When the terrorist is secular, what talk is this?

Yasin Börü was killed by crowds who claimed to be trying to save Kobani and who were moving to draw the world's attention there because there was a humanitarian tragedy in Kobani. This incident occurred on October 7, so it is not new. You must by now have memorized all the details of this incident for days. By saying that there is a humanitarian tragedy in Kobani and that the world, and of course first of all Turkey, must act against the terrorist organization ISIS, what kind of help could those who committed this savage murder have given Kobani?

The people who committed the murder have in any case lost their humanity, moved leagues away from it. Could there be a terror more dangerous and worse than the terror they have committed? We never doubted that ISIS is first of all a terrorist formation that slaughters, destroys and distorts the fundamental values of Islam; but is it not a crime in itself that, because of Kobani, this ring of murderers has suddenly begun to be treated as freedom fighters?

With this cunning, the organization has in fact also usurped and hijacked the value of "freedom fighter."

"Yasin Börü, brought out of the apartment in which he was cornered, is killed not once but repeatedly by many people. First he is shot with a gun, then stabbed; that is not enough, and he is thrown from the third floor into the stairwell. Meanwhile Yasin, who is thought probably to have already died by hitting the sides until he fell to the ground, is dragged from where he fell and taken outside, where first an attempt is made to cut his throat, then a car is driven over him, his head is crushed with a stone, and that is not enough either; finally a Molotov cocktail is thrown on him and he is burned. His body, and the bodies of the two other friends killed with him, are unrecognizable when found. Even those closest to them can identify the bodies only by very fine clues."

This manner of killing is truly strange; these people, who have strayed into taking vengeance on a body, and on the body of someone they did not know at all, do not consider a single death enough for a human being; they kill him repeatedly. The scene recalls the dimensions of the savagery in the terrifying execution scene described in Discipline and Punish by the famous French philosopher of history Michel Foucault, but goes leagues beyond even that. There too, the desire to punish focuses so violently on a body that it is as if one death were not enough and it turns into ceaseless torture of the body.

I remember writing here years ago about the mistreatment of PKK corpses. This torture of the body, from whichever side you look at it, is a deep perversion. (Novice, militant social scientist, don't flare up immediately! First hear the crooked and straight of a word: here I am calling "perverted" not the Kurd but the one who tortures the body; is that understood?) Whoever does it.

That the PKK members do to people unconnected with their fight far more of everything they complain about shows only one thing: that there is not a crumb of ethics in the fight they are waging. Against the racism they claim to be subjected to, they merely love their own racism. Their opposition to oppression is because oppression is being done to them, not because they are against oppression itself; as long as they themselves do it to others, there is no problem.

To the Kurdish people who for years were subjected to the various treatments of the JİTEMs, the self-defense units today mete out treatments that, with their feet, make one pray for mercy on the JİTEM.

The Kurds who yesterday were subjected to the JİTEM's unsolved murders, abductions, extortions and pressures today see from the KCK structure much heavier and much more of the same treatments. What the JİTEM carried out in the nineties was also a kind of autonomy, that is, self-willed lawlessness. At least they did not call it "democratic." (I wonder if it is understood, novice militant social scientist who has tried to slap the label "Kurd enemy" on us: here too our word is not to the Kurds but to the PKK, that is).

During the Kobani events, houses were set on fire and burned by attacking specially chosen target homes and workplaces. All the determined targets were the homes and workplaces of people who, in their political stance, had not voted for the HDP or were opposed to the HDP. In total, over forty people were killed in the events.

Two days ago in Yüksekova, three of our soldiers, unarmed and in civilian clothes, were killed treacherously by being shot in the head in the middle of the city. Whom from whom this head would save in Kobani, we can think.

On top of all this, what is the message, do you think, of the abundant use in the Western press in recent days of images of women fighting in the PKK ranks? After so much ISIS news, do the secularism messages given by the image of an unveiled woman fighting with a gun suffice to whitewash the PKK's savagery and terrorism?

If terrorism can be accepted when it comes in the guise of secularism, then what is opposed is not terror, but only and simply who commits terror. If savagery and terror can be ignored once one proves to be secular, as it appears they can, it means one more mask has dropped from the face of the fight against terror.

What is behind the mask, you ask?

The mask is not even enough to cover these thousand and one faces, is it?