The PKK never abandoned its weapons and never will!
Armaments are the only source of power of Stalinism. Stalin managed to control the masses through armaments. Communism dominated Soviet Russia, China and Cambodia by force. Stalinism is nothing without weapons.
The PKK is a Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist terrorist organization. Armaments are the basis of its existence and its current power is manifested through the use of weapons. It also managed to influence Western society through armaments; the PKK, as a Leninist-Stalinist party, owes its all achievements so far to the use of arms. It knows perfectly well that without arms it will disappear and will not be able to impose its authority on any level. Therefore, THE PKK WILL NEVER LAY DOWN ITS WEAPONS!
When Öcalan called on the PKK to convene an extraordinary congress for abandoning its weapons, as a part of the process that came to be known as the solution process, it was received with jubilation by some circles both inside and outside Turkey. However, everyone has seen by now that things weren’t as they seemed. The PKK, not even once, kept its promise of laying down its weapons throughout its history and it will not do so in the future, either.
The PKK declared its first unilateral ceasefire on March 20, 1993 and extended it for another two months after the initial deadline expired. However, it never conformed to it. In 1993, during this so-called ceasefire period, 715 officials and 1,479 civilians lost their lives in terror attacks by the PKK.
The PKK has never given up - and will never give up - its guns unless its ideology collapses. In history, communist dictators have always acquired their dominance by force. The only reason the PKK was able to come to the urban areas and find European interlocutors was its weapons. |
The PKK once again declared a ceasefire on September 1, 1998 on the occasion of World Peace Day, during which the PKK martyred some 500 people.
On September 1, 1999, Öcalan in İmralı urged the PKK to drop its weapons but the PKK resumed its armed actions in June 2004 on the grounds that “their demands were not met,” because it had never actually laid down its weapons.
During the so-called “no-weapons period” between 1999 and 2004, the number of martyrs according to official reports was 604.
On October 1, 2006, the terrorist organization PKK declared a ceasefire for the fifth time, and terminated it once again on the grounds that Turkish military operations against it were continuing.
The KCK declared on April 13, 2009 that it had reached a decision on a ceasefire on the grounds of “necessary defense,” nevertheless, it staged countless attacks since then and martyred 134 people during this so-called ceasefire period.
Leaders of the PKK and the KCK have reiterated over and over again that the PKK would never lay down its weapons. HDP members also weighed in on the subject.
For instance, the KCK’s Qandil chief Sabri Ok said: “...Such disarmament is impossible as long as the reason for our very emergence exists right here and it is against our reality… Our movement definitely does not have in its agenda disarmament or withdrawal of our armed forces to certain places… Even discussing disarmament under these circumstances is disrespectful towards the will of the Kurds… Such things cannot be discussed until the leader Öcalan is freed and meets with the guerilla in person. And the guerilla will never abandon their weapons…”
Duran Kalkan, a member of the KCK’s Executive Committee, said: “We don't find the calls to the guerilla for disarmament meaningful or serious. We don't even want to discuss it. Guerilla will never lay down its weapons. … Only if there is a general amnesty that covers the freedom of Öcalan as well, then the PKK might consider, not laying down its weapons, but a ceasefire, but never laying down the weapons. Guerilla will never lay down its weapons.”
Leyla Zana also made it clear that disarmament is impossible when she said: “Armed conflict has now reached a certain point. I never discuss disarmament. That’s the insurance of the Kurds. As long as this problem persists, those weapons are the insurance of the Kurds.”
Cemil Bayık, the head of the KCK’s Executive Committee explains: “Laying down arms means surrendering. It means death. No one can ask us to do that. Let alone disarmament, even retreating cannot be considered.”
In an interview he gave to IMC TV, terrorist leader Cemil Bayık said: “The PKK will not leave its weapons until Öcalan comes and attends our congress,” and thus made it clear that the PKK will never lay down its weapons.
One of the PKK's administrators, Murat Karayılan, explained the condition for the PKK’s disarmament and said: “So long as Öcalan is in prison, even if he gives us the order to lay down our weapons, a guerilla will not do that.”
As can be seen clearly, PKK leaders have admitted openly, even during the so-called ceasefire period under the name of the Solution Process, that it was impossible for the PKK to abandon its weapons. As a matter of fact, in this period, the PKK blamed the existence of threat risks such as ISIL in Syria and Iraq for its failure to fulfill its commitment to disarm. In the meantime, it used the attacks against regions such as Kobane as a pretense and kept on asking the Western world to send it armaments. The Western world obliged and the PKK got ahold of more ammunition and arms beyond the Turkish borders that it can use against the Turkish soldiers; now it’s directing these weapons against Turkish soldiers. What really went on was replacing their outdated guns with more advanced, high-tech ones. Therefore, the PKK’s disarmament narrative has once again shown itself to be mere window dressing and it proved this at the earliest opportunity.
The PKK becomes stronger and better armed following every ceasefire period. For the PKK, the rhetoric of laying down arms means replacing the old weapons with new ones. It is impossible for communist terrorism, which is based on violence, to lay down arms whatsoever. |
An account by Şemdin Sakık, a former founding member of the PKK, in which he quoted “Ceasefire is a tactic of war, not peace,” referring to Mao’s statementis very significant:
Ceasefire is a tactic in war. Throughout history, parties have to resort to the tactic of ceasefire at certain intervals in all wars, big or small, regular or irregular, open or covert, due to innumerable factors. Because this tactic is a break that one or both of the parties need.
Sakık continues:
Sakık continues:
The organization, evry time it declared a ceasefire, announced to the people that it had done it for peace, for the solution of problems through dialogue. But practical reality progressed in the exact opposite direction. After every ceasefire, training, armament, relocation and deployment of armed militants, and their certain activities and planning have been intensified. In other words, every ceasefire was used for not peace, but for obtaining a fiercer, more destructive and larger scaled firepower. You can see this in the fact that after every ceasefire, the clashes were fiercer, the attacks were larger in scale.
In fact, Sakık cites the retreat after the 1980 military coup as a most significant example:
When we could no longer take the operations of the military coup of September 12, 1980, we either buried our weapons or sold them and went to Syria en route to Lebanon in small groups. This retreat continued until there was not a single militant left on Turkish soil and it was done without weapons.Unless a scientific study is conducted on the Marxist-Leninist ideology of a terrorist organization, expecting that terrorist organization to lay down its arms is preposterous. |
As soon as we got where we wanted, we armed ourselves with Kalashnikovs instead of the guns we left in Turkey. Because Lebanon was an arsenal in the truest sense of the word; everywhere was full of state-of-the-art weapons. It wasn't difficult at all to find weapons, lots of weapons. It was as easy as buying bread and cheese from a grocery store.
We got as much weaponry as we wanted in Lebanon, to which we escaped after September 12 operations, got the necessary military and political training and for the first time, we started to apply all the rules of military organization to our lives. We recovered in the Palestinian camps in which we stayed for around two years and then returned to Turkey in packs.
Thanks to these military and organizational preparations that we had conducted by retreating to another country, we were able to carry out the August 15 attacks. Burying old weapons took us to more powerful weapons, while abandoning the field of armed conflict for a while took us to a stronger war.
It is important to pay close attention to this significant admission. The appearance of a retreating terrorist group that abandons its weapons has always been a delusion throughout history. As Sakık confesses, these withdrawals have always served the purpose of ensuring that the organization recovers, rests and gets more training while their old weapons were abandoned and replaced with newer and more powerful weapons. The Republic of Turkey always faced more vicious attacks after such retreats; that is what is happening again today. The reason for this is clear: The method that would indeed completely destroy the PKK is never tried, no scientific efforts are made against the Leninist ideology and people are driven to lethargy with “disarmament” rhetoric. The PKK has always taken advantage of this lethargy and is currently doing so.
In fact, Sakık describes the withdrawal and disarmament statements of the group, which have been quite frequently made over the last two years, with the following words:
The organization hasn’t retreated abroad, it just sent away some of the burden just like it always does. By serving the images of groups leaving the country to the media, it aimed to create an impression of ”retreat”. So in terms of the militants, it is most correct to say that ”they neither entered nor left Turkey this year”.’
Communists have always used terrorism to bully the masses into submission and to abolish state organizations. Since they are never going to give up on terrorism, they will not give up on weapons, either. For this reason, those who built a fake peace scenario in their minds hoping that the PKK would surrender its weapons waited in vain. As long as there is no action to fix the twisted mind of a murderer, it is not important whether or not the gun is in his hand. He will always find a way to get to the gun. Focusing on destroying the gun alone without doing anything about the mindset of the murderer is nothing but deluding oneself.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder