The suppressed terrorist inside the BBC and NYT

Let us think for a moment. An explosive laid beneath an asphalted road near some settlement in Texas goes off as a US military vehicle passes, and 8 soldiers lose their lives... A TV channel broadcasting in Turkey, after this attack, prepares a documentary on the organization that carried out this terrorist attack and tries to legitimize the people belonging to this organization... In such a case, it is not at all hard to guess what American public opinion and politicians would feel.

Or suppose major media outlets in Turkey, after the 11 September attacks, had chosen to code Al-Qaeda terrorists as "freedom fighters"... In such scenarios, these outlets would quite naturally be subject to the legal proceedings that should operate in a democratic state, on the grounds that they supported terror.

Yet, strange to say, in countries such as Germany, the US and Britain, which pride themselves on being democratic and on being against terrorism, the outlets that support terror are in no way brought within the limits of the democratic system, and the brake mechanisms of democracy are in no way operated against these outlets that openly support terror.

Western media has, because of the war of Kurdish groups against ISIS, which is not as great as it is made out to be, come to support PKK terror openly. We are also aware that before the documentary broadcast on the BBC, articles openly supporting the PKK were published in international press organs known as "respectable."

For example, quite a few newspapers in Germany that publish daily and have rather good circulations use the expression "verbotene kurdische Arbeiterpartei" (Banned Kurdish Workers' Party) for the PKK terrorist organization. That they do not see this as tolerating terror and beautifying it shows nothing other than that they are not, in essence, against terror. Let nobody take offense, but this discourse shows that there is a suppressed terrorist within the German press, which from morning to night takes up the harshest rhetoric against DAESH terror, and within the British press too.

Presenting a terrorist organization in Turkey to German public opinion as a "banned political party" cannot be considered a factual error free of ill intent either. In a democratic country this may be a matter for the criminal laws regulated under headings such as crime and criminal, praising terror, but it shows that in these countries terror is not seen as bad in its essence, and that only whom it is directed against is opportunistically cared about.

Behind the support of a segment of Western media for the PKK, a terrorist organization, becoming so clear is Turkey's launch of operations against this terrorist organization. After the terrorist attack in Suruç in which 33 of our young people lost their lives, the operations against the PKK, which in its own way identified and declared the culprit and then in its own way retaliated in Ceylanpınar, and simultaneously against the terrorist organization ISIS, evidently disturbed those who thought they could chase the ISIS swarm of flies and manage to make the Syrian swamp overlooked.

Those who give credit to the PKK's slanders that Turkey supports ISIS and that Turkey is responsible for the killing of the people in Suruç show that they also regard the PKK's merciless killing of two police officers, on whom it billed this attack, as a "legal" trial. So this is what the German media, which tries to present the PKK as a banned party, understands by "legality"!

The Kurdish groups' struggle against the ISIS threat, which is in fact exaggerated, seems to have created a strange romanticism of violence in the West. So much so that another terrorist organization that claims to be fighting a terrorist organization is being lauded to the skies by Western media, as seen in the example of the BBC, the NYT and the German media.

Meanwhile, they play the fool, as if they had swallowed whole the cheap cunning of the party that really ended the Resolution Process, or rather of the PKK, which took no step in the Resolution Process to keep the process going.

During the two years in which the process continued: workers kidnapped, dam construction sites raided, construction machinery burned, road construction sites, thousands of children under the age of 18 kidnapped and taken under PKK arms, thousands of businessmen put under extortion, thousands of people put under surveillance for not voting for the HDP and forced to leave the village and the city where they lived... This Baath-style fascism established over the people of the region by the HDPKK evidently does not, for now, interest the Western media, which is so democratic and so fond of human rights.

In truth, in the face of these realities that they know perfectly well, they keep playing the fool because it does not suit them. Because for them the PKK is no different from the tissue they wipe their noses with. When they are done, they will draw a new tissue from the packet and send the PKK to the trash can.

The truth is that a terrorist organization's fighting another terrorist organization does not legitimize that terrorist organization. For Turkey, ISIS is a terrorist organization, and so is the PKK. If the PKK continues its terror against Turkey with the clean bill it tries to obtain from international powers on the grounds that it fights ISIS, then a necessity arises for Turkey to review its friendships. In the end, the US saw the grotesqueness of converting the fight against ISIS into a right to terror against Turkey, and sided with Turkey. But in the American press this twisted mentality continues in the same way. The articles published in the New York Times (NYT) present Turkey's operations against the PKK as "the government has declared war on the Kurds." If we were to give a little credence to this logic, we would have to accept that it would also be right to perceive the operations the US has carried out for years against terror, in Iraq and in Syria alike, as "the US is fighting against Islam and Muslims."

The Western press does not have the delicacy to empathize this much. It acts in an uncontrolled petulance that has no need to hear with its own ears what comes out of its own mouth. In fact it is not against terror but against some terrorists; otherwise, when you scrape them all, a terrorist emerges from underneath.