Turkey strikes 'killed 160 rebels' (terrorists)

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by pp0470, Aug 29, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. BBC News - Turkish airstrike campaign 'killed 160 Kurdish rebels'

    WTF is the BBC calling these Terrorists Rebels for??!!

    Attacking Turkey from the 'safe haven' created by Operation Iraqi Freedom...
  2. Well its a classic example of one man's freedom fighter (rebel) is anothers terrorist. The PKK will counter that the Kurds in Turkey are treated like second class citizens and that they are fighting the good fight to gain the political and human rights they deserve. The Turks will call bullshit and claim that they treat their Kurdish brothers with nothing but hugs and kisses and that well the PKK are a bit more willing to have a face to face ruck than most terrorists against security forces, they are terrorists because they also indulge in civilian targeted bombing.
    For my own two pence neither side comes off particularly well and have both indulged in extremely unpleasant and unethical behaviour.
  3. Exactly.

    But.... the BBC has a duty to follow a protocol when reporting on these groups.

    The PKK are considered a terrorist organization by NATO, the EU, UK, USA, etc, etc, etc.

    But here the BBC has described them as rebels - why?
  4. Mr_Fingerz

    Mr_Fingerz LE Book Reviewer

    Why don't you ask the BBC rather than a load of strangers on tinterweb?
  5. C'mon, it's the BBC. I expect useless journalism.
  6. Plenty more where they came from....nothing to do with us, leave them to it, get our fingers burnt, lessons learnt etc.
  7. Because it happened on a Bank Holiday and the 'B' team were editing. Classic case of 'eye off ball'.

    You find far more items pinched from newspapers and crap packages in the summer months, while the top brass turn off their Blackberries and enjoy themselves in Santa Monica.
  8. Are you really as thick as you appear, or are you intentionally attempting to cause outrage for no good reason. A child of ten could tell you that the use of the word 'rebels' in the article you linked is quoting directly from Turkish officials, and furthermore, the writer gives the information that the PKK is designated a terrorist organisation by Turkey, the EU and the US.
  9. also I guess terrorists doesn't really cover it when the insurgents have bases set up in another country.
  10. The only direct quote from Turkish officials is this:

    Are you 9 years old Joe?

    The qualification of the PKK been considered a terrorist organization by Turkey, the EU and the US is 2 lines at the end of an article that refers to them as rebels in the link, in the title and then repeatedly through the article.

    There is a clear bias in this article against Turkey - a NATO member and ally we train with.
  11. Yes, I am nine, but unlike you, do not still believe in Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy, the Bogeyman, and other lies perpetuated by people we believe we can trust. Every time that article mentioned the word 'rebel' it seems clear that it was attributing the use of the word to unnamed Turkish officials.
  12. I assume that they were frozen turkeys?
  13. Seemed clear? Hmmmm. Once again Joe

    The only atributed quote to the turkish military refers to 'the separatist terror organization'
  14. Firstly, that is not strictly true.

    Secondly, when you get to the big school, they will teach you about indirect quotes.
  15. Ok, the quote was indirect, via the Associated Free Press (AFP).

    So, who do we trust? Joe's 'seemed like' theory, or the Turkish Military website, quoted via the AFP, that describes the Kurdish PPK as 'the separatist terror organization'

    (nice try joe)

    p.s. I had previously ignored the 'indirect quote factor' for brevity and clarity, safe in the knowledge that should you want to pick up on such semantics you would be effortlessly bitch slapped back down into the stupid corner. Again.