PKK = PYD = YPG … Seeing the Big Picture!

15 09 2015


by Harun Yahya

Today the USA and coalition forces are providing clear support to the PYD, the Syrian branch of the terror organization PKK, in northern Syria under the name of “fighting against ISIS.” The media in Europe and the USA, as well as their extensions in the Turkish media, are the propaganda wing of this advocacy.

In his recent statement, while John Kirby, the U.S. State Department Spokesperson, duly noted that the PKK is a terrorist organization, he also announced that they would reinforce the YPG, the military wing of the PYD, with arms dispatched via Incirlik. It is already well known that the U.S. and coalition forces are sponsoring the PYD with tons of ammunition and weaponry. It is no secret that the PKK seized these weapons right away and used them in terrorist activities in Turkey. The U.S. now plans to carry out the same scheme by way of Incirlik.

Europe is not that innocent on this matter; it is still fresh in people’s memories when PYD representatives and YPJ commanders were officially invited to the Italian Parliament[i] and France’s Élysée Palace[ii] for top-level meetings.

Same Terrorist Organization, Different Names

Nonetheless, the PKK and the PYD are only different names of the same terrorist organization. Thousands of PKK militants are fighting on the front lines of the PYD. The chain of command for both terror organizations and their leaders are related to Mount Kandil. Both adopt Abdullah Öcalan, the founder of the PKK, as their leader.

Using various names is a whitewashing tactic that PKK militants implement depending on the region in which they are operating in order to misdirect people off the target, causing a good deal of confusion while also creating a public relations image of a well-rounded organization.

For instance, the PKK is named PJAK in Iran and the PYD in Syria; its military force is the YPG and the women militants are the YPJ. The military wing of the PKK is the HPG, and their youth branch is YDG-H while the leadership structure is known as the KCK. However, each one of these is the same terrorist organization: The PKK and its various branches.

The fact that the PKK and its affiliates are really one and the same is set out as follows in an article titled “A Personal War-America’s Marxist Allies Against ISIS”which appeared on the Wall Street Journal web site:

The PKK says its affiliates—Syria’s YPG and groups called the PJAK in Iran and the HPG in Iraq—are separate but closely linked. PKK fighters and some analysts say they are one and the same. “It’s all PKK but different branches,” Ms. Ruken said…“SOMETIMES I’M A PKK, SOMETIMES I’M A PJAK, SOMETIMES I’M A YPG. IT DOESN’T REALLY MATTER. THEY ARE ALL MEMBERS OF THE PKK.”

That same article also makes it clear that these affiliates of the PKK were personally set up by Öcalan and have taken an oath of loyalty to him:

The Kurdish guerrilla groups pledge allegiance to Abdullah Ocalan, the PKK chief imprisoned on a Turkish island since 1999. From jail in 2005, he established PKK affiliates that evolved into today’s YPG, HPG and PJAK.[iii]

The PYD was recognized by the Syrian regime in April of 2011 by means of Öcalan’s collaboration with Assad through his attorneys and in this way, the establishment of a pro-regime autonomous region of Kurds was allowed in northern Syria. Again, with the initiatives of Öcalan, and the negotiations of PKK leaders in Syria, the death sentence against Salih Müslim in Syria was revoked and he was transferred from the PKK’s camp in Iraq to lead the PYD in Syria.

In order to control the regions the Kurds inhabit, and to command and train the PYD militia, about 400 high-ranking PKK leaders from Turkey and Iran were dispatched to Syria. According to information from the Syrian opposition, approximately ten thousand PKK militants entered into Afrin from Turkey in merely the last two years.

In fact, the PYD’s declaration of 2013 stating, “The PYD is undertaking a revolution to build a democratic society in West Kurdistan. Later on, [the] time will come for North Kurdistan, which is [in] Turkey,” reveals that the PKK and the PYD are working together in partnership.

PYD Terror Is Not Less Than PKK Terror

Today, the PYD and Assad regime is in an overt alliance. Syrian Kurds in opposition to the regime are executed by the military forces of the PYD, as seen in the Amuda Massacre, or subjected to imprisonment, torture and maltreatment. In many regions under the control of the PYD just like Afrin, Kurdish and Arab youths are turned into militants of the terror organization. A great number of Muslim Kurds are either executed or deported on the grounds of spying for Barzani.

The PYD is practicing a policy of genocide on Arab and Turkmen communities living in the territories they occupy with ever-expanding brutality by means of massacres, torture, terror and exile: These circumstances were documented in a June 2014 report of Human Rights Watch. The massacre the PYD committed in Kamışlı last year is but one of these savage affairs. Lately, the PYD had forced the local people of Tel Abyad to migrate after invading the city and they are still trying to prevent the return of the Arabs and Turkmens, who took shelter in Turkey due to the war against ISIS, to their homeland.

While the PYD is establishing Kurdish cantons in the territories of Jazira and Ayn al-Arab along with the corridor in between, the demographic composition of the region is being systematically altered.

Consequently, the PKK is planning to lay the foundations of the northern sector of a Communist Kurdistan by breaking away the southeastern region of Turkey. In the same way, the PYD is in preparing to tear away the southern part from the territories of Syria and Iraq.

In the face of this state of affairs, it is apparent that admitting the PKK to be a terrorist organization on one hand, but ignoring the terror, oppression and genocide of the PYD on the other, and claiming that they are a legitimate entity, communicating with them and backing them militarily is a deeply conflicted policy that is quite frankly, unethical. Based on such unscrupulous policies, it does not seem at all far-fetched for the so-called Communist Kurdistan, planned to be founded in the region at all costs, to incline towards unwanted and dangerous alliances that would most certainly disappoint its proponents in the near future.



The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and

Disband the PLO-NOW

9 09 2015

By Sami Jamil Jadallah on September 9, 2015
Israel's separation barrier

Israel’s separation barrier

Five years after the creation of the Palestine Liberation Organization by the Arab League, Yasser Arafat took over the organization and turned it from a “liberation organization” to a “closed criminal enterprise”, serving the leadership and failing the Palestinian people at every turn.
Yasser Arafat

The late Yasser Arafat

Instead of liberation, Yasser Arafat and his cohorts returned to Occupied Palestine to manage the Israeli Occupation.

The world had no choice after years of neglect and total disregard for the Palestinian people’s right of freedom and independence, but recognize the Palestinian people as a national entity — short of recognizing their right to return from exile or for their own free and independent state in Palestine.

It was not the Palestinian people who voted for the PLO as their “sole legitimate representative”, but the 1974 Arab Summit in Rabat that gave the PLO such international legitimacy. This came about after a bloody mini war in which armed Palestinian factions challenged the sovereignty of King Hussein over Jordan.

Soon after this recognition by Arab heads of states, most of whom lacked legitimacy, Arafat traveled to the UN to give his famous speech, with the UN following suit by giving the PLO “observer” status as “representative of the Palestinian people”.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas speaks during a press conference on the Palestinian parliamentary elections in Ramallah, January 2006.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas speaks during a press conference on the Palestinian parliamentary elections in Ramallah, January 2006.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at a press conference in Ramallah, 2006.

It was not until November 30, 2012, when the UN General Assembly voted to recognize Palestine as a “state”. However full sovereignty was left to Israel to give the Palestinians such states in accordance with the agreement negotiated and signed by both Arafat and Abbas. Palestine is an “observer state”, lacking votes or flag.

Full sovereignty and full rights must be voted on in the UN Security Council where the US can exercise its veto. The vote by the UN General Assembly recognizing the “state of Palestine” did not change anything on the ground, nor the disenfranchised status of millions of Palestinians in exile, waiting to return.

Israel continues to occupy the “territories”, exercising full military, demographic and economic powers. Even after the Oslo Accord, Israel has shown no interest in giving up what remained of historic Palestine.

After twenty years, hundreds of thousands killed, tens of billions looted and stolen, Oslo was the best that Arafat, Abbas and the PLO could deliver to the Palestinian people. This amounts to a perpetual occupation.

The PLO killed; snuffed the First Intifada; failed the Second; killed the Two State solution; killed the One State solution; and succeeded in having a perpetual contract to manage the Israeli Occupation. This is not so great an achievement for a “liberation” organization.

Oslo as negotiated, was a management and service contract between the PLO and Israel, whereby the PLO took over managing the civil affairs of the people and worse yet, pays for it; while Israel retained total control over the land, the people and the water. Oslo was a betrayal of the people and the Palestinian cause — an act of treason.

Under the terms and conditions negotiated in Oslo, Israel retained total security control over the entire Occupied Territories with the Palestinian Security Forces, acting as an auxiliary force to the Israeli IDF and Shin Bet. The AP Security Forces could not protect a chick or a tree, let alone a life, as we have seen many times.

Arafat and Abbas committed to the safety and security of Israeli citizens armed and unarmed to the tune of $1.4 billion annually, far exceeding the joint budgets of education, health, transportation, social services and infrastructure.
Construction of the wall

Construction of the wall

The Oslo Accord was a financial windfall for both Israel and the PLO/Fatah leadership. Israel was able to save at least $2 billion a year, the cost of running the territories. Israel made good use of the saving, granting each illegal settler $28,000 in annual subsidies.

On the other hand, all those who failed at liberation came back with Arafat and Abbas to manage the Israeli Occupation, and taking full advantage of the culture of corruption, nepotism, personal loyalties, and ineptness that characterizes the tenure of Arafat and his successor, Abbas.

Many senior and mid-level political and security operatives became multi-millionaires, benefiting from business opportunities, kick-backs, racketeering, or other illicit activities.

Within a few years, they became rich, owning properties in the Occupied territories, in Cairo, Amman, and the UAE among many places — living the lifestyle that no sitting Israeli official dare afford. Many became owners of NGOs, getting tens of millions in funding to produce papers talking about the Occupation, but falling short of doing something to end the Occupation. Oslo became a business for many inside and outside of Palestine.

Keep in mind that Oslo created a legal entity, the Palestinian Authority, (PA) that “separated” the people under the Israeli Occupation from the refugees and in the Diaspora. As such, the PLO became a name only, with no legal or basic function other than giving Israel legitimacy, and with Abbas having total control over all budgets and finance — the basis of his power and legitimacy.


The Palestine National Council
President of the Palestinian National Authority Mahmoud Abbas, center, celebrates with members of his delegation and other supporters at the UN General Session

President of the Palestinian National Authority Mahmoud Abbas, center, celebrates with members of his delegation and other supporters at the UN General Session

President of the Palestinian National Authority Mahmoud Abbas, center, celebrates with members of his delegation and other supporters at the UN General Session

Which brings us to the recent calls by Mahmoud Abbas to convene the Palestine National Council (PNC), supposedly, the Palestinian Parliament representing Palestinians under Occupation and those in the Diaspora.

It is clear Abbas’ intention is to consolidate his absolute control, get rid of challenges, and pass the reins of corruption and incompetence to one of his cohorts.

It should be noted here that the PNC was never an elected body, and all of its members are selected by the Chairman of the PLO, the Executive Committee and Central Committee of the PLO; and the appointments are in accordance with a quota system designed to give Fatah the majority of seats.

The PNC’s significance was in the fact that, as a so-called “parliament”, it was never debated or voted on in Oslo. Even the PLO Central Committee never debated about Oslo, nor ratified Oslo. The 18 members of the PLO Executive Committee ratified Oslo after the fact.

The PNC has no power, real or imagined — it acts as a rubber stamp with no value or importance, a shameless “Parliament”. It abdicated all of its responsibility to the people whom it is supposed to represent.

Arafat, the fraud and manipulative con artist, made sure that he controlled all so-called “institutions” designed to perpetuate his control and that of his successors, and limited real changes that might have put the people in charge. He, like Abbas, made sure there is distance between the leadership and the people when it comes to real issues and decisions that affect the people and liberation; thus it is the PLO Executive Committee that approves everything. The Executive Committee is appointed, and never voted on by the people.
IDF attack on Gaza 2014

Hence in the entire history of the PNC, there was never any real debate on, let alone sanctions against, the many disastrous decisions made by Arafat, Abbas, and the PLO Executive Committee in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, nor in Kuwait, where tens of thousands lost their lives, and where tens of billions of dollars were lost.

There was never a debate over Oslo and all of its failings, then and now. In fact the PNC did not meet for over 20 years. The PNC is nothing but a shameful sham.

Keep in mind, the Palestinian body that received Bill Clinton in Gaza (1996) — passing by show of hands nullifying the Palestinian National Charter, giving recognition to Israel and denying the right to resistance and self-defense — was hardly representative of the PNC, but rather a bunch of “personalities” herded in as straw men for a tragic show orchestrated by Arafat and Abbas.
Abbas estate

Abbas estate

Both Arafat and Abbas, treated the the people of Palestine with neglect and contempt, and made sure Israel recognized the PLO as “representative of the Palestinian people”, but never recognized the State of Palestine. The PLO gave Israel full and unconditional recognition over all of Palestine with Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, with no right of return for the refugees.

A full recognition for a fist full of dollars. The Palestinian people deserve this contempt for their silence and for their failure to force a change of a leadership that had sold out.

Arafat and Abbas structured these “Palestinian Institutions” in such a way, making it difficult for any changes to come from the people directly or indirectly, and making it even more difficult for any accountability or changes of the “leadership” by the people except the members of the mafia family, the Executive Committee. Even this Executive Committee for the most part has no say so.

More important, Arafat and Abbas made sure that any group trying to find an alternative to the PLO will face a wall of legal challenges by the PLO, Israel and the US, all of whom are quite satisfied with the present situation in Occupied Palestine and with the PLO leadership and as the manager.

Arafat and Abbas secured life perpetuity for the PLO when Israel recognized the PLO, thus denying any group of Palestinians (outside of the PLO structure) the right to sit at the table as a replacement or as an independent party.

Abbas and Netanyahu at the White House

A Failing Grade

Abbas and Netanyahu at the White House

Many beneficiaries of the PLO and the PA will argue that Arafat, Abbas and the PLO leadership did great things for the Palestinian people by gaining international recognition, with many countries recognizing the State of Palestine.

However, the real achievement is not in New York or London or Paris; the real achievement is on the ground — and here Arafat, Abbas and the entire PLO leadership and Executive Committee a get a big F.

Since Oslo, more than 600,000 settlers moved to the Occupied Territories; more than 450 miles of Apartheid Wall were erected; more than 800,000 olive and fruit trees were burned or uprooted by the Israeli Army and the armed criminal settlers.

More than 7,000 Palestinians were killed and murdered; more than 17,000 homes and structures were demolished; and more than 11,000 existing demolition orders are awaiting execution. More than 400,000 Palestinians were arrested and jailed, with thousands remaining in jail without trial. Gaza was totally destroyed three times and remains under total siege, with 80,000 Palestinians exiled from Jerusalem.

Palestinian checkpoint to pass on the way to work

More shameful and disgusting is the way the PLO leadership benefits from the 3,000 or so Israeli-issued VIP passes that allows senior PLO and Fatah officials to zip through the more than 550 security checkpoints, while millions of people, young and old, have to wait hours, if not days, to pass through humiliating metal gates like cattle just to get home or visit neighbors or attend their fields or get to a hospital.

Yes, the PLO leadership achieved great things for itself; benefiting from corruption and nepotism, benefiting from business projects funded by the “international community”, in which key personalities receive shares and kickbacks without paying a dollar; benefiting from land deals as a result of inside information on zone changes and largesse bestowed by Mahmoud Abbas, who rewards loyalty and incompetency.

Oslo allowed for the creation of the Palestine Legislative Council (PLC) representing a people under Occupation; financing and budget is left to the Chairman of the PLO, who exercises full and unchecked control over all funding with no accountability or transparency.

Abbas refused to allow the elected PLC even to formally convene, making sure all decisions are passed through the Executive Committee, which votes as he demands.

I can only laugh when defenders of the PLO talk about “institutions” that must be preserved and protected, and about international gains achieved. In the end, the Palestine Liberation Organization was never a “liberation” organization, but a racketeering mafia that failed at liberation and succeeded in managing the Israeli Occupation by paying for it and stealing from it. Did the hundreds of thousands who died appreciate the way things turned out?

Notwithstanding all the legal, political challenges and difficulties, the Palestinian people, at least those in exile or Diaspora, must organize into a “legal entity” that can, over time, secure the legitimacy from the very people it supposes to represent. It must do this through membership and direct votes and challenge a corrupt and failed PLO, then take the challenge to Israel to gain either freedom and independence, or one state for all of its citizens.

Kravitz protest

Iran Nuclear Deal. Israel in the driver seat

25 08 2015

Sami Jamil Jadallah

When it comes to the Iran Nuclear Deal it is not the American public that will make the decision. The fate of the Iran Nuclear Deal is in the hands of Israel, its Fifth Column and in the hands of Israeli officials past and presents both pro and against the deal and Obama administration knows that very well.

The American public has been incited against Iran for a long time especially since the taking of American hostages (November 4, 1979- January 20, 1981) when American media set aside a special nightly program against Iran at the expense of all other national and international events. With a lingering anger about the hostage taking the general American public is lukewarm about the deal 28% v. 24%, while American Jews showing strong plurality for the deal 49% v.31%.

However at no time Ted Koppel nightly broadcast, ever-mentioned Israel’s deliberate cold-blooded murder of 34 sailors and civilians on the USS Liberty and the wounding of 171 sailors.

Against this background, Israel is the key player and decision maker on whether Congress will approve the deal and whether Congress can override an expected presidential veto.

Tens of millions of dollars have been committed, both for and much more against the deal funded mainly by AIPAC and associated organizations such as Citizens Against Nuclear Iran, United Against Nuclear Iran, Citizens for Nuclear Free Iran, with American Jewish multi millionaires and multi billionaire throwing a ton of money (more than $40 millions) trying to buy votes Congressional votes. At this moment it is neck and neck with the President of the United States loosing the comfortable margin he needs for his expected veto.

The administration desperate for votes has enlisted the help of American Jewish leadership with some 340 Rabbis announcing support for the deal and more are expected to announce their support this coming September when the Orthodox Union will try to bring hundreds of Rabbis to Washington.

The on going public debate for the most part specially on nightly news, features Israeli officials past and present. While President Obama is doing his best to secure support in Congress, Bibi Netanyahu personally and through the Israeli ambassador in Washington have been strongly lobbying Congress to vote against the deal with the Israeli ambassador secured meeting with 60 members of Congress in the last month.

Former members of the Senate the likes of Norm Coleman, Saxby Chambliss, Evan Bayh are following the lead of former Senator and Rabbi Joseph Lieberman who is leading the fight to defeat the deal in Congress.

On the other hand major former Israeli intelligence and military officers have been coming out in support of the deal.

Among those is the former head of the Mossad, Efraim Halvey “the attempt to change the rules of the game and to include further demands from Iran in the agreement, such as recognition of Israel and stopping support for terrorism shows that Netanyahu has no interest in the agreement whatsoever”.

Giving support to his counterpart, the former head of Shin Bet, Ami Aylon cam out in support of the deal, “ the deal achieved in Vienna is the best possible alternative from Israel’s point of view, given the other available alternatives.” Continuing to state, “ When it comes to Iran nuclear capabilities, this deal is best option”.

While members of Congress think they can get a better deal neither for Israel nor for America of course, have been raising issues of the competency of the technical team that helped negotiate the Iran Nuclear Deal.

Countering such claim is non other than Yitzhak Ben Israel, the Chairman of Israel Space Agency and the Chairman of the National Council for Research and Development in the Ministry of Science, Technology and Space “ there is a dialogue of the deaf, the agreement is not bad, at all, even good for Israel.”

It is yet to be seen whether America’s national security and world security will determine the outcome of the vote or whether Israel once again determine American’s national security and interests through its agents in Congress.

The debate as we have seen is hardly among and between Americans; it is almost exclusively among AIPAC, Israeli officials, certainly between members of the American Jewish community. In the end, the vote in Congress is not about Iran Nuclear Deal it is all about which comes first America or Israel. Remember that next November.

The PKK’s Deception about Being Democratic

24 08 2015


by Harun Yahya

The communist terror organization known as the PKK frequently employs terms such as “a democratic nation, a democratic transition, freedom and peace” that will please the West in order to deceive world public opinion in its press statements. It is an easy matter for the PKK to lie and say, “We are the only democratic and secular organization you can trust.”

In fact, the PKK is using the same language as all other communists did over the last century. The true face of states founded on such lies as “a democratic nation, building socialism, secularism, protecting the oppressed, a brotherhood of nations and being a party of the workers,” just like the PKK does, can clearly be seen from the following examples.

The Democratic Republic of Vietnam

A single-party communist state was founded in the northern half of Vietnam under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh in 1945, “The Democratic Republic of Vietnam.” Toward the 1960s, the Ho Chi Minh regime decided to support the guerrillas of the communist National Liberation Front, or Viet Cong, in South Vietnam in order to spread its supposed democracy to the south. The Viet Cong wished to unite the country under communist rule by destroying the South Vietnamese regime. The Vietnam War, fought with the participation of the U.S., China and the Soviet Union, led to the loss of some 1.4 million people and to another two million being injured.

The People’s Republic of Bulgaria

In the 1946 elections, Georgi Dimitrov, leader of the “Bulgarian Communist Party” was elected prime minister and Bulgaria was proclaimed a People’s Republic. Later the Social Democrats merged with the Communist Party. Although speaking of “workers’ rights, social democracy, democratization and populism,” Bulgaria in fact moved toward a soulless, oppressive, single-party communist state in which freedoms were heavily restricted and democracy was suspended. The communist regime in the country came to an end with the collapse of the USSR in 1990.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

The “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” was set up in the north of the divided Korean Peninsula in 1948. However, there is not the slightest trace of freedoms in the policies of this supposedly democratic country. The country has been ruled by a communist dictatorship, the most closed to the outside world of any country, with the fewest freedoms and the worst repression. This regime’s ruling ideology, known as “Juche” and built upon the principle of self-reliance, claims that the “people enjoy freedom in thoughts and in politics.” The truth, however, is that its people are essentially living in a vast open-air prison.

The Romanian People’s Republic

Someone else who wished to implement a communist, Juche regime in his own country was Nicolae Ceausescu, another communist dictator. Ceausescu became leader of the communist “Romanian People’s Republic,” founded in 1947, in 1965, after which he set about establishing a similarly repressive regime. When Ceausescu became general secretary of the “Romanian Workers’ Party” the first thing he did was to rename it the “Communist Party of Romania.” He also changed the name of the country to the “Socialist Republic of Romania.” This communist dictatorship collapsed with the Romanian revolution in 1989.

The German Democratic Republic

A socialist regime was established in East Germany, under Soviet control, in 1949, after the end of the Second World War. The “Socialist Unity Party of Germany,” the result of a merger of the Communist Party of Germany and the Social Democratic Party of Germany, came to power, and the country was renamed as the “German Democratic Republic.” The supposedly “democratic” East Germany was in fact never a democracy at all. Waves of strikes that began in 1953 were savagely repressed with the help of the Soviet Army. After some three million had fled to West Germany, the Berlin Wall was set up in order to prevent any further migration from East to West on August 13, 1961. This wall of shame was an exact reflection of the policies of that so-called “democratic” regime, and the country was turned into a massive surveillance state. Under totalitarianism, all of East Germany’s links to the West were severed. West Germany grew and prospered in terms of art, quality, economic well-being and esthetics compared to the East, which claimed to be building “ultra-secularism,” and came to resemble a soulless and dead place of shabby infrastructure and art under a gray mentality of stifling uniformity. Although it was right in the middle of Europe, this supposedly democratic country lived deprived of peace, liberty and democracy until the reunification of the two Germanys in 1990. The Stasi, the secret service of the German Democratic Republic, employed 274,000 agents. The Stasi assisted with the establishment of similar secret services in dozens of countries, such as Chile, Ethiopia, Cuba, Angola, Mozambique and Syria. All it taught the secret services of those countries were the communist tactics and techniques of torture.

Democratic Kampuchea

During their brief time in power in Cambodia in 1975-1979 the Khmer Rouge developed a regime that they described as “agricultural socialism/rural communism.” Pol Pot claimed to have created a new socialist movement and stated that he wished to build a democratic country. The system of “agricultural socialism” developed by the communists, who delight in such new and fancy descriptions, was in fact rooted in Maoism and Stalinism. Pol Pot’s ideas of an agrarian utopia were developed from the ideals of Mao, who implemented rural communism, and Stalin, who first put agricultural collectivization into action. The new regime called the country “Democratic Kampuchea.” The first action of the Khmer Rouge regime, which claimed to be democratic, was to start slaughtering its opposition. According to Cambodian records, 3.3 million of the country’s 7 million people were slaughtered during Pol Pot’s four years in power. This dark era, when almost half the population died from forced labor, torture, mass executions or malnourishment, is known as the “Cambodian genocide.”

The People’s Republic of Albania

Enver Hoxha claimed to be building socialism in Albania. During his 41 years in power, when he imposed his singular rule along Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist and Maoist lines, the “People’s Republic of Albania” became the world’s first atheist state. Hoxha’s party, the delightfully named “Party of Labor of Albania,” remained the country’s only political party for 45 years.

The Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal

Maoist guerrillas intent on bringing communism to the country by changing the existing regime in Nepal committed numerous acts of terror from 1996 until 2006; some 13,000 people lost their lives as a result. The Maoist movement improved its organization considerably following peace talks and a general amnesty law. The Maoists won one in four of the seats in Parliament in the 2007 elections and then withdrew from the government complaining of a lack of democratization. The Maoists then went on to win a huge majority in the Constituent Assembly elections of 2008 and founded a communist “Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal” by abolishing the monarchy.


What the PKK wants to do behind its “deception of being democratic” is to found a communist state, as in the aforementioned historical examples.

The PKK terrorist organization has caused the deaths of some 40,000 people in Turkey in the acts of terror it has perpetrated using its Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist ideology. The aim of this terror organization, whose initials stand for the “Kurdistan Workers’ Party,” is to found an independent communist state based on Marxism-Leninism.

Indeed, the PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan explicitly states this fact in his books:“The PKK has experienced a development in line with the MARXIST-LENINIST tradition. It is clear that from then on it will take shape on the basis of that legacy, which is inseparable in the way that flesh is joined to bone.”(Kurdistan’da Halk Kahramanligi [Popular Heroism in Kurdistan], p. 78)

The PKK has used violence to obstruct any and all parties opposed to it in both Turkey and Syria (operating in Syria under the name PYD), has assassinated their leaders and expelled most of them from the region. Masoud Barzani, president of the Northern Iraq’s Regional Kurdish Administration, is under constant threat by the PKK. If the PKK gains official status, then this Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist organization will accelerate its slaughter, as during the time of Pol Pot, and will increase the support it provides for various communist movements in numerous countries of the world, as in the examples of Vietnam and East Germany.

Therefore, the U.S. must never allow a policy that will lead to a new Pol Pot or a new North Korea in the Middle East.


The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and

Ignoring the Cost of Arming PKK

3 08 2015


by Harun Yahya

Like any other region of the world, the politics in the Middle East has become a continuous pursuit of selfish interests. Such a mindset has pitted brothers against brothers, citizens against citizens and members of the same religion against one another.

At a time when most regional players are moving to safeguard their interests considering them to be the most important, certain external forces are operating in the region with the sole intent of safeguarding their own strategic interests.

Anybody with a little political sense can see an ongoing showdown between different regional powers but the emerging scenario is being portrayed as “efforts to calm the current unrest.”

In the meantime, the “Middle East Project” designed in 2006 — aimed at a big but fragmented Middle East — is coming into effect and is playing a key role in the current hubbub.

Iraq is a key part of that project. A few moons ago, the military force of the Kurdish federation (also known as Peshmerga) had emerged as a reliable partner to Baghdad, the neighboring countries and the United States in their fight against the growing threat of extremists.

However, with the horrifying increase in the influence of the self-ascribed Islamic State (IS), the trust in Peshmerga has started to wane.

It is no longer seen as a force to reckon with — an army of heroic soldiers protecting people from harm — and the Kurdish region has lost its image as an impregnable region. Groups representing the IS took the world by surprise and marched into this once “unconquerable” area with much ease.

Didn’t the US action surprise anybody? Let us bring an important point to the notice of our readers. Observers may recall that the US did not want to get involved into the “Iraq quagmire” even after the capture of Mosul and at a time when the IS troops had begun marching toward Baghdad. It was only when the IS targeted the Kurdish region that Washington swung into action.

Why? The answer to this query is: The Kurdish region in Iraq is an important part of the Great Kurdistan project officially planned in 2006.

Declaring the “failure” of Peshmerga” against the advancing troops of the IS, was nothing but an excuse to get the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) involved. The idea of a “union of the Kurds” coined by the US “to fight the IS, required a sort of alliance between the PKK and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), the party of the Kurdish administration.

Subsequently, the US and European countries came up with the idea of arming the PKK. It was a major shift as these same powers had declared the PKK a terrorist group.

Furthermore to sugarcoat this twisted scenario, some columnists offered justifications. They mentioned that the solution in Iraq depended on the PKK, and that as a group “that was used to fighting,” PKK could prove to be successful against the IS. For some reason though, nobody wants to mention the fact that this group “that is used to fighting” is a terrorist organization that has ambushed Turkish soldiers for decades in Turkey.

Denmark’s Berlingske newspaper made these intentions very clear with its headlines, “It is no longer in fashion to label PKK as terrorists” and claimed that Council of European Parliamentary Assembly as well as the parliaments of the European countries wanted to remove PKK from the list of terrorist organizations. It seems that some circles are testing the waters and making a deliberate effort to convince the world that PKK should be removed from the terrorists list. It would not be surprising if most of these people who are championing this idea are communists or belong to the left side of the political spectrum.

This effort to convince the world into accepting the idea of “good” PKK against an “evil” IS with skilled political maneuvers is in full throttle at the moment. Even in Turkey there are some columnists who are trying to make this scenario look plausible. Some sincerely believe that the PKK being armed by Europe and the US would be a step toward halting the advance of IS, while others advocate the idea only to serve the cunning purposes of the PKK, without thinking about the costs.

Let’s just briefly explain what it will cost: PKK is a terrorist organization that has been fighting the Turkish army for the past 30 years. It hasn’t succeeded but managed to continue its terrorism through ambushes. It operated as a guerrilla force with no rules, operating in stealth and striking cowardly.

However, the PKK is not going to be facing a regular army in Iraq. IS is just as ruthless as the PKK. They backstab, strike covertly, and they don’t follow any rules of warfare. Additionally they have no limits with regard to violence, they don’t fear death and they don’t hesitate to adhere to all sorts of violent tactics. Therefore, it is very deceptive to show PKK as a force to counter the IS.

Arming violence-loving Stalinists and hoping that they will stop violence-loving radicals, is a logical dead end and only amounts to choosing a different path to death. The Great Kurdistan Project designed during the term of Condoleezza Rice in the US, is aimed to make the US stronger in the Middle East. It is a known fact that plans to divide the Middle East first emerged as a plan for “peace.” In that regard, it would not be appropriate to squarely put the blame on the US for these plans.

It is a very serious matter that the US and Europe are seeking to arm the PKK. There is the risk that these weapons might soon be turned against the Turkish soldiers, and might give rise to bigger conflicts in the region. The idea of founding the Great Kurdistan using the PKK, will eventually lead to the birth of a North Korea in the region. The US shouldn’t ignore the communist threat that it fought for decades, while trying to eliminate radicalism. Otherwise, communism will turn into a bigger threat with the passage of time. The communists will try to take on Europe first then move on to the US. The “Great Kurdistan,” which was planned to be an important ally in the Middle East, will rise as a regional, communist power and turn into an archenemy of the western powers. This will bring the destruction of not the Middle East alone but the whole world.

Today, when governments arm terrorist organizations, the US and Europe shouldn’t forget the reason behind the nightmare the world experiences today. It is nothing but the use of more weapons. They should prefer an ideological struggle to a physical one. And to do that, they should remember that there are reasonable people in the Middle East that they can cooperate with.


The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and

Mr. Adnan Oktar’s Letter Addressed to Mr. John Bass, Ambassador of the United States of America

28 07 2015


Mr. John Bass, Ambassador of the United States of America,

May I first extend my congratulations to you and the entire American people on the recent 239th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and express my sincere hope that the American people and nation will remain independent, strong, secure, happy and prosperous till the Doomsday.

I would like to offer some information concerning the recent developments in Syria to which you referred in your statement at your Independence Day reception and to clarify certain points that might be open to misinterpretation:

1. You say in your statement that, “The American administration and Turkey have a consistent view concerning the principles and they are clear to have conveyed their expectations to the PYD. … clear to convey their expectations to the PYD to respect the mentioned principles in the areas where the group has recently been able to repel ISIS.”

I would first like to make it clear that the PYD is not a legitimate organization to which expectations can be conveyed, but a terrorist organization, and recognized as such by international bodies. It is as unacceptable to have dealings with the PYD and to convey expectations to it as it would be to convey expectations to the Taliban, ISIS or al-Qaeda.

As everyone knows, the PYD is the Syrian branch of the PKK terrorist organization. Officially founded in 2003, the PYD states in its founding declaration that it regards Abdullah Öcalan as its ideological leader, and that in terms of legal administration it is affiliated to Kongra-Gel (the Kurdistan People’s Congress).

The PYD is a movement that acts under the umbrella of the KCK, the supreme body in charge of all PKK organizations in Europe and the Middle East. It represents all the components of the supposed confederal state system, also including the PKK and the PYD, in other words the dreamed-of Independent Communist Kurdistan. The executive council of the KCK represents the executive power of this supposed state of Independent Communist Kurdistan, and is its supposed government. It controls the PKK and all the armed groups representing subunits of the PKK and all its organizations in the region: One of the bodies under this umbrella is the PYD. The PYD is therefore an extension of the PKK, not only ideologically but also in structural and material terms. It is no different to the PKK.

It will be remembered that the PKK is a separatist terror organization responsible for the martyrdom of tens of thousands of Turkish citizens, members of the military and the police, also including innocent women and children, in some 80,000 acts of terror over the last 30 years. Its sole aim is to establish a “Communist Kurdistan” comprising Southeast Turkey, a part of Iran and the north of Iraq and Syria.

The PKK is planning to establish the northern part of this state of Communist Kurdistan by breaking away the southeast part of Turkey. Meanwhile, backed by foreign powers seeking to take advantage of the power vacuum in the region, the PYD is striving to prepare the southern part of Communist Kurdistan by breaking away areas of Syria and Iraq. Neither group has any qualms about committing all kinds of acts of terror, murder and crimes against humanity in the light of that objective.

In brief, the PYD and PKK are nothing more than different names for organic units of the same illegal terror organization but that are active in different regions. From that perspective, seeking to legitimize the PYD while regarding the PKK as a terrorist organization represents a policy of double standards.

In conclusion, there can be no question of the Republic of Turkey collaborating with, assisting or working and acting in concert with these illegal, separatist terror organizations that have been striving to tear the country apart for decades, from inside it and without. The Republic of Turkey will never negotiate with such organizations.

2. Your Excellency, elsewhere in your statement you say that, “Turkey and the US have common concerns against the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham [ISIS] in northwestern Syria along the Turkish border,” and that ISIS should be prevented from controlling border areas in northern Syria along the Turkish frontier and every group who has a presence over the border should combat ISIS.

First and foremost, it needs to be made clear that it is of course impossible to legitimize or in any way support ISIS’s bloody activities in the region. However, it is also a fact that ISIS has never engaged in any attack on Turkey’s security or territorial integrity, that it has never engaged in any activities against Turkey and has never exhibited any intention of doing so. Turkey’s priority is not ISIS, but the PKK-PYD-Kandil triangle that has targeted the country’s territorial integrity since the day it was founded, is intent on establishing a “Communist Kurdistan” and has slaughtered tens of thousands of our citizens to that end.

Of course the Republic of Turkey is taking the appropriate military and logistical measures along its southeastern border to protect its own territory and national integrity in the face of any potential risks that may arise because of the turmoil and confusion in the region. However, it is impossible to accept our country being drawn into uncertainty and turmoil in the framework of “Turkey declaring war directly on ISIS,” as some international circles are so insistently encouraging. You will appreciate that the Republic of Turkey is perfectly entitled to shape its own foreign policy and military decisions in the light of concrete facts and its own national interests.

A large part of the border region in Syria is under the control of the PYD. The point requiring particular emphasis here is that a strategy based on strengthening a terror organization in order to neutralize the violence of radicalism is a mistaken one.

While all eyes are turned toward ISIS, the PYD’s inhuman policies of ethnic cleansing of the local Arab and Turkmen people in the occupied region are being ignored.

The violence inflicted on local peoples by the PYD in the territories it has seized, including those Kurds who are opposed to it, is increasing by the day. It is implementing a blatant policy of ethnic cleansing of Arab and Turkmen peoples through methods such as terror, repression and exile. The massacre it perpetrated at Kamışlı last year is still fresh in people’s memories. Most recently, it forced local residents from the town of Tal Abyad to depart and now prevents Arabs and Turkmens who sought shelter in Turkey from returning to their homes by closing the border crossings.

While establishing cantons in Jazira and Ayn al-Arab and the corridor area between them, the PYD is seeking to systematically change the demographic structure. It is installing its own people in places that local inhabitants have been forced to leave. It intimidates Kurds who oppose its own ideology. It is striving to create a “Communist Kurdistan” in the region, where neither Kurds nor any other people will be able to live happily and in peace.

That being the case, it is impossible to regard such sensitivity to the terror perpetrated by ISIS while never mentioning the ruthless terror and oppression committed by the PYD as a just and unbiased attitude.

Your Excellency,

ISIS is on the wrong path, and is behaving and acting in a totally unacceptable manner. However, ISIS cannot be turned away from that path by guns and bombs. As President Obama said in a recent statement, ideologies can only be defeated by better ideologies.

In the view of the Qur’an, the one and only source of Islam, the right thing is not to kill people who are on the wrong path, but to try to lead them to the true path through education and good advice. As with a part of the Islamic world, ISIS has made the error of adopting radicalism in the name of Islam by being caught up in profound ignorance. Therefore, the most important measure that needs to be adopted against ISIS, the only effective means of halting it, is a wide-ranging cultural and educational activity against radicalism and fanaticism.

This is the only solution to ISIS, as it is to all those Muslim communities that have fallen into the error of adopting a radical perspective. Radicalism can only be overcome by telling people of the true faith in the Qur’an and explaining, with evidence from the Qur’an, that radicalism is incompatible with the essence of Islam.

In addition, history shows that military methods based on responding to violence with violence serve no other purpose than to increase the scale of the violence, inflict disaster on the region and then spread that tragedy across the world in an irreversible manner.

A communist state of Kurdistan in the region will be of no benefit, but a serious loss to Turkey and its friend and ally, the USA.

The fact that the PKK-PYD terror organization is a Marxist-Leninist and Stalinist communist organization is clear from countless statements by its leaders, and particularly Öcalan, and the policies adopted by and actions and methods carried out by it. The organization enforces a policy of intensive Marxist-Leninist and Stalinist education on its members. It expresses this communist philosophy in all its statements and imposes a communist ideology based on violence on its supporters and militants.

For decades, the organization slandered the USA and the West of heading a capitalist and imperialist order with classic communist clichés. More recently, however, it has donned a mask of support for “the modern West and democracy” and sadly has thus succeeded in attracting financial and military support from certain countries.

However, it is not improbable that this communist organization, one that has adopted betrayal as a way of life, will join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as soon as it achieves legal status. In that event, the satellite state that the Western superpowers planned to construct as a base for themselves in the region will momentarily come under the control of other blocs.

The recent visit by the HDP, serving as the PKK’s political representative, as a guest of the Chinese Communist Party is highly significant in that context.

We think that for a country such as the USA, which has opposed communism in a determined manner for so long, to enter into collaboration with and support such an organization will produce no positive outcomes for itself or its allies and that it would benefit the USA and the coalition it leads to reconsider the issue.

Yours sincerely,

Adnan Oktar, Honorary President of the Foundation for Protection of National Values


The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and

Page 1 of 5412345...102030...Last »