[torb-xyz]

Funny that you compare YPG to ISIS. YPG/YPJ (alongside others in SDF) where some of the most successful militia in fighting back against ISIS (so much that there where some strategic co-operation with US forces in fighting ISIS).

They also generally fight for Kurdish rights and, ethnic pluralism in general (saved several Yazidi towns from ISIS for example), women's rights and democracy (including forms of local direct democracy seen few other places).

The reason PKK and/or YPG/YPJ is on some terrorist lists is mainly because Turkish government is against Kurdish rights in general. Turkey tend to claim any group fighting for Kurdish independence and/or rights to be terrorists.

So if they're ”terrorists” in the same way apartheid South-Africa saw Nelson Mandela, ANC and others fighting apartheid as ”terrorists”.

[kobasa]

>The reason PKK and/or YPG/YPJ is on some terrorist lists is mainly because Turkish government is against Kurdish rights in general.

So you're just gonna omit the fact that they have a decades long history of bombing and killing innocent civilians including kids?

[_bohm]

The PKK was formed in reaction to intense oppression of the Kurdish people by the Turkish State. The Kurdish language and traditional garb were banned, and Kurdish history was not allowed to be taught. The Turkish State also burned Kurdish villages and slaughtered many Kurds.

None of this is to say that the PKK has not committed acts which would surely offend western sensibilities, but simply slapping the "terrorist" label on them and calling it a day is not a nuanced way to approach the discussion.

[jmacjmac]

> The Kurdish language and traditional garb were banned

How about nowadays? Nothing is banned yet we still see PKK bombing public buses in our cities. Seriously, when can we call these guys "terrorist"?

These problems were real, yes, Kurdish language was banned, people couldn't say they were Kurdish without any pressure back then but these days are no more. Does "cultural ban happened in the past" justify what PKK is doing now?

[_bohm]

Given that I'm very far removed from these events, I don't think it's my place to make strong judgements about what is and isn't justified in what has obviously been a very long and bitter conflict.

That being said, I don't think the PKK explicitly uses these past offenses to justify their continued activity in the conflict. My understanding is that they continue fighting because the Turkish Kurds still lack any meaningful political representation, they oppose Erdogan's push towards Islamic national identity, and because the Turkish State continues to carry out military strikes against Kurdish targets outside Turkey's borders.

I'm by no means an authority on this topic so feel free to correct me if I've made any incorrect statements. It sounds like you're much close to this conflict than I am, in which case my heart goes out to you in wishing for a peaceful resolution to all of this.

[jmacjmac]

Just to clarify, %20-25 of the population is Kurdish in Turkey. In elections, PKK affiliated legal party gets half of the Kurdish votes and other half goes to Erdogan roughly. So, there is no single Kurdish identity in Turkey, more like split between these two. Ofcourse, there is a few percent which is not among these two. So, if you ask is there any Kurdish people in the government, yes there are a lot. Erdogan gets half of the Kurdish votes, so we can say Kurdish Erdogan supporters have enough representation. PKK affiliated party is not in government, because they didn't get enough votes but they are in parliament ofcourse representing their %10 votes.

I don't think PKK cares about Erdogan's Islamic Turkey dream. You don't see PKK or it's legal party saying anything about it in Turkey, I think they mention it only when they are talking to western media :)

In Turkey, there is secular opposition which is rougly %40-50, they stand against Erdogan's Islamic push but they still lack of %50 + 1 votes to dethrone Erdogan unfortunately.

PKK says they want federalism for Kurdish cities, you can advocate for that, it's okay, their legal party is doing that, that's fine. But when you're holding guns and saying my way or high way, that's a big no. So, if they really care about democratic, secular Turkey, they can put guns aside, get together with opposition in Turkey.

[LegitShady]

> So, if they really care about democratic, secular Turkey, they can put guns aside, get together with opposition in Turkey.

On the flip side, learn the lesson from the iranian revolution. When religious extremists control the government and want to impose their religion on anyone, who holds the guns is the most important questions.

giving them up might be the surrender and death of democratic secular turkey, over time.

[m0rti]

Terrorist is an ideological word, therefore it doesn’t always represent everyone’s views of a certain group.

Terrorist groups born as a reaction to heavy injustice. Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians motivate a lot of members of the most popular terrorist groups today.

This has always been like this, we don’t live in a cartoon where the bad guy is 2 dimensional.

To try to understand these groups’ motivations is easy when you are immune to their actions. However, this behaviour is pretty off putting for the other side of the discussion, in this case Turkish people.

I think we need to draw a line somewhere. I don’t know where but this doesn’t feel right for me.

When you start the justification game, you need to do it for other groups too. Otherwise it would come off as hypocritical and dishonest. I don’t know you personally, maybe you do say this for all the “terrorist” groups. But I witness this behaviour online a lot when it comes to the groups that hurt Turkish civilians and I wanted to point it out, maybe this comment can give a bit of perspective to some people.

Also a separate note for the audience, not related with your comment, this is not an Erdogan specific issue as the people from the anglo-sphere tend to claim in this thread. It started before Erdogan, it will continue after Erdogan. If Obama could be the next Turkish president, the situation would still be the same.

[_bohm]

> Terrorist is an ideological word, therefore it doesn’t always represent everyone’s views of a certain group.

> This has always been like this, we don’t live in a cartoon where the bad guy is 2 dimensional.

I completely agree and this was more or less the point of my comment. I'm not attempting to justify the actions of any group in particular, and I certainly don't endorse the use of indiscriminate violence against civilians for any reason.

I'm often bothered by the use of the word "terrorist" because I think it is often used as a means of putting us into this 2 dimensional world and creating a shortcut out of meaningful discussions. I will be the first to admit that my own government is guilty of terrorism under most definitions that people in my part of the world use.

I appreciate your comment, and apologize if mine came off as callous towards people who are suffering as a result of this conflict.

[roadbeats]

I always felt surprised how people are when they throw such "facts" very confidently. What's your source ? Have you been there yourself? How did you end up convincing yourself to know the truth so well that you can transmit to others without leaving any room for discussion? This reminds me something I quite dislike: the tone of fascism. It's widespread like a virus these days.

[esperent]

I've tried to find information about this, and all I can find is that Turkey claimed they committed war crimes, but when the US and UN investigated they couldn't find any supporting evidence.