"To suppress the revolts quickly, the Turkish Republic set up a "village guard" system. This type of citizen's defense force has been used by the U.S. army in Vietnam. So a militia of about 50,000 armed men was established, as well as a special unit of 12,000 men. And in addition, the state moved an army of 300,000 soldiers against the Kurds. Nobody knows what else has been mobilized. But the most horrific creation was the "contra guerrilla" under the command of the Turkish army."
~ Yaşar Kemal.
~ Yaşar Kemal.
Wow, that's really something, that massacre outside of Mardin yesterday. A bunch of guys masked, armed with automatic weapons and grenades, who go to a wedding and murder 44 people. How many "blood feuds" have we ever heard of that were handled like that? How about zero?
DTP Diyarbakır parliamentarian Gültan Kışanak finds it odd that there's a military garrison located some five minutes from the massacre site but that it took them two hours to arrive on scene. Villagers ran to the garrison to notify the village guards there of what had happened. The village guards, in turn, notified the security forces. The security forces told the guards that if they wanted to go, they could go, but security forces would not go.
Why? Because Turkish security forces knew what was going on. They wanted the attackers to get away.
DTP Şırnak parliamentarian Hasip Kaplan tells it like it is. It's not an honor massacre but The System's massacre. The TSK has 800,000 to 1,000,000 members. The Turkish police are thousands more. Yet these servants of the state have been incapable of protecting the population--citizens of the state--for decades.
Why? The state and the state's security forces are unwilling to protect the population because the state is the one perpetrating the crimes against the population.
Then there is the fact that the village guard system was created not to do the job of state security forces in protecting the population, but to arm Kurds in order to fight Kurds. It's a simple case of the old "divide and conquer."
After all, how many "blood feuds" have you heard of that have gone down like this one did?
The Murderer Erdoğan had to say something:
"The incident is not a terrorist attack but the result of a hostility between families. The detained have the same surname as most of the dead. No tradition and understanding can justify this action at all."
So did the Murderer Gül:
"Such primitive and violent acts that cause deep suffering can never be justified."
What they're saying here is that this massacre occured because Kurds were involved. That's what the Murderer Erdoğan means when he talked about "a negative understanding of tradition". See? They want us to believe that Kurds don't even know their own tradition.
It's never been "tradition" to conduct a "blood feud" murder by getting together a bunch of guys who could pass as a commando team, arm them like a commando team, and then have them commit the act of a commando team. Kurds just don't handle "blood feuds" this way.
But the remarks of the Murderer Erdoğan and the Murderer Gül are simply examples of the racist claims of the "civilized" ethnicity in Turkey.
I'm not the only one who notices that this is an odd way of handling a "blood feud". So does some guy at Dicle University:
"What happened in Mazıdağı, Mardin, is a massacre. It is not amenable to customs and rules of clans and blood feuds," Associate Professor Rüstem Erkan, head of Diyarbakır Dicle University’s sociology department, told the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review.
Erkan said contrary to outsiders’ perceptions, blood feuds, despite the despicable results, have rules everyone obeys. "According to customs, you cannot do something like this at funerals or weddings. This region has never seen such a thing. They did not regard the rules when they did this. They did not pay attention to who they killed," he said. Erkan, who has extensively studied the region’s socioeconomic structure, said this case was not a classic blood feud case. "This is a slaughter. It is not a classic blood feud case," he said.
I don't agree with his conclusions, but he's definitely got a point in saying that this was no "blood feud".
Three years ago, HRW petitioned AKP's interior minister at the time, Abdülkadir Aksu, to abolish the village guard system. HRW's letter contained a summary of the human rights violations reports that the organization had received for almost twenty years--violations and abuses committed by village guards.
The AKP government disregarded the call for abolition of the village guard system but this was after the Amed Serhildan, during which the Murderer Erdoğan gave security forces the order to murder indiscriminately women and children.
So what is it with this massacre? It was another state-sponsored massacre of Kurds but it went badly because there were survivor witnesses. If the state's assassins had killed everyone, as one survivor heard one of the assassins tell the others, the state would have blamed this black operation on PKK, just as the Ankara regime has done so many times in the past.
And if you don't believe that, then you tell me when you've ever heard of a "blood feud" carried out like this.