[obdev]

In the 1980s, Iraqi Kurds were fleeing to Turkey for freedom and safety. The Prime Minister was of Kurdish origin. You could hear people speak Kurdish freely anywhere between the west and east end of the country.

There were no "anti-Kurdish" laws and policies. The pro-American coup d'état in 1980 came with a law to control non-Turkish publications, but it was never put into action.

[skissane]

> There were no "anti-Kurdish" laws and policies.

Here's a 1999 Human Rights Watch report – "RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF THE KURDISH LANGUAGE" – https://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/turkey/turkey993-08.htm

[obdev]

You can't just dump links to 10,000-word political essays, and expect them to support your original premise that the PKK terrorism is justified.

You must have a knowledge about the history and currency of the topic to hold such strong opinions. You should also use your own words to articulate your arguments, so I can keep myself engaged in this conversation.

Nevertheless, I've read the report. It misinterprets the government's certain actions to protect the public against several jihadist, separatist, and other destructive movements, which are not exclusive to a specific ethnic group.

It also fails to recognize the newly founded republic's goal to build an inclusive Turkish citizenship identity, and to provide a progressive and secular education program to everyone regardless of their race, religion, and gender while preserving the cultural value of each.

"Kurdish" isn't a single language anyway. There is a reason Kurds use French in France, English in USA/UK/Canada, and Turkish in every part of Turkey to communicate with each other, unless they're from the same tribe. It's not realistically possible to institute a system to provide public service to every individual without establishing a common ground.

[skissane]

> You can't just dump links to 10,000-word political essays,

I'm citing reputable sources, your reply is just your own say-so.

If you don't like Human Rights Watch, how about the European Commission?

https://projects.research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/en/pro...

> and expect them to support your original premise that the PKK terrorism is justified.

I'm not defending attacks on innocent civilians. Consider Northern Ireland: the IRA's attacks on civilians were shameful and wrong. But, if it were not for the oppression of Catholics by the Stormont government, and the failure of the UK government to stop it, those attacks may well have never started.

[obdev]

You're trying to connect the dots between two separate phenomenons. This oversimplification will only mislead you.

You'd think that your left-wing instincts will guide you through this, but you will accidentally end up taking ugly sides in proxy wars in this part of the world.

PKK started out according to CIA's Operation Gladio to justify the 1980 coup, and continued operating in line with the Carter Doctrine. Its first actions were assassinating Kurdish and Turkish left-wing leaders (Zeki Ön, Mehmet Ongan, Adil Turan, Hasan Erkılıç to name a few).

Today, PKK follows the radical Islamist narratives (Şeyh Said, Seyit Rıza, etc. are often celebrated by them). PKK is in agreement with an Islamist terrorist organization (FETÖ) behind the 2016 coup attempt, whose leader (Fethullah Gülen) resides in the US. PKK conducts international drug trafficking at "cartel" scale (between Asia and Europe; ask your neighborhood drug dealer about it). PKK is backed by several crime syndicates and tribes who are responsible for countless human rights violations from systematic child/woman abuse to forced labour and human trafficking. PKK is currently taking part in the ethnic cleansing of Arabic, Turkish, Assyrian population in Syria and Iraq to make a space for an American-backed puppet state under "YPG" alias.

How is your IRA-PKK correlation shaping up now?

Your "reputable sources" are compilations of quotes by "usual suspects" anyway. Western organizations are not known for being the gold standard of social justice advocacy here, as they have a history of endorsing any "project" that fits their financial and political agenda; from cyanide process in gold mining, to civil warfare for carving up sovereign states.