Article

2003-01-23 Terror Networks

Turkish intelligence confirm US holding talks with terror organisations

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Murat 2003-01-23 07:56 am|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Sorry I have mistakenly dashed a part instead of underlining it.

Posted by Murat 2003-01-23 02:06:16|| 2003-01-23 02:06:16|| Front Page Top

#2 OK, now that we've quite clearly implied to Ankara the negative implications of noncompliance with the will of the United States, let's see if this will cost us less in the final aid package...

Posted by Brian 2003-01-23 07:02:17|| 2003-01-23 07:02:17|| Front Page Top

#3 I have an unanswered question: Has the PKK-KADEK exclusively targeted military installations and not civilians? (And I don't mean the occasional civilian killed by a bullet shot at a Turkish soldier). I view a terrorist as someone who targets civilians to induce a change in civilian attitude toward the government or toward the terrorist. A freedom fighter sees civilians as potential allies and a future constituency that they do not dare antagonize, while viewing soldiers and military installations as legitimate targets. Government officials, insofar as they are part of the chain of command, are also legitimate targets (I.e. if they can be tried for war crimes, then they're legitimate targets.)

I sincerely believe that there are terrorists, AND that there are freedom fighters. I propose the above as operational definitions when classifying a violent group.

Thus, if the PKK has exclusively targeted civilians, then nobody should be contacting them about anything other than telling them to stop, least of all us. However, if the PKK has striven to fight fair and avoid civilians, then Turkey is using terrorist rhetoric to eliminate a foe with whom we may wish to contact: either as a means for convincing Turkey that they have a lot to lose if they don't cooperate, or at least to make clear to the PKK that our soldiers are just passing through, and to secure an agreement not to engage us. Turkey may not LIKE the PKK, but if they don't fit the operational definition of a terrorist organization, they shouldn't expect us to treat the PKK like one.

Posted by Ptah 2003-01-23 07:40:24|| 2003-01-23 07:40:24|| Front Page Top

#4 ptah - a quibble - even if they're not terrorists, I would call them guerillas, or partisans. Freedom fighter is rather charged, and given that we dont know what kind of govt such groups would really set up if they won, id hold back on using it.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-01-23 08:16:29|| 2003-01-23 08:16:29|| Front Page Top

#5 To Ptah
Yes of course they have attacked civilians, thatâs the definition of terrorism. The PKK has never fought fair and targeted mainly defenceless civilians with suicide bombings etc. The pkk-Kadek is listed as terror organisation by the US department as well. The US has defined the PKK-Kadek as terror organisation, see http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/html/10252.htm

Posted by Murat 2003-01-23 08:50:45|| 2003-01-23 08:50:45|| Front Page Top

#6 Liberalhawk: I stand corrected. "partisian" is the better term.

Murat: We agree on definitions. I also followed the link. They claim to have "reformed" in 2000, which I would take with a grain of salt when it comes to any organization with the word "people" in it.

That settles it for me. We still don't know for sure if this is Turkish blather to gain a bargaining edge or the truth. If the latter, and it's NOT the CIA feeling things out, then shame on us.

Posted by Ptah 2003-01-23 20:54:19|| 2003-01-23 20:54:19|| Front Page Top

#7 Ptah: I donât find it likely to be it a blather to gain a bargaining edge (I would if it was only a newspaper article) since the MIT has confirmed it. The intelligence services does not confirm gossips, they only confirm firm evidences.
Actually it does not surprise me since services like the CIA in general do use such underground and even dirty practices to achieve their goals. But it does disappoint me as a Turk to know that the intelligence of an allied country do business with a terror group against my country. I think no one in the US would appreciate it if the Turkish intelligence would have some kind of business with the Al Qaeda either, it just gives me a negative feeling I am dissapointed.

Posted by Murat 2003-01-24 03:04:48|| 2003-01-24 03:04:48|| Front Page Top

#8 And I wouldn't blame you one bit, Murat. I see Israel in the same boat with our attitude of "Our terrorists are worse than yours, but you should negotiate with yours." And like Hezbollah, your terrorists will eventually become OUR terrorists.

Posted by Ptah 2003-01-24 04:37:02|| 2003-01-24 04:37:02|| Front Page Top

#9 Huh... before being disappointed and all that, anybody knows what were they talking about?

The U.S. wants to talk to Iraqi generals right now, and tells them they'll die slowly if they attempt to fight. If it's the same kind of "talks" with the PKK, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Posted by Caton 2003-01-24 07:03:47|| 2003-01-24 07:03:47|| Front Page Top

#10 Ptah: I donât think that negotiating with terrorists is such a good idea, if then why does the US not try negotiating with the Al Qaeda? You see, there is the wrong attitude in the whole world âas long as terror doesnât hit me, it is not such a bad thing, and maybe I can regard terror also as some kind of freedom fightingâ. If you know that due the Al Qaeda there are 5000 victims and due to the PKK there are about 30.000 victims, you could understand why negotiating with terrorist is the last thing the Turkish administration would think about.

Caton: If the Turkish chief of General staff is issuing his discomfort to the US chief of General staff, do you believe that your noble assumptions are correct?

Posted by Murat 2003-01-24 09:06:07|| 2003-01-24 09:06:07|| Front Page Top

09:06 Murat
07:03 Caton
05:07 Down Under
05:07 Ben
04:58 Mike
04:50 Ben
04:37 Ptah
04:24 Ptah
04:18 Ptah
03:04 Murat
23:15 Nero
22:33 Fred
22:30 Denny
22:28 Fred
22:18 Denny
21:19 Chuck
21:07 Chuck
21:02 Anonymous
20:54 Ptah
20:45 Frank G
20:39 Ptah
20:36 Alaska Paul
20:33 Frank G
20:23 Alaska Paul