Kurdistan, turkey, pkk , oil , M-E.

This will be an untypically specific posting. Somehow i think all the fuzz over the kurdistan-issue is hardly warranted, whilst media persist in desinforming. If we don't stick to facts, and exchange these unbiasedly, nothing much will be gained, and kurdish again will become the victim. As well as quitte possibly some turks.
In general terms escalation might poison an alredi autoritair atmosphere in turkey. It would raise problems for irak and iraki kurds, and most importantly invites unnecessary death and destruction. On the background plays that every party might hallucinate an economic interest in oil by desorganising the kirkuk regions.

Major players... Maliki, he is a policeman and does not understand what is happening.
I don't know how people of limited scope become presidents, but Mailiki has only a simple and straightforward way of coping. The presidential quality to always seek solutions and negotiate he does not posses in matters of military calibre.
All he said is .. blah blah, attacks, terrorists, forbidden, allies, security.
Nothing in depth. But certainly nothing comforting kurds.

Jalabani: Jalabani opted to support the obviously somewhat justifiable turkish intend to get done with intrusions from without irak. This is a prokurdish statement, a general kirkuk statement, an obvious sign of negotiability, but also a bit of the easy way out, Jalabani may be aware like noone else, how unrealist it be that refugee (turkish) kurds, a 30 or more year history of the region, would suddenly shut down all activity aimed at turkey, let alone find way to disappear back into turkey and not be confronted with persecution and violence.

USA: usa opened the ball, by making a huge affair of the armenia case.
For me it misses relevance because it is considered as a single case, at no point in a year anyone but me pointed out what scarcity of food was abound over the region in these years, and other great deeds of inhumanity of that age are not related or mentioned.
A damnification like this can only be made after a complete and unbiased historical assesment and in a supra-national context. Things we can only dream of for now. Also when the USA blames the turkish over armenia, it does not dare to speak truth about the current turkish terror. Mostly i suppose because they use all the same methods, apparently they also exterminate villages in independish areas. People in the usa have no clue what is going on. (Not one coherent USA right wing posting on al jazeera). Apparently at the moment USA politics supports the turks , (something i can't understand well outside USA being an imperialist repressive state). USA public is crying outright evil over the kurds.("wishlist of terrorism" on the menu)
We should perhaps realise that a shared interest with the turks as a loyal nato partner gives promising perspectives having to do with oil. Something for wich you need no strong kurdish unity and certainly not a powerfull PKK. That would not support turkish or usa interests in irak and that would fight the destruction of kurdish prosperity in northern irak.

PKK: The more representative element of the resistance against turkish repression of Kurds. (like PLO used to be and Hamas may be a representative for the resistance by palestineans). Unfortunately for the PKK they are modern. They have no ambition to set up an archaic state, or some odd califate, they also have a marxist ideological background, apparently , since i myself never much noticed, and as such they remain under the coldwar protocol for terrorism (is that the reason?). The PKK has, i don't know how, managed to contribute to the fall of saddam and fight the turkish army,
for decades. At one point i think in the early 90s, it became absolutely obvious that the turkish army applied genocidal politics to kurdish areas, and what all turks apparently manage to overlook: that the kurdish culture was severely repressed and prosecuted in all it's aspects.
Discrimination on schools, no kurdish language allowed, and the ongoing campaigns to neutralise ever more of the areas inhabited by kurdish. Harsh punishments of prison and even torture in huge scale prisons for (kurdish) activists, and... in turkey you can also be prisoned for saying things the state generally dislikes. So the typical shapes of political prosecution and destruction of freedom of expression have been decade long elements of the turkish strategy. What probably is the reason for the militance of the PKK is that turkey manages to keep providing new levy's of embittered, scared and angered kurds.
Obviously by counteracting the genocidal composure of the turkish tenure the PKK has over the years actually helped the kurdish population a lot, or at least shown to try her utter for only that. I must say i suspect the last few years (through the irak adventure) the turkish attitude has become a bit less destructive, although i fear the repression of the individual may remain almost similar. I am not sure since i heard kurdish could have their own language at schools again, that would mean also the individual perspective of a kurd in turkey improved a bit. (a kurd would have like 60-70% more energy for schooling and education in other subjects, its hard to keep up your professorates if you have to be a complete autodidact in your major language)
Anyhow that and modern times , in the sense of non religious politics eg. are the facts behind the PKK. One reason people would not vote pkk inside turkey is it would be dangerous to openly sympathise, voting means you would usually also publically defend a such opinion(pkk in this case), wich would endanger your life. As such the
link that pkk is to radical/militant (to vote for) became subconscious. Elections show the will for peace of kurdish people, but when the kurdish vote something outside pkk they still vote for their independence. In that sense PKK is only living up to procedures more then other representatives, wich i suppose is why they have such great sympathy despite their non-conformism.


Irak: Irak wants nothing to do with this. Iraki kurdistan as a political factor is no exception. However within kurdistan the turkish attrocitys are well known and sympathy for the resistance is a very natural thing, not in the least because kurdish identity in irak could be a scary one under saddam. In that context neither iraki president said much revealing.(i think it shows ambitions as well)


Turkey: The turkish public is very biased, single tv shows can make them all shout obviously propagandatory outrage at once, on the forum of al jazeera.
So why is the turkish public so very biased? It is really complex. Firstly i think they are awfully badly informed over the scales of the repression of kurds and the counteractions. They seem not even to realise kurdish get no kurdish language schools, or perhaps they are bloating on their succes in the destruction of kurdish identity. Some would. So.. next question, why are turkish so embittered? This pitfall of demologics must have been armed earlier. When the turkish media let out the turkish part of the violence it was not hard for a turk to become somewhat bitter, over the kurdish resistance, also turks planned to kinda abolish their headscarfs in public buildings to join the EU, now i decided it was better if turkey did not join the EU. Not for any economical reason, but because they had not raised their populace above the headscarf ideal, in other words powerfactors wished to cling to islamism, wich was the better reason to respect the middle east nations in their geopolitical aptitude (whereabouts). Also reluctant operating towards ukraine and belorussia from the eu, show the same geopolitical score, it is not in the interest of the eu to (directly or immediatly) intrude geopolitically to entitys that have a different historical position. Be it (imperial-sovjet) Russia , Middle-east or africa, in effect. Also Turkey has a moderate or modern islam since ataturk, and it is not necessarilly bad to allow the turkish ideals to influence the region. At least it is something slightly different and often indeed turkey acts as an intermediator, an umpire at her best moments. So the basic reason turkey fought the kurds, is turkey doesn't want to seize the (any) land. All the talk about terrorism is only rhetorics, and apparently the nato has been supporting the turkish in their attempts,
else there would have been no need for the militant factions (the all-too-often socalled terrorists) to become communist mainstream.

EU: Perhaps comes up with something soon. EU has always been a nato partner ,
as such it is indulged with turkish politics, EU supports the USA "wishlist of terror" labeling pkk amongst, outside the predictable humanitarian effort and statements, i expect nothing much as EG alredi tried to show her sympathy for hamas, i assume it will try to push the usa for her responsabilitys towards the kurds. One should not underestimate the political interest of once again attacking a "communist" group with the label 'terrorist'. The US apparently informed her public that "Koordum Turkam delendum esse ". so that is what we may most reasonably expect to happen.
(might need check but ianss.)endpoint of that reasoning, oil.

Erdogan: And as such, the turkish political circles. Firstly i don't like they move their populace through onesided mediamanipulation, wich is way to haughty an attitude for me to like. Secondly i think they are populist and have the populist aproach of security, that kind of securty always adds up to fascist repression, they show to be so by directing existential fears of turks to the kurds instead of using those to emancipate modernisation. Whence structural political turkish interests appear: to stay in power, to manoevre the populace, so the suspicion that the iraki kurdistan oil has to do with the affair easily rises.
Perhaps also they try to settle things 'once and for all' , stubbornly refusing to see the reality of a federal iraki kurdistan and as such the impossibility to completely destroy kurdish identity in turkey. In a way this asking for attention is perhaps a way to induce realist talks, but only if the world forces them to. If the world chooses to neglect the kurds, the turkish will be the last to complain.

Me: I just hope some of these old misconceptions get cleared up on a worldwide scale.
i know i have not said everything about turkish ideals and motivations, and i am as sorry for the family members of all involved as the parents of the turkish soldiers.
Like more pakistani got sacrificed for the socalled war on terror then coalitioners,
i must unfortunately assume turkish and kurdish lifes are counted similar by major powers involved.



























Erdogan