Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

Were Kurdish civilians burned alive by Turkish security forces?

  • 08-05-2021 12:09am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,497 ✭✭✭ political analyst


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2015%E2%80%93February_2016_Cizre_curfew

    In February of 2016, during hostilities between Turkish security forces and Kurdish militants in the city of Cizre in south-eastern Anatolia in Turkey, Kurdish civilians who were sheltering in basements were allegedly burned alive by the security forces.

    If that massacre took place, it is an example of the literal meaning of the word 'holocaust' with a small H.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/holocaust

    It is especially shocking that the alleged perpetrators are the forces of a NATO member state - and the Western powers are either unable or unwilling to do anything about the crimes of the Erdogan regime.

    It is like a real-life version of Robert Harris's novel 'Fatherland'.


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,568 ✭✭✭ K.Flyer


    Well it would appear that the Turkish forces have form when it comes to this sort of thing, so it wouldn't surprise me.
    In 1993, Mehmet Ogut, his pregnant wife and all their seven children were burned to death by Turkish special forces soldiers. The Turkish authorities initially blamed the PKK and refused to investigate the case until it was opened again 17 years later. The investigations eventually came to an end in late 2014 with sentences of life imprisonment for three gendarme officers, a member of the special forces and nine soldiers.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,888 ✭✭✭✭ Del2005


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2015%E2%80%93February_2016_Cizre_curfew

    In February of 2016, during hostilities between Turkish security forces and Kurdish militants in the city of Cizre in south-eastern Anatolia in Turkey, Kurdish civilians who were sheltering in basements were allegedly burned alive by the security forces.

    If that massacre took place, it is an example of the literal meaning of the word 'holocaust' with a small H.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/holocaust

    It is especially shocking that the alleged perpetrators are the forces of a NATO member state - and the Western powers are either unable or unwilling to do anything about the crimes of the Erdogan regime.

    It is like a real-life version of Robert Harris's novel 'Fatherland'.

    You mean the Western powers who invaded 2 countries on spurious grounds, Iraq on made up intelligence and Afghanistan when it was Saudi's who did the crime, and are responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians from their own actions and hundreds of thousands indirectly.

    The USA refuses to join the International Criminal Court and the UK has just given soldiers who committed atrocities in Ireland immunity.

    Yes they can really preach to the Turks about atrocities. Let he who is without sin cast the 1st stone


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭ dinorebel


    Del2005 wrote: »
    You mean the Western powers who invaded 2 countries on spurious grounds, Iraq on made up intelligence and Afghanistan when it was Saudi's who did the crime, and are responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians from their own actions and hundreds of thousands indirectly.

    The USA refuses to join the International Criminal Court and the UK has just given soldiers who committed atrocities in Ireland immunity.

    Yes they can really preach to the Turks about atrocities. Let he who is without sin cast the 1st stone
    What about!!!!
    What about!!!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,654 ✭✭✭ Quantum Erasure


    dinorebel wrote: »
    What about!!!!
    What about!!!!

    You keep using that word, I dont think it means what you think it means...


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,305 ✭✭✭✭ Dyr


    Del2005 wrote: »
    You mean the Western powers who invaded 2 countries on spurious grounds, Iraq on made up intelligence and Afghanistan when it was Saudi's who did the crime, and are responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians from their own actions and hundreds of thousands indirectly.

    The USA refuses to join the International Criminal Court and the UK has just given soldiers who committed atrocities in Ireland immunity.

    Yes they can really preach to the Turks about atrocities. Let he who is without sin cast the 1st stone

    Don't forget the Americans nuked Japan too.

    It's always interesting to see this kneejerk reaction to misdeeds in the middle east, it seems to be indicitive of some one tracked obssession. Almost religious in its intensity.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,759 ✭✭✭✭ klaz


    It is especially shocking that the alleged perpetrators are the forces of a NATO member state - and the Western powers are either unable or unwilling to do anything about the crimes of the Erdogan regime.

    Realistically, what would you expect them to do?

    Oh, the Fatherland comparison is a blatant exaggeration. While the situation for the Kurds would be ethnic cleansing/genocide, it's not on the scale of the Nazi's towards the Jews.

    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle 



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,840 ✭✭✭ fvp4


    Turkey is a much bigger threat to Europe than Russia and certainly China, being on the other side of the world.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,840 ✭✭✭ fvp4


    Turkey is a much bigger threat to Europe than Russia and certainly China, being on the other side of the world.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,497 ✭✭✭ political analyst


    Del2005 wrote: »
    You mean the Western powers who invaded 2 countries on spurious grounds, Iraq on made up intelligence and Afghanistan when it was Saudi's who did the crime, and are responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians from their own actions and hundreds of thousands indirectly.

    The USA refuses to join the International Criminal Court and the UK has just given soldiers who committed atrocities in Ireland immunity.

    Yes they can really preach to the Turks about atrocities. Let he who is without sin cast the 1st stone

    They didn't burn people alive in buildings. Saddam was evil and the recognition of the present Iraqi government makes the legal issues of the invasion academic - a bit like retrospective planning permission.

    Al-Qaeda was based in Afghanistan in 2001. Bin Laden and some of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia but that doesn't mean that the Saudi government authorised the attacks. Al-Qaeda hates the House of Saud!


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,497 ✭✭✭ political analyst


    Bambi wrote: »
    Don't forget the Americans nuked Japan too.

    It's always interesting to see this kneejerk reaction to misdeeds in the middle east, it seems to be indicitive of some one tracked obssession. Almost religious in its intensity.

    The Japanese started the war in the Pacific. In the long run, the atomic bombings saved more lives than they took because they made the Allied invasion of Japan unnecessary.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,497 ✭✭✭ political analyst


    klaz wrote: »
    Realistically, what would you expect them to do?

    Oh, the Fatherland comparison is a blatant exaggeration. While the situation for the Kurds would be ethnic cleansing/genocide, it's not on the scale of the Nazi's towards the Jews.

    I wasn't comparing it to the holocaust with the capital H.

    However, that alleged massacre is comparable to what was perpetrated in Oradour-sur-Glane.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,232 ✭✭✭ DubInMeath


    They didn't burn people alive in buildings. Saddam was evil and the recognition of the present Iraqi government makes the legal issues of the invasion academic - a bit like retrospective planning permission.

    Al-Qaeda was based in Afghanistan in 2001. Bin Laden and some of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia but that doesn't mean that the Saudi government authorised the attacks. Al-Qaeda hates the House of Saud!

    Over 400 civilians were burned alive when U.S. bombing destroyed the Amiriya bomb shelter in Baghdad.
    That's one example that was reported on, plenty of others most likely died the same way.

    Also the article you linked to reports that the events occurred in late 2015 to early 2016, does that not fit into the retrospective planning permission analogy


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,291 ✭✭✭ LeBash


    The Japanese started the war in the Pacific. In the long run, the atomic bombings saved more lives than they took because they made the Allied invasion of Japan unnecessary.

    This was the narrative pushed by people who just absolutely wanted to see the bomb in action. Id be hesitant to take that as true.

    We can somewhat count the dead after the 2 bombs but we will never actually know what a ground invasion outcome would be. The Emperor wanted to surrender before the first bomb (he was silenced by the generals). We probably would have seen far less civilian casualties if there was a similar to D Day landings operation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭ Jequ0n


    Collateral damage. Why are you so shocked about it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,305 ✭✭✭✭ Dyr


    The Japanese started the war in the Pacific. In the long run, the atomic bombings saved more lives than they took because they made the Allied invasion of Japan unnecessary.

    It was all the Americans fault, no matter what or where, its all the Americans fault.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,759 ✭✭✭✭ klaz


    The Japanese started the war in the Pacific. In the long run, the atomic bombings saved more lives than they took because they made the Allied invasion of Japan unnecessary.

    Well... I guess you could look at it that way, since the Atomic bombings stopped the need to continue committing war crimes, by the method of firebombing Japanese cities with the clear knowledge that you're targeting civilians in cities made of wood. Hundreds of thousands of civlians died long before the dropping of the Atomic devices.
    I wasn't comparing it to the holocaust with the capital H. .
    it is an example of the literal meaning of the word 'holocaust' with a small H.

    Right.

    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle 



  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Regional North Mods, Regional West Moderators Posts: 81,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭ biko


    I wouldn't put it past the Turks, they have been killing Kurds for as long as I can remember.
    The Kurds fought ISIS before anyone else, then Turkey swept in toward the end when ISIS were crumbling, and attacked the Kurds.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,149 ✭✭✭ Odhinn


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2015%E2%80%93February_2016_Cizre_curfew

    In February of 2016, during hostilities between Turkish security forces and Kurdish militants in the city of Cizre in south-eastern Anatolia in Turkey, Kurdish civilians who were sheltering in basements were allegedly burned alive by the security forces.

    If that massacre took place, it is an example of the literal meaning of the word 'holocaust' with a small H.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/holocaust

    It is especially shocking that the alleged perpetrators are the forces of a NATO member state - and the Western powers are either unable or unwilling to do anything about the crimes of the Erdogan regime.

    It is like a real-life version of Robert Harris's novel 'Fatherland'.




    Being a western ally means they have a certain impunity from consquences. Theyve been warring on the kurds for decades and few seem to give a rats ass.


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Regional North Mods, Regional West Moderators Posts: 81,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭ biko


    Make Istanbul Constantinople again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,296 ✭✭✭✭ Hello 2D Person Below


    It was a hell of a propaganda job out of the Yanks to persuade people into thinking that dropping a nuclear bomb was the honourable thing to do.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,759 ✭✭✭✭ klaz


    It was a hell of a propaganda job out of the Yanks to persuade people into thinking that dropping a nuclear bomb was the honourable thing to do.

    The power of Hollywood shouldn't be underestimated.. We've all been conditioned to see the US as being the good guy. And there's a startling silence regarding the actions of the US which could be considered "wrong". Each time it comes up, there's a flurry of discussion, and within a few months, back to silence again.

    The invasion of Iraq, and the use of Guantanamo Bay are perfect examples of this. Still, it's hardly anything new... The US has been doing all manner of crap since the foundation of the USA, most of which gets swept under the carpet.

    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle 



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,967 ✭✭✭ SafeSurfer


    LeBash wrote: »
    This was the narrative pushed by people who just absolutely wanted to see the bomb in action. Id be hesitant to take that as true.

    We can somewhat count the dead after the 2 bombs but we will never actually know what a ground invasion outcome would be. The Emperor wanted to surrender before the first bomb (he was silenced by the generals). We probably would have seen far less civilian casualties if there was a similar to D Day landings operation.

    I would have to completely disagree with this. The decision to use the Atom bomb was not taken simply out of a desire to see it in action. I would recommend David Mc Cullough’s excellent biography on Truman for some insight into the debate around use of the bomb.

    Furthermore I don’t believe that a US invasion of Japan would have resulted in far less civilian casualties. During the invasion of Okinawa it is estimated that 30% of the civilian population were killed.
    The Japanese had already endured intensive firebombing of their cities and huge civilian casualties yet this did not weaken their resolve to resist.

    Peace overtures made to the soviets prior to the invasion of Manchuria were a delay tactic by the Japanese who hoped divisions would emerge between the allies.

    The Japanese had determined to mobilise the entire population in the defence of Japan, arming children and the elderly with farm tools and sharpened bamboo. Japanese war minister Anami declared
    "Would it not be wondrous for this whole nation to be destroyed like a beautiful flower?"

    US military estimates put the cost of conquering Japan at up to 1 million American casualties.

    How many Japanese civilians would have been killed in a US invasion? It’s impossible to know but the Japanese plan for the defence of the home islands, Operation Ketsugo, called for the “Glorious Death of One Hundred Million”.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,888 ✭✭✭✭ Del2005


    They didn't burn people alive in buildings. Saddam was evil and the recognition of the present Iraqi government makes the legal issues of the invasion academic - a bit like retrospective planning permission.

    Al-Qaeda was based in Afghanistan in 2001. Bin Laden and some of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia but that doesn't mean that the Saudi government authorised the attacks. Al-Qaeda hates the House of Saud!

    They dropped bombs on civilian buildings which started fires which killed people, just because they didn't pour petrol in the door doesn't mean that people didn't die horrific deaths from their bombs.

    Saddam was evil when they sold him weapons and the present Iraqi government isn't much better than Saddam.

    They were in there for years before 2001. No one was bothered about them and the US supplied them weapons to defeat the USSR, which involved even worse groups committing atrocities in South America. The funding for 9/11 came from the Gulf states, the perpetrators came from the Saudi. Why didn't they go after the money or punish the country where the perpetrators came from? No they went after the people who where least responsible and weren't buying their weapons.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,759 ✭✭✭✭ klaz


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    I would have to completely disagree with this. The decision to use the Atom bomb was not taken simply out of a desire to see it in action. I would recommend David Mc Cullough’s excellent biography on Truman for some insight into the debate around use of the bomb.

    It's a partial truth. The need for a superweapon to counter the power of the Soviet Union, so there was a desire to see it in action, due to the political ramifications of having such a weapon.
    Furthermore I don’t believe that a US invasion of Japan would have resulted in far less civilian casualties. During the invasion of Okinawa it is estimated that 30% of the civilian population were killed.
    The Japanese had already endured intensive firebombing of their cities and huge civilian casualties yet this did not weaken their resolve to resist.

    An actual invasion, followed up by a campaign across the whole of Japan, would have cost more lives overall, because the bombing of the cities wouldn't have stopped while the beach head was expanding. However, the long term effects of the Atomic bomb were likely a stronger consequence than an invasion would have been.

    Still, in terms of actual deaths, an invasion along with the continued bombing, would have caused more deaths... on both sides.
    How many Japanese civilians would have been killed in a US invasion? It’s impossible to know but the Japanese plan for the defence of the home islands, Operation Ketsugo, called for the “Glorious Death of One Hundred Million”.

    True enough, although US intelligence placed greater emphasis on the desire by civilians to fight, which they found after the war to have been misplaced. All the same, there would have been significant resistance and it would have continued long into the occupation.

    The dropping of the bomb changed warfare. The rules and expectations regarding what came after also changed.

    I honestly doubt we would have seen the Japan that exists today if it had lost to a completely conventional war. The Atomic bomb shattered their philosophy on warfare to an extent that it's only now starting to recover.. whereas a conventional war, the outcomes were known, and the losses (regardless of how bad) could have been dismissed, and we likely would have seen a militant Japan in the 60s/70s..

    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle 



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,497 ✭✭✭ political analyst


    DubInMeath wrote: »
    Over 400 civilians were burned alive when U.S. bombing destroyed the Amiriya bomb shelter in Baghdad.
    That's one example that was reported on, plenty of others most likely died the same way.

    Also the article you linked to reports that the events occurred in late 2015 to early 2016, does that not fit into the retrospective planning permission analogy

    The Americans mistook the shelter for a command bunker and so the killing of civilians there was unintentional.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,497 ✭✭✭ political analyst


    klaz wrote: »
    Well... I guess you could look at it that way, since the Atomic bombings stopped the need to continue committing war crimes, by the method of firebombing Japanese cities with the clear knowledge that you're targeting civilians in cities made of wood. Hundreds of thousands of civlians died long before the dropping of the Atomic devices.

    Hirohito and his government put Japanese civilians in harm's way by attacking Pearl Harbour and taking Hong Kong, Malaya, Singapore and other places in the Pacific.

    The intention of the bombing campaigns was to defeat the Axis powers - the killing of civilians was an unfortunate by-product of that.

    The difference is that the Turkish forces were on the ground in Cizre and thus knew that there was no threat to them from civilians hiding in basements.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,759 ✭✭✭✭ klaz


    Hirohito and his government put Japanese civilians in harm's way by attacking Pearl Harbour and taking Hong Kong, Malaya, Singapore and other places in the Pacific.

    You sure you want to apply that kind of logic? Since it would mean that civilians are valid targets in any war/conflict that was instigated by a nation. For example, all members of the Coalition with the invasion, and occupation of Iraq. You've just justified terrorism with civilian targets in mind. Well done.

    War had a range of moralistic "rules" that were expected to be followed. Which is especially true for western nations, due to the propaganda and conditioning they've applied over the decades..

    Japan started a war. Whooptie do. That does not excuse the deliberate carpet bombing of cities, with the clear intention of killing civilians as a way to affect the morale of a nation. The funny thing is very few people ever care about Japan invading China, and their behavior there... but their actions against the Allies? Shocking.
    The intention of the bombing campaigns was to defeat the Axis powers - the killing of civilians was an unfortunate by-product of that.

    Rubbish. Look at Kissingers documentary when he was attached to the bomber command that covered Japan. The bombing of civilian areas was intentional. As was the use of firebombs to spread damage, knowing that most Japanese cities were made of wood. They had calculations as to how many civilians died per raid, and they devised ways to increase the effectiveness of their bombing raids... not simply against military targets, but also to maximise the effect on civilians.
    The difference is that the Turkish forces were on the ground in Cizre and thus knew that there was no threat to them from civilians hiding in basements.

    I see little difference. Both actions were/are barbaric.

    Earlier I asked a question, which you didn't answer. Realistically, what would you expect NATO or the western powers to do?

    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle 



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,888 ✭✭✭✭ Del2005


    Hirohito and his government put Japanese civilians in harm's way by attacking Pearl Harbour and taking Hong Kong, Malaya, Singapore and other places in the Pacific.

    The intention of the bombing campaigns was to defeat the Axis powers - the killing of civilians was an unfortunate by-product of that.

    The difference is that the Turkish forces were on the ground in Cizre and thus knew that there was no threat to them from civilians hiding in basements.

    The bombing of civilians was to reduce the war output of the countries because they couldn't hit the factories. They targeted civilians and they homes so that they couldn't make weapons for the war and would require resources to be diverted from the front lines, but the German and Japanese leaders were as indifferent to the deaths as the allies.

    What about the US illegal bombing of Laos and Cambodia during the Vietnam War? They were neutral and had more bombs dropped on them than Germany. What was the logic for killing these people? They were zero treat to the US yet they are still suffering with unexploded bombs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,149 ✭✭✭ Odhinn


    ............................The intention of the bombing campaigns was to defeat the Axis powers - the killing of civilians was an unfortunate by-product of that.

    .


    The intention was to defeat the Axis by - amongst other means - the deliberate killing of civillians, eg


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_(10_March_1945)


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,232 ✭✭✭ DubInMeath


    The Americans mistook the shelter for a command bunker and so the killing of civilians there was unintentional.

    If you believe that I've a bridge that you might be interested in buying.

    It's not like it's a unique situation

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/02/iraq.simonjeffery

    US aircraft hit a Red Crescent maternity hospital in Baghdad, the city's trade fair, and other civilian buildings today, killing several people and wounding at least 25, hospital sources and a Reuters witness said.
    The attacks occurred at 9.30am (0630 BST) and caught motorists by surprise as they ventured out during a lull in the bombing. At least five cars were crushed and their drivers burned to death inside, Reuters correspondent Samia Nakhoul said.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike

    10 patients, and seven burned beyond recognition and as yet unidentified. MSF reported that six intensive care patients were burned to death in their beds


Advertisement