Not the Kurdish question but the PKK question, and that too is a US question

It is a fact that fighting terror does not consist of fighting terrorists. Terror always certainly has a deep sociological and political ground, and that unless this ground is corrected, nothing can be achieved by dealing with the terrorists this ground produces, is a stock phrase repeated whenever the subject comes up. And it is a stock phrase that actually has a counterpart in reality.

However, on determining what the real sociological ground of terror is, accounts vary, and the sociological ground itself is not so fixed. The reasons why terror continues on a constantly changing sociological and political ground, and the views and attitudes about these reasons, also change over time.

For example, there were those who for years tried to explain PKK terror through the state's wrong approaches to the Kurdish question. Indeed, analyses to the effect that in an environment where the state did wrong against the Kurds, denied the Kurds, banned speaking their language, expressing their culture and doing politics about it, there was no way left to express oneself other than terror, served to justify terror. But it was also no secret that the state's policy toward the Kurdish question, although it in no way legitimized terror, worked as a strong psychological support for terror.

This ground was very easy for the terrorist organization to exploit, and it was inevitable that it would produce terrorists. To fight terror, this ground that produced terrorists first had to be destroyed. The AK Parti changed the state's paradigm toward the Kurdish question. The Kurds were not a problem; they were an inseparable part of this country. The existence of the Kurds was secured, along with their freedom to speak, learn and broadcast in their language, and all the obstacles in the way of their politics aimed at the demand to advance their situation further in this regard were removed. The Kurds were not a problem, they were owners of this country; as much as the Turks, as much as the Arabs, Circassians, Bosnians, Albanians, Laz, Zazas, Georgians and so on living in Turkey.

This was not a framework put forward only to solve the terror problem; it was put forward because it was a more democratic, more humane and more Islamic framework in line with the AK Parti's own vision. In Turkey everyone has the freedom to speak their own language, to live or not to live their own religion, to express their own culture. In this environment of freedoms, the legal and psychological ground on which the terrorist organization fed, and the pretexts, have also disappeared.

Now we face the paradox that terror still continues even though the psychological ground and pretexts that supported terror for years have disappeared. Does this situation show that the old analyses explaining terror through sociology were wrong?

Let us give our answer immediately, in line with what we expressed above: yes, in the past too the sole cause of terror was not mere sociology or the state's wrong practices. Terror was using this sociology or politics, whose code name is expressed as the "Kurdish question", merely as a pretext. It was not an inevitable result that this politics or sociology would produce terror. But still, taking the steps that would bring the Kurdish question to a solution was extremely accurate.

Moreover, following the steps taken toward the solution of the Kurdish question, a solution process was even started to give young people who had gone up to the mountain, influenced and poisoned by this psychological ground, a chance to return home. But it was also seen how the terrorist organization used this process as a tactical opportunity for its own strategies.

Today there is no environment that would require mentioning the Kurdish question whenever terror comes up. Because terror no longer has any connection whatsoever with the Kurdish question. Even the fact that the political party sympathetic to the terrorist organization can get votes from a part of the Kurds does not prove this connection.

We see sufficiently in the developments in Syria how PKK terror has today become an important subject of a network of international relations. We all witnessed that, when it had come to the point of ending in Turkey, it was revived as a card in the unbelievable international struggle for division over Syria. Today we see that it is blatantly supported by the world's superpower, entirely contrary to all of Syria's demography and sociological structure. Today PKK terror is a matter of foreign intervention far beyond a sociology produced by Turkey. All the leading cadres of the PYD and YPG members are from the PKK. In their camps Turkish is spoken rather than Arabic and Kurdish.

Do we not see that with the at least 7000 trucks and thousands of cargo planes full of weapons that the ABD has given to the PKK's Syrian branch, it is giving an organization that has lost its rightfulness, its argument and its discourse what it needs by demolishing, not by building, the sociology it depends on.

To see the problem merely as an event taking place within the limits of democracy, without seeing from the inside the game the ABD is playing in the region by using the PKK and PYD as subcontractors, is, in the mildest or most innocent expression, simplicity and superficiality. The ABD is not coming to this region by way of democracy, nor are the terrorist organizations it supports and feeds by giving tons of weapons trying to build a democracy in the region. On the contrary, all it does is try to redesign the region in an entirely anti-democratic and ethnic-cleansing way.

Look, despite all these inhuman practices they have carried out, it is they who first cry out, calling the trustee practice "democracy". Their concern is not democracy; it is that democracy has ceased to be an instrument of their own anti-democratic occupation activities.