. Thanks...

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Turkey and the Tyranny of Business

By Adabanasik, Ap2k at Aug 10, 2005 03:09 AM
The US government often changes it's mind as to who's friend/ foe. Saddam was once our friend and so was Usama… It's not even that the US sponsored Turkey to annihilate the Kurds. They simply gave large amounts of military aid to Turkey, while they were in the process of annihilating the Kurds. Without this military aid (and political support), Turkey would have not been able to do nearly AS MUCH damage (in the same way that without US aid Israel would not be able to keep up the occupation). Now US had it's own interests in supporting Turkey and they just overlooked the Kurd massacres, in the same way that they overlooked the Kurd massacres perpetrated by Saddam in the 80's. Nevertheless, in both cases (Turkey & Iraq), US military KNOWINGLY supported regimes that were murdering civilians, which is totally illegal under US and international law. When it comes to Iraq, things changed when Saddam stopped fitting the needs of US government and became our enemy. Then the Kurds became our friends, since your enemy's enemy is your friend. So now the Kurds are US allies in the war, since they have been oppressed by Saddam and were the only ethnic group in Iraq that welcomed the invasion (being promised either independence or autonomy in return for their alliance). PKK also has blood on their hands, but they didn't exactly wipe out a large portion of the Turkish population?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Turkey and the Tyranny of Business

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 08, 2005 22:58 PM
You've got to remember that the U.S. didn't support Turkey in the late 1990s against the Kurds because it had anything against the Kurds. It's just that Turkey is an important NATO ally in the region that wanted to conduct a military operation, and the Kurds have nothing to put on the table. 10,000 destroyed villages later, the Kurds DO have something to put on the table - namely, support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Suddenly the U.S. is pro-Kurd, though guardedly so since Turkey remains an important part of the U.S. geopolitical system in the Middle East. If it turns out that the insurgency in Iraq dies down, or Kurdish nationalist sentiment in northern Iraq starts to become a liability, the U.S. will magically become "anti-Kurd" again. In other words, it's nothing personal. Just business.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Turkey and the Tyranny of Business

By Cihanb, Cosmicparoxysms at Aug 08, 2005 22:50 PM
Chomsky also frequently claims that US backed Turkey in her fury against the Kurds but if you read the Turkish press nowadays (I mean the few reliable writers that I trust), the US seems to be aloof towards if not supportive of the Kurdish terrorist settlement in northern Iraq. Again, this condition has strained US-Turkey relations. If US was/is so supportive of the Turkish violence against Kurds, why is the Kurdish terrorist settlement (PKK flags have been observed in some buildings) in northern Iraq being tolerated? The fact that Chomsky repeatedly mentions only one side of this issue -namely, the Kurdish casualties, the "US-backed" Turkish operations against Kurds- is unsettling. And a "Turkey" search in Zmag blogs shows that the terrorism of the Kurds is not emphasized enough. (By any means, you can not describe the support for Ocalan as "Mandela-like": see this http://blog.zmag.org/index.php/weblog/entry/my_turkey_trip/)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Turkey and the Tyranny of Business

By Cihanb, Cosmicparoxysms at Aug 08, 2005 22:23 PM
Here is, I think, a link which you might find helpful in understanding the issue, http://hrw.org/english/docs/1999/01/20/italy772.htm. To quote the crux of the report: "Human Rights Watch's letter to D'Alema recounted that between 1992 and 1995, the height of the conflict, Ocalan's PKK is believed to have been responsible for at least 768 extrajudicial executions, mostly of civil servants and teachers, political opponents, off-duty police officers and soldiers, and those deemed by the PKK to be "state supporters." In addition, the PKK committed numerous large-scale massacres of civilians, usually against villagers or villages that were believed to be connected with the state civil defense "village guard system." In twenty-five such massacres committed between 1992 and 1995, 360 people were killed, including thirty-nine women and seventy-six children. These actions were not committed by rogue units or commanders, but were PKK official policy. Human Rights Watch has often reported and condemned abuses committed by Turkish government forces, as well as the PKK. (end quote) As Chomsky points out, terrorism has a very clear definition, namely, the killing of innocent civilians for political gains. If you agree that yes, in fact, this is the correct definition of terrorism, then what PKK has done is terrorism. Needless to say, the actions of the Turkish state would also qualify as such.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Turkey and the Tyranny of Business

By Adabanasik, Ap2k at Aug 08, 2005 22:10 PM
Of course, I don't expect you to take my word for it, so go right ahead and do your own homework. Just do an internet search for “Turkish Kurd oppression” or something similar. Or check Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or other human rights organizations. Here are a few links from an internet search I just did: http://mit.edu/thistle/www/v12/2/kurds.html http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/eca/turkey/kurd.htm http://www.hr-action.org/khr/IHT120794.htm http://csmonitor.com/2003/0403/p09s01-woeu.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/263523.stm http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/0061.htm http://www.dozame.org/article.php/20050621175925966

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Turkey and the Tyranny of Business

By Adabanasik, Ap2k at Aug 08, 2005 21:35 PM
The Turkish anti-Kurd military campaign is not alleged, nor has it even been kept a secret outside of Turkey and it's allies (US). I'm not saying that Kurdish militias don't have any blood on their hands, but: “one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter”. Kurds have not only been deprived of a homeland, but they have been severely oppressed in every country that they live in: Turkey, Syria, Iran, Iraq. Oppression breeds misery and discontent and leads some people into taking up arms – thus you may call the PKK a terrorist organization or a liberation organization (labels like such are just propaganda). I don't agree with their means, but I do believe that the Kurds deserve a country of their own, or at least some degree of autonomy in the countries they live in. Unfortunately those countries are not democracies, where they could try to achieve that by political means. Now despite the fact that Kurdish militias were responsible for some violence, it does not justify the military campaign (financed by the US taxpayer) against the Kurdish population (keep in mind that the military did not just go after the “terrorist organization” but destroyed entire villages, women, children, elderly, entire livelihoods – that is collective punishment – illegal under international law (although widely practiced by most US allies – Israel being the prime example of course).

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Turkey and the Tyranny of Business

By Cihanb, Cosmicparoxysms at Aug 08, 2005 20:34 PM
Can anybody give links and references on what the Turkish state allegedly did to the Kurds? The moral climate in Turkey is starkly different. Writers of the Turkish left, whom I trust a lot, disagree with his claims and I'd like to do some independent homework on the question. On another note, does anybody know what Chomsky's thoughts about the Kurdish terrorist leader, Abdullah Ocalan, is? He mentions state-terrorism against the kurds (which may be true) but I haven't yet read his comments about PKK or Ocalan. Thanks...

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (24)

Loading_border