Iraq acts to curb PKK
by Scoop Shachtman, 31 October 2007
Iraqi authorities have set up more checkpoints to restrict the movement of Kurdish rebel fighters and cut supply lines to their mountain hideouts, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said on Wednesday.
Zebari also said Iraq was making “intensive efforts” to free eight Turkish soldiers captured by guerrillas from the rebel Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in fighting in southern Turkey.
Down with reactionary terrorists and Turkish military cliques which endanger the Kurdish people and all they have fought for. Up with democratic Iraq and its diverse peoples working to create a secure nation!
Thursday 1 November 2007 at 0:49
Yes but what about the Kurds endangeringthe Turkish people, the loony cliques of the PKK, the celebration of Turkey as a secular democracy (or at least the best in the M.E. bar Israel)? The Kurds make a lovely “plucky little nation” but the PKK are nasty. Think plucky Belgium in WW1 vs. Colonial Belgium and the Congo.
The Turks have been nasty SOB’s but then again so have the PKK. Like most of these fights its a dirty little war people would like to go away. The Turks need to step up and start negotiating because without a political settlement (or collapse of will) this will never end.
Thursday 1 November 2007 at 8:33
The Kurds should try real hard to get the PKK to move to the Iranian border and do their thing over there. That is the dirty little war the Americans want them to fight. Plus it would serve as a non-subtle lesson to the Turks - “see all these atrocities occuring in Iran, negotiate now and there will be no problem, we’re all allies with America, let’s be friends” - get negotiations off on the right foot with everyone properly motivated.
Thursday 1 November 2007 at 10:58
A war in Iran might also have the benefit of the PKK joining up and helping the local Arabs wo are suffering from forced relocation. It would be nice to see both groups do well out of it.
Thursday 1 November 2007 at 11:44
Scoop:
The Hitchens describes the PKK as a Stalinist cult equal to the Shining Path. The Turks haven’t been a force for good lately, but just because they are agin something, that doesn’t make what they are agin right.
Thursday 1 November 2007 at 12:28
Lynne,
I think you will find I was the one who posted the Stalinist PKK piece by Hitchens, and the “reactionary terrorists” in the post above is meant to refer to the PKK.
I also have a problem with people advocating starting a war with Iran for the wrong reasons.
Friday 2 November 2007 at 1:13
I think liberals are all cowards and their corresponding ideology is a coward’s charter for moralistic preachers and cretins of the negativist fuckwit kind. While it is necessary, these days, to dumb down to the level of the average thick Yank bastard in order to fight once again the battles of the 19th and early 20th centuries, (eg, in the struggle against superstition/religiosity/obscurantism of all kinds) it is also necessary to develop, in parallel, a more sophisticated understanding of philosophy, ideology, and social theory in order to grapple with the contemporary world at the necessary depth. In other words, liberals can eat my shit after I’ve scooped out their fucking eyeballs and shat in the sockets. Fuck them all. Pussies.
Up the kurds! up The workers! To hell with the enemies!
Friday 2 November 2007 at 6:11
I also have a problem with people advocating starting a war with Iran for the wrong reasons.
The war has been going on at least since the Persian empire expanded northwest into Kurdistan and the Turks migrated off the steppes and the Arabs got big religion. It is a war worth finishing.
Friday 2 November 2007 at 10:48
Pussies:
Liberals hold no strong beliefs and are simply the relatively rich happy enough in their lot, but with room for maybe a better pension or a less costly doctors fee. They seek accomodation to avoid conflict and if conflict is apparent they deny it and hope that it goes away.
Friday 2 November 2007 at 12:04
Are Hitchens and the Iraqi government (including Talabani) pussy liberals then?
Saturday 3 November 2007 at 2:46
I’d call Hitchens a liberal mugged by reality - a neo-con, except he is not Jewish.
As to the Iraqi government, don’t have a clue. They are still too new & foreign to pass judgement on and are in a weak position that is not of their own choosing.
Saturday 3 November 2007 at 2:48
If they had made themselves weak and inoffensive out of choice, I’d call them liberal.
Saturday 3 November 2007 at 11:57
Goodness, you have outed yourself there.
You think a defining feature of being a Neocon is being Jewish?
I think Talabani would tell you to fuck off if you called him “foreign” or “new” given his track record of fighting for Kurds inside Iraq.
Saturday 3 November 2007 at 16:17
No, I do not. I think neo-con philosophy is the pursuit of justice and human rights as primary goals, through the use of all means available. The term has fallen out of favor and is now part of the mil-industrial-complex-zoinist-conspiracy folklore thanks to leading lights Richard Perle, Paul Wolfiwitz and the Iraq invasion. Pretty sure Hitchens denies being a neo-con.
The Iraqi government is made up of much more than one man and includes those who have little interest in Kurdish well being. They have left the PKK to operate out of Kurdistan for too long, an error that is either explained by wilful ignorance or because they are not strong enough to tackle the issue. I’d lean towards the latter, but I do not know in certainty.