Reuters Whitewashes Terrorism in Turkey
The PKK has bombed cafes and restaurants in Izmir and Istanbul. They have bombed crowded buses. Recently, they took hostage a group of German tourists on Mount Ararat. They kill journalists, elementary school teachers and doctors with special enthusiasm. To briefly review: Amnesty International reported, shortly after the PKK issued the statement reproduced above, that the PKK was killing civilians "almost every day." In 2002, PKK bombs in Istanbul and the resort cities of Antalya and Marmaris killed three civilians and wounded more than 100. In 2006, ten people, mostly children (civilian children, I assume), were killed by a PKK bomb in Diyarbakır. In the same summer, PKK bombs targeted a bank and an office building in Adana; a PKK bomb went off near a school in Istanbul; three separate attacks in Marmaris targeted tourists on their summer vacations; another one in Antalya targeted at a shopping center. In 2007, a PKK ambush in Sirnak killed a child, seven village guards and five construction workers who were trying to build a dam to bring water to Kurdish villages.
The PKK has branched out into suicide bombings. They have planted land mines in areas frequented by civilians, which, as intended, killed civilians. Just last week, the PKK shot dead four civilians and wounded seven more in Bingöl, a village in eastern Turkey. When the PKK target (civilian) government officials, they tend to execute their wives and children-civilians-as well. I could extend this list for quite a few paragraphs.
So why would Reuters write such a thing? It is exactly as stupid--or as wicked--as writing that al Qaeda, Hamas, or Hezbollah do not target civilians. Does the assertion reflect an ignorance verging on journalistic malpractice? Or is Reuters deliberately propagandizing for one of the world's most disgusting terrorist groups? If so, why? The PKK are unqualified scum. What motivation could Reuters possibly have to minimize this? The PKK claims to wish to create an independent, communist, ethnically-pure Kurdish state in Turkey, and when Turks read this sort of thing in Reuters, many wonder if there is something in this vision that Western journalists find sympathetic. I cannot say that I blame them for wondering.
Güngören is nowhere near my apartment, but it is in the vicinity of the home of one of my friends. He was in my apartment when the bombs went off. We had been laughing all evening, looking out over my balcony, talking about what a beautiful summer it had been and how good it was to be alive. Neither of us were watching the news. If he hadn't been here, he could, I suppose, have been there, although the odds would have been very much against it; there was no reason for him to be in Güngören, and it's not really a place you'd go to if you haven't any special reason to be there. But the whole point of such an attack is to tell the world that it is safe nowhere. It could have been Güngören, it could have been his neighborhood; it could have been mine. We were lucky; the victims weren't. "I survived two bombings in Istanbul with sheer luck," he wrote to me yesterday morning, "just changed my mind and five minutes later, boom."
If it was the PKK that placed those bombs, they were intended to kill civilians, like him and like me. They have done it before, and they will do it again.
How is it possible that Reuters does not know this? If they know it, why would they say it is not so?