The PKK

Users who are viewing this thread

No, but they'll know who did support them. Or they'll find out bloody quickly if they want to see tomorrow. Six and two threes really, you can always find more people, and they tend to be far more compliant when they find out why you need more of them.
 
IRA didn't try to hurt civilians and only targeted government bodies. And they didn't declare war on anybody, they wanted Northern Ireland, which the Brits took in the first place. There's obviously more peaceful ways of doing that, since that's how they got, what is now, Rep. Of Ireland, but if your country was taken over, and you were declined rights that others had, and the government funded a paramilitary group that not just targets IRA members, but Catholic civilians, you would be pissed aswell. The British soilders didn't make it any better with Bloody Sunday either.
 
Dream on

Remember Bloody Friday? 9 Civilian deaths, including four bus drivers (or was MI6 filling in for on the buses that week?) two women shoppers and a 14 year old schoolboy (undoubtedly a crack military cadre) oh, and 77 injuries, a number of children among them, at a shopping precinct, evidently a front for the military :roll:

Or how about Tullyvallen Hall, or was being a member of the Orange Order another code word for pensioners joining the British army?

Still, nice of them to apologise for all those civilian deaths they never caused. Of course, we haven't actually found all of their victims yet.

And they didn't declare war on anybody
To quote directly from their green book, 1976 edition:
"    By now it is clear that our task is not only to kill as many enemy personnel as possible but of equal importance to create support which will carry us not only through a war of liberation which could last another decade but which will support us past the 'Brits Out' stage to the ultimate aim of a Democratic Socialist Republic."

    "The Strategy is:

      1. A war of attrition against enemy personnel which is aimed at causing as many casualties and deaths as possible so as to create a demand from their people at home for their withdrawal.
      2. A bombing campaign aimed at making the enemy's financial interest in our country unprofitable while at the same time curbing long term financial investment in our country.
      3. To make the Six Counties as at present and for the past several years ungovernable except by colonial military rule.
      4. To sustain the war and gain support for its ends by National and International propaganda and publicity campaigns.
      5. By defending the war of liberation by punishing criminals, collaborators and informers"

Oh, and of course who could forget their collaboration with the Nazi's?
 
Archonsod said:
I wouldn't. It's an incredibly simple proposal. Either they tell us where the ****wits are and we'll take them out with minimum civilian casualties, or we start killing indiscriminately. Either way, problem solved.
In other words, you accept genocide as perfectly legitimate way of solving the problem.
 
Well duh ... No more people = no more problem. I take the opposite view of human rights - you have no right to exist, your existence is merely tolerated on sufferance by the state.

And the world at large come to think of it.
 
Theres too many of us arseholes on the planet. When you get some terrorist and militant groups, lets call them uber arseholes, then regular arseholes have to do something about it. If that involves killing innocent arseholes for the greater good then too bad, a few less arseholes on the planet.
 
MrCrotch said:
IRA didn't try to hurt civilians and only targeted government bodies. And they didn't declare war on anybody, they wanted Northern Ireland, which the Brits took in the first place. There's obviously more peaceful ways of doing that, since that's how they got, what is now, Rep. Of Ireland, but if your country was taken over, and you were declined rights that others had, and the government funded a paramilitary group that not just targets IRA members, but Catholic civilians, you would be pissed aswell. The British soilders didn't make it any better with Bloody Sunday either.

I'm assuming you haven't heard of the Omagh Bombiing?
 
See, that's where the IRA went wrong. They never intended to harm civilians, however in their ineptitude they managed to kill an awful lot of them. The stupid thing is, if they'd have just came out and told everyone how incompetent they were in the first place, they'd have been in parliament quicker than you can say "These ****wits would make ideal politicians!".

At least, it's worked for every British government since pretty much for ever really. :wink:

I dunno, I guess I'm just too much of an arsehole. I'd thoroughly support Turkey's right to crush the PKK elements both within their own country and within Iraq however they see fit. Yeah, Iraq is going to complain but at the end of the day, if they were capable of keeping their house in order then their neighbours wouldn't have to cross their border. They're lucky in a way - this sort of thing has been an excuse for invasion in the past, at least Iraq's sovereignty won't be put at risk (at least, not from Turkey), even if it is primarily because the Americans might have something to say about anything too extensive.
 
Grunwalder said:
I'm assuming you haven't heard of the Omagh Bombiing?

Yes I have. I live around 10-15 miles from Omagh, my mum counciled some of the victims of the bomb and a girl in my school was killed. That was done by the RIRA, who are a different group from the IRA and PIRA because they disagreed with the ceasefire or something - I don't really know what they're doing, if they wanted to harm the civilians or not. I don't understand why they would attack a Catholic town.

I'm not saying the IRA aimed to hurt civilians, they did due to carelessness and general stupidity. I'm not agreeing with what they're doing, but I can understand why they're doing it.
 
The IRA split up after the war for independence ended in the South, so there's never really been one IRA since the twenties.

They're all descended from the IRA which fought in the war, they all (except for one group anyway, but I can't remember their name at the minute) want a single, united Ireland. Where the RIRA and the PIRA differ is in what to do about the British. The RIRA follow a nationalist policy of wanting the British removed completely, and have always been happy to attack anything or anyone they believe to be British whether by birth or ancestry. The PIRA on the other hand have always (publicly at least) fought on a stance of inclusion (i.e. any British remaining in Northern Ireland after the act of Unification would be granted Irish citizenship). The PIRA has always been the largest group, and interestingly enough have always been socialist (in fact, at the beginning of the Troubles their doctrine could have easily been described as Communist, though it changed along with the waning of support for the Soviets throughout Europe).
All IRA groups used to operate on a policy of shared resources and intelligence. The RIRA are the only group calling itself an IRA member to have disregarded the Good Friday agreement though, which in an ironic turn of events has brought retribution from the PIRA. The remaining smaller IRA groups seem to have followed the PIRA lead (although to be honest without the mutual backing of other IRA groups it's doubtful they could have carried on) although British Intelligence has said that it believes there has been a bit of a transfer between the two (probably Provisionals upset with the ceasefire defecting to the RIRA, and some of the Real IRA members looking to jump on the PIRA bandwagon).

Like I said, the IRA (as a whole) has always been happy to attack civilians, unless you really think the bus depot and shopping mall targeted during Black Friday was down to the IRA having outdated maps (No idea about the bus station, but I suspect the shopping mall was probably the last hurrah of the commie element). They've preferred government and military targets as a rule, but I don't think Manchester City Centre (which they pretty much levelled during the 80's) is well known for hiding a garrison under it's streets.

The more worrying thing is that it looks like certain IRA groups are turning to organised crime now that they've went political rather than terrorist, which just goes to show how far behind they've left the original values behind the Irish revolution :???:
 
Archonsod said:
The more worrying thing is that it looks like certain IRA groups are turning to organised crime now that they've went political rather than terrorist, which just goes to show how far behind they've left the original values behind the Irish revolution :???:

Eh.

Chechens are no better.

Ten times more violent, and now that they've got Russkie soldiers occupying both Chechnya and Ingushetia [and Ossetia to some extent], and especially after Basayev's death, the two provinces are now riddled with Chechen mafias.

When the goals aren't realized, there's little left except to fight for the scraps.
 
Well technically they still want to unite N. Ireland and Rep. of Ireland. Although I can't see why. Because I think everything is fine as it is - besides the killing.
 
Eh, I thought this was about the Walther PPK, was going to say "that's the gun Hitler shot himself with."

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg13-e.htm
 
Apparently, the autonomous Kurd region within Iraq is worried that Turkey are going to use the PKK as an excuse to take a swipe at them.

Kind of made me laugh though. The argument the guy they interviewed had was that Turkey are deploying tanks, which are useless in mountain terrain, therefore they must be intending to drive further into Iraq.

Of course, if tanks are indeed useless in mountain terrain, surely they'd have problems actually crossing into Iraq, given that there's a bloody huge mountain chain in the way.

Personally, I think Turkey should just ask MI6 for a loan of their man eating badgers, should sort them out in short order, especially if deployed alongside British Stealth Sheds.
 
Archonsod's comments summarizes what I would say here. Still, I want to add some.

First of all, the governers of the autonomous region state that Turkey's secret agenda is to invade North Iraq and Turkey is actually making use of the recent PKK attacks as a cover for the invasion. Consequently, the great majority of the international community get the impression that Turkey is about to take the advantage of the political and administrative chaos in the region to take control of the natural resources in the region. What the Kurdish government don't tell them is that Turkey have performed similar operations in the past against the PKK. Some of these operations have been planned and performed with the cooperation of Barzani and Talabani -yes the very same Barzani and Talabani who have been complaining about Turkey's plans. And none of these operations have resulted in Turkey settling down in the area! It should be questioned why Barzani and Talabani supported Turkey's actions in the past and one day they both started to make up "evidences" to create a feeling that Turkey is about to come and never go back.

The tanks? I don't remember any Turkish operation that involved no tanks. Yes, the region is mountainous but it's not Himalayas  :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom