Terror in my country :(

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Ok, I see in this thred a LOT of shit talk. Basicly Sesame, you think the governments of this world really give a shit wether its civilian or military targets. When Hezbolla sent truckbombs into the US base in Lebanon, they called it terrorism, even though it was a military target. When Al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole, they called it terrorism, yet it was a warship they attacked.

When the US shot down an Iranian Airliner in Iranian airspace, with a warship that was illegaly in Iranian water, they called it an accident, collatoral damage, they refused to appologise, when the Russians shot down a Korean airliner that flew into Russian airspace, over russian land, they called it a crime.

Last week a palestinian rammed a bus with a bulldozer, he was called a terrorist, when the Isrealis flatten a house full of Palestinians with a millitary bulldozer they are defending themselves.

When Hezzbolla fire unguided missiles at isreal, they are terrorist, and targetting civillians, when the Irealis fire back with guided missiles, they are defending themselves and trying to keep civillian casualtys down. Hezbolla killed more soldiers than civillians with thier unguided missiles, Israel killed more civillians than fighters with thier guided missiles. Yet it is Hezbolla who are the terrorists.

You say terrorists are cowards. Everyday a man's family are abused by soldiers, they are taunted and mocked by his enemys, they come into his house, they put a gun in his face and tell him they will kill him, thier planes fly over his house, they bomb him, thier hellicopters shoot his family and friends, soldiers shoot his children from across hte border, finaly he makes a bomb and straps it to his own body, he goes up to the soldiers at the checkpoint and blows himself up. It is the only way he can kill hte soldiers. Is he a coward? or are the soldiers who killed from safe inside thier planes and tanks and sniper towers?
Oh he did he for his 72 virgins, he did it because he has no respect for life, he did it because he is evil.
No, he did it because he hates his enemy more than anything else, and he hates them for a reason, because they are the occupiers, teh oppresors.

When you apply bullshit morality, you say, oh they are both wrong, they are both bad. But one man has power over the other. A man in a tank in a plane in a high tower, the man who contorls the other, who imprisons him with a wall, who came into his home, came into his country, came and took his land, destroyed his home, and then finally kills his people, kills the people he conqured and oppresses. is he hte same as the man who endures all that and then retaliates against the people who did it to him? Are they the same? Are the equal?

Does the crime of the oppressed lashing out against those who are his tormentors balance out the crimes of the oppressor against his victim?


_________________________________-

As to the PKK, I won't comment on them, I do not thing thier actions are justified, they have not persued political aims very hard, but the Turkish government has also refused to negotiate, and has not responded to the PKK's ceasefires, and it had destroyed thousands of Kurdish communities and created millions of regugees.

As far as Translover's satement that there is no place called Kurdistan, well, rember that at the start of WW1 there was no such place as Turkey, your nation was part of hte ottoman empire and after it's defeat, was divided into many different countrys with Turkish and Kurdish territory, and the south eastern kurdish terretory becoming part of Iraq. It was only because of war by Mustafa Kemal that the republic of turkey cam into existance and took the Kurdish territory that was to be given to Iraq. And the Kurdish territory in Iraq was only place in that nation because the Britsh drew a line around thier territory in the middle east and it went straight through hte Kurdish part. The fact is, the borders in that part of the world were drawn arbitrarily by the collonial powers, Turkey only exists because they fought against the lines the Europeans drew, why is that more legitimate than the Kurds fighting against the lines the Turks have drawn? The only difference is the Turks won thier war and so they are a country and act like they were a country since the begining of time, but they were just a province of the ottoman empire, and the ottomans talked of Turkish nationalists and Turkey the same way you now talk of Kurdish nationalists and Kurdistan.