Talk:Abdullah Öcalan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
WikiProject Turkey This article is part of WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] fascism

This article is absolutely against PKK. You must be neutral in Wikipedia. This Text is 100% pro Turkish military. I will give a appeal to Wikipedia foundation.

Fascism means Italian Nationalism that was created my Mussolini and has no connection with the Republic of Turkey. First of all, the article says that Ocalan is a "leader" and it is the best you can get from this neutral encyclopedia because USA and EU named Ocalan as a terrorist. I don't know who you are but because of you and people think like you, PKK is still active, actually the only active terrorist group in the entire Europe, and still kills Military Officers of Turkey! Deliogul 22:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved:

[edit] Abdullah Öcalan to merge with PKK

The Abdullah Öcalan article is a summary of PKK. Abdullah Öcalan should be a redirect to PKK and info in Abdullah Öcalan should be merged with PKK, as neither article is complete without the other.

  • FOR --Cool Cat My Talk 17:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE First, sign your comments...otherwise your request is useless and will be ignored. Second, if Öcalan is a notable figure (which he appears to be) he should have his own biographical article...one better written than this. —ExplorerCDT 16:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Öcalan and the PKK are both notable enough to deserve entries. No value in combining them into a single entry. Guettarda 16:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Both notable in their own right, separate articles make sense. -- Curps 18:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Opppose. Separate topics, each notable. Jayjg (talk) 16:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Also, I'm not sure this request even belongs here. This project is for moving pages, not deleting them. Jonathunder 19:12, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Sometimes one just wants the biography. If they want the PKK story it can be reached from here, and vice-versa. Öcalan is important in his own right. Juanita 03:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not because they're "notable" at all. PKK continues to kill people while Ocalan is in jail. Each article should portrey the truth about them separately. --Gokhan 12:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Gokhan, worthy of note or notice; remarkable is what we mean when we say notable. A notable party/person doesn't have to automatically be characterised by excellence it can be characterised by distinction. Ozgur Gerilla 14:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move

This article is very closely related to PKK. Removing PKK from the mans life leaves you not much. SO the material is basicaly, his non PKK years till he lauched the organisation + summary of PKK --Cool Cat My Talk 17:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Can anyone explain to me why we have the last two external links on this article? The websites are of course completley POV, but we link to such sites on some articles. But the presentation of them at the moment looks very POV to me as well. There was no explanation at all, just a warning that the links have some disturbing images. Now it reads "These images are a result of what PKK did.", which also sounds pretty POV and indicates that the links rather belong to Kurdistan Workers Party than to this article. I got reverted with the simple comment "good page.", which is IMHO not a very sufficient explanation, so I'd like to get a more detailed one here. --Conti|✉ 13:39, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

The links definitely belong to PKK page. Also, in encyclopedia people expect insight on conflict background more than pictures of mutilated bodies. Pavel Vozenilek 21:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV edits

To have a headline that read "Websites establishing Abdullah Öcalan as a terrorist" above the links to websites that is opposing Öcalan, PKK and the rights of the Kurds, is of course not neutral. To make it fair to both sides I would have to change the "Websites supporting Abdullah Öcalan" into something like: "Websites establishing Abdullah Öcalan as a freedom fighter". Supporting/opposing should be enough though. Also, why did you move the picture? Stereotek 17:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you read the context that picture belongs where it is, it was his capture, and the text talks about it. Opposing is not sufficient. There isnt an "opposition". When a country declares someone/some organisation as terrorist, they are at a state of war with them. US does not allow any activity of this organisation, in EU their activities are at best highly limmited. The websites do establish him as a terroist, Its the content of the website. What kind of a POV are you talking about? Your change is acceptable, I prefer you dont revert but instead improvise/rewrite. I dont want to do all the work :P --Cool Cat My Talk 18:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why did you delete this?: "Influenced by the situation of the Kurdish people, who were denied the right to live accoring to their own identity by the Turkish state" Stereotek 19:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Err? Thats POV. The claim of Kurds being opressed is POV. Kurds being not opressed is still POV. No need to mention POV, "right to live accoring to their own identity" what were they not allowed? Were people arested for talking in Kurdish? No. Were people denied the right to vote? No. Where people denied the right to be elected? No. Were they relocated before PKK's rise? No. Just what were they denied? Their lives are as restricted as any other minority/majority --Cool Cat My Talk 11:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That the Kurds and their identity/culture was/are being oppressed by the Turkish state, is a fact and not a matter POV. Maybe they didn't arrest them just for speaking kurdish, but what if they wanted to start a Kurdish language TV Channel? A news paper? And what about something as simple as Kurdish names. Where the Kurds free to give their children Kurdish names? Stereotek 15:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh now you determine facts. No sir that is POV, HEAVY POV. Kurds had TV stations. Most notably, Med TV, was shut after its clear affiliation with PKK, organisation serviced from Europe and some Kurds had it via satelite. After that they created two other stations, thats all Kurdish TV was. This came about after PKK. Same deal with newspapers. They had shows on such stations in Kurdish (what dialect I dont know)/Turkish/ and English. Kurdish names are NOT banned. Kurdish names are not banned either, foreign words like John, George, Newton, Albert, are not allowed, same in the U.S., when Turkish constitution was drafted Kurds were not a sizable minority. The famous "Kurdish" rebellions were based on religion not ethnicity. If Kurds brought the mater to the parliment before grabing arms I dont think this would be a big issue. Also Kurdish seperatists use "Kurdish" as a Nationality, you can have one nationality (unless dual), so this caused major problems. This is explained in the article I gave you on Kurdish people. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Try to read this: [1]. It points out much of the racist discrimination that the Turkish state has been and are exposing the Kurds to. Stereotek 12:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Did minor edits in order to make the article NPOV. Again, too many anti-apo links, and not enough pro-apo ones. This is done on purpose to push a POV. There needs to be an even number of links. I will provide more when I get the time.

- Kassem 12:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that there have been several edits on this page yesterday (September 1st 2005) from the same IP address pointing to one specific web site. As the site in question is in Turkish then I am unable to verify its claims, however, the phrase:

Abdullah Ocalan suffers from paranoid schizophrenia most probably, a mental disease which Hitler posseses. The ilnesss is characterised by a charismatric leader which leads millions of people for nothing. A summary can be read at http://www.pkkgercegi.net/

Appears to be somewhat POV (introducing Hitler to illustrate a point is often a bad thing). Also, I can find no other references to Abdullah Öcalan having Paranoid Schizophrenia anywhere else on the net, so I have removed the above paragraph. The description of the website "A site in Turkish which aims to tell the world PKK terror that took the life of 30.000 people" also sounds a little POV, so I have changed that too. Oh, and as it appears to be anti-PKK, then it should live in the "Websites with criticism of Abdullah Öcalan" section rather the the "Media" section. Just thought I should explain my changes to avoid annoying anyone as I am a relative newcomer to wiki, and am lothe to dabble in the political pages for that very reason. - Tuxhead 09:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, I don't want to offend anyone, so I am explaining my actions here. I am removing "Abdullah Ocalan himself clamis to be Kurdish but he cannot talk Kurdish himself." because it implies that Abdullah Ocalan canot speak Kurdish at all, where as this article : http://www.meforum.org/article/399 from June 1998 states that " In the first meeting, Öcalan spoke in Kurmanji Kurdish, a language I was told he had recently learned to speak much better; the second day, he spoke in Turkish". Which, if it is true, implies that he can speak at least some Kurdish. tuxhead 13:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I am going to revert the last couple of changes by the anonymous user at: 85.103.61.67 because I think that there is some POV creeping in. I notice that a previous change on this persons introduced the term "baby killer", which (with a little wriggling) could be aimed at any number of politicians, so is probably not helpfull. It would be useful if the user concerned were to clearly and dispassionatly lay out reasons for his changes, which appear to me to be somewhat one-sided, in these discussion pages. tuxhead 10:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Have reverted the 30,000 killed comment back from "30,000 Turkish Civilians" to "30,000 people". According to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4543283.stm, "More than 30,000 people died in that conflict. Many were civilians, squeezed between PKK militants and government forces.". 'People' more concise, we could put "many were civilians", but would this not be superfluous? tuxhead 10:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I just want to make some comments on a phrase that I read on this page, which refers to the terrorist as a "freedom fighter".Well for those who may not have sufficient information, I think for somebody to have a title like "freedom fighter" he/she or the community that he/she belongs have to be slaves or something like that. But in Turkey the Kurdish people even have their right to be elected and represented in the parliament.About 10 years ago the president of the parliament was kurdish himself.So the question is what are they really after it is not freedom, what they really want is to have a country of their own by taking pieces of land from Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Well I do not know about the others but it is impossible to take a cm square from Turkey. I understand the fact that the area that they are living in Turkey is not the best in terms of schooling, hospitals etc. but it is not only the kurds that have those problems there are also turkish people having the same problems in other parts of the country.But no one is getting armed and killing people for their so called freedom and having a so called "freedom fighter" like this terrorist.

Ejder Ersoy 28/11/2005 Izmir/Turkey

[edit] Contradictory

In the beginning it says that Öcalan was born in 1948; scroll down and it says 1949. The other Wikipedias are somewhat split between April 4, 1948 and April 4, 1949. Which is correct? Punkmorten 16:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    • CNN.com says 1948. Id say thats legit.--Pal5017 18:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] contradictory

on the current situation section it says that Öcalan is seeking a peacefu solution inside the borders of Turkey but right after that states a document(!) called Declaration of Democratic Confederalism in Kurdistan about a Kurdish confederation between some zones in Iran turkey and Syria.--Hattusili 10:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Umm...I read that and its surely not contradictory. Hes using peaceful means to create a Kurdish state. Thats what the document is. --Pal5017 15:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It is strange after using deadly terror force and killing 30000 people,don't you think?I mean,If I pissed off Turkish Government big time and caught and only spared because of the new laws applied to appease the European Union,I would transform into a seemingly peace loving citizen.--CAN T 20:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teröristbaşı

The article currently reads: "Öcalan... also known as Serok Apo among his supporters and Teröristbaşı among Turkish citizens". "Teröristbaşı" simply means "terrorist leader" in Turkish; it is not a name, but a description. A Google search shows many pages (15,000) using the word, but most use it in phrases like "Teröristbaşı Öcalan", "Teröristbaşı Apo", etc. Following the same logic, we would say "George W. Bush... also known as President among American citizens", which of course would be silly. For all I know, newspaper headlines may refer to Öcalan as "teröristbaşı", but again that doesn't mean that that is an alternate name for him. Finally, I assume that there are at least some Öcalan supporters who are Turkish citizens.... I would be interested to know what Serok Apo means and whether it, too, is a description (e.g. 'Our Leader') or a name (perhaps a nom de guerre?). Comments? --Macrakis 20:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know serok means leader.--Hattusili 11:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It was me who added Teröristbaşı in there. I thought mentioning only the name that his supporters use is not neutral. So I added Teröristbaşı to counterbalance. Yes, serok means leader, president or something like that in Kurdish. Apo is simply a shorthand for Abdullah. Something like Jeff - Jefferson. And yes Teröristbaşı is only a discription literally, but it is only used for this man (there is no other use of it). Normally you would write "Terörist başı" for correct grammar. Whenever a newspaper mentions Teröristbaşı, everybody can understand that it is talking about Abdullah Öcalan. He is widely known as Teröristbaşı in Turkey. You're right about Turkish citizens supporting Abdullah Öcalan, though they would still understand that Teröristbaşı refers to Abdullah Öcalan. --levent 14:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] civilians

I do not understand why some editors have some problems about acceptin that the PKK attacked civilians--Hattusili 15:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is that attacking civilians is/was not the common practice of PKK. PKK mainly aimed against turkish governmental forces. If we are about to say in this article that PKK committed attacks against armed forces and civilians (as if it targeted both), we should also say that the turkish forces also attacked kurdish civilians. otherwise, the neutrality is lost. --Hectorian 17:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Attacking civilians is/was a common practice of PKK, they declared it in their third national conference.--Hattusili 17:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of this, and it is hard to believe it. if PKK had declared such a thing, it wouldn't have gained the support of the Kurds. and yet, even if they had declared it, it should be mentioned alongside with the attacks of the turkish army against civilians. Otherwise, the article is not neutral. i will either revert or make the appropriate additions --Hectorian 18:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"Human Rights Watch strongly believes that, in light of the widespread and systematic atrocities against the civilian population committed by the PKK as a matter of policy under Ocalan's leadership" (from HRW's letter to Massimo D'Alema, November 21, 1998)--Hattusili 19:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

From the same letter to Massimo D'Alema that u mentioned and from the source that (probably u) added: As Human Rights Watch has often reported and condemned, Turkish government forces have, in the course of the conflict with the PKK, also committed serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, including torture, extrajudicial killings, and indiscriminate fire.. Thus, we come back again to what i said before: both sides have committed atrocities. and if u will mention only the one side (PKK in this case), u can be characterised everything but neutral...And do not forget that PKK is an organisation (terrorist or not), but Turkey claims to be a democratic state, so, atrocities on behalf of Turkey weight much more. --Hectorian 22:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
See also Village guards. - FrancisTyers 13:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
This is not Turkey article. If you search a little you can find out that infact PKK killed a lot of civilians. There was lots of killings of teachers, waylaying of busses, lots of killed babies. How can a baby may be in cooperation with Turkish government? --levent 05:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Were the babies specifically targetted? -- I doubt it. I imagine the Turkish armed forced killed a lot of Kurdish babies, but I don't think we typecast them as "baby killers" in the Turkish military article. - FrancisTyers 13:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
If they did not pull the trigger accidentally, yes they were targetted. The latter one is just your imagination as you suggest. --levent 14:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Because torturing, burning, and sexually assaulting children is much better! [2] Even so, I'll keep looking for sources, I'll let you know when I find some. - FrancisTyers 14:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Here we are, killing children [3], I wonder if any of them were babies... the search continues... - FrancisTyers 14:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow, killing a three year old! [4] The Turkish military sure are humanitarians! - FrancisTyers 14:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the children but the blame is of the ones who put those children in the front rows. --levent 16:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Much like the Turkish government is to blame for PKK actions by oppressing the Kurdish people over many decades... - FrancisTyers 14:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
We don't ask for your imagination, we ask for facts and proof. Each day people in Turkey are dying because of Apo and PKK. Each day we read a new death in newspapers or a new bomb that is found or exploded. Don't joke around with this. PKK killed a lot of innocent Turkish doctors, nurses, teachers and business people. They're doing drug-weapons-human trafficking. They're criminals. They're robbing their own Kurds in Turkey and Europe for food and money. They're accepted as terrorists by western world as well. This is an encyclopedia, not a hatred forum. You seriously couldn't support some terrorists just you don't love Turks or Turkey. If you have a grudge, do it like a man. You cannot just say "they couldn't give their child the name of Keje, so they're right to kill". Come on. Let's be serious. --Gokhan 14:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Way to make an ad hominem attack. - FrancisTyers 15:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
So I assume you don't agree :) --Gokhan 15:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you deny the Armenian Genocide? - FrancisTyers 15:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, this sounds like a rhetorical question, FrancisTyers;-) --Hectorian 02:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is that question? What is the relationship btw PKK and that issue? --Gokhan 04:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Why not answer it? Because you don't want to think of yourself as a genocide denier? I'm fairly convinced that your thought processes will not even allow you to think clearly about this for one second. The question is a simple test to see if it is worth us continuing this discussion. - FrancisTyers 14:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
You cannot judge my thought processes, you don't even know me. I hope you'll leave your prejudices behind while talking to me about this issue. I try to see some good faith in you, because you seem like an intellectual person. But I didn't like the idea of you testing the "worth" of people. Well it's your call (who is "us" by the way?). However let me try to explain my view. For example you seem to accept the armenian genocide, which is fine. But in good faith, that shouldn't automatically mean you'll also blindly support anything that will hurt Turkey or Turkish people, such as PKK terrorist organization or its founder Apo for instance, right? Will that make you a better person? Also, my sentimental outburst about PKK shouldn't automatically mean I'm a Turkish ultra-nationalist which will reject all negative points about my country. Believe me, I have knowledge on our country's issues. Anyway that's my actual thought process. And that's why I was sad to see your comments on PKK/Apo. I hope it's clear now. Can we continue the real subject here? --Gokhan 14:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
By the way Francis, today there is a news article on Turkish newspapers. PKK planted a bomb targeting a bus carrying soldier's children to school in the city of Hakkari. 8 soldiers, 11 children, 2 civilians wounded. It seems PKK is actually targeting the civilians and the children. See news article. It's in Turkish but if your wikipedian pals don't help you I can help to translate. --Gokhan 04:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
It's funny when I read Turkish papers because when a bomb is planted who is it going to be? well, who can it be! PKK or amongst ignorants it was Aptullah Ocalan!. Can it not be another organisation, maybe another Semdinli bombing? No, the Turks don't bomb Turkey! You see there is two types of media organisations in Turkey one is working for the government which shows you one side of the story and the other types, the illegals, showing the other side of the story; so if you read both you finally get to decide what to believe. Forget the ignorance of the Turkish media. I mean, showing biased news websites as proof to your arguments is unintelligent because someone can post the other side of the story. The Armenian Genocide denial is a psychological proof that nothing is chanced since 1915 in Turkey and that sometimes the fundamentals of a country matter. There is a say amongst the Kurds that says "It was the Greeks then the Armenians and now the Kurds". Also some people have said that some Kurds are happy to be Turks. Those people are missing the fact that Kurds who accept being Turkish are either forced or manipulated. Ozgur Gerilla 23:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Ozgur, demanding cultural freedom is different than supporting terrorism. I think you need to grow up and learn that. Supporting violence will only get more violence - which won't help anyone in Southeastern Turkey. EU started to warn Kurds about PKK. U.S will have to stop its positive attitude towards PKK soon. Don't count on any Armenian or Greek support after that. And you'll live in this region even westerners will leave one day. --Gokhan 06:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


That's a personal attack. What you are mistaking is the cultural freedom doesn't just come to you. Especially, where in a country there is a passion to make everyone one race, Turkification. Since the beginning of Ottoman Empire, Kurds had no cultural freedom and any other freedom. So what you call terrorism is probably the only way, to some people, to make their voices heard. If somebody hits you, you hit them back. Just like Turks are doing it to Kurds and just like PKK is doing to Turks. We obviously need to read a lot more Gandhi. Lets not forget the ammount of help southeastern Turkey is or has received. You always put that the EU and US support has stopped towards PKK. EU and US has already got PKK in their terrorist list. Obviously putting down PKK is much important then giving the Kurds their rights and freedom for some people. An interesting thing about Turkey is that the country it self is suffering to make Northern Cyprus Internationally recognised but unfortunately does not understand the Kurds at all! A fact, Turkey always tells its people that it will never talk to the "terrotists" but how comes Hamas visited Turkey? doesn't this show something? Ozgur Gerilla 10:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
We'll see what the future will bring. Let's hope for the best. --Gokhan 11:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid this discussion page has been turned into somewhat bash Turkey as much kind of a deal. For those of you interested here is a fact:

Wikipedia is somewhat divided over the point of Terrorism. It is understandable given what is going on in the Middle East in the last few years. However one needs to remember to check the list of sovereign states in the United Nations some time. To avoid confusion read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism

For the rest of the discussion, no body here seems to know what they are talking about well. Bringing up topics such as alleged armenian genocide here is just irrelevant. If you dont have a clue then why dont you STFU?

[edit] impartial sources about civilian issue?

The Council on Foreign Relations site states the below in an article (see article here), can we put this info on wikipedia article as well?

What kinds of attacks has the PKK undertaken?

Mostly attacks on Turkish security forces. But the PKK has also attacked other Turkish sites at home and abroad, as well as Kurdish
civilians who would not cooperate with the group.  The group called off a six-year unilateral ceasefire in 2004 and tensions have 
been rising steadily in Turkey’s southeast region as the PKK began resuming its attacks on security and civilian targets.

[edit] Terrorist

It's not right to say PKK is "by many considered a terrorist organization" it's not specific or a fact. You have already written "Öcalan himself has been labelled a terrorist by several states and international organizations such as the United States, European Union, Turkey, Syria, Canada, Iran and Australia" which is a fact. I'm removing it. Ozgur Gerilla 23:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not saying "Öcalan is by many considered a terrorist organization", it is says "..PKK, by many considered a terrorist organization.." and it's true. If you need sources see PKK. --levent 08:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Same argument goes to PKK, it is a fact that countries listed consider PKK as a terrorist organisation but it's not right to label. Facts are better then opinions. Ozgur Gerilla 14:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Both PKK and Öcalan himself have been labelled a terrorist by.. . I think the grammar is a bit wrong here. PKK cannot be a terrorist but a terrorist group. Maybe you could rephrase this sentence to make it sound better. --levent 22:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] civilians

what a perfectly civilised discussion is going on here. :). funny thoug i cannot help but hold my nose because of the awfull stench of personal hate and prejudice which is obviously the driving force of some of our highly motivated contributors. well done!!!!

We thank you for this wonderful, wise and insightful comment. Thanks for opening our eyes and showing us the truth of our pitiful existence... --Gokhan 11:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I am a Turkish nationalist and PKK is one of my enemies. Don't expect humanist actions from me. With(out) respect, Deliogul 18:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

yes I agree with you my citizens. Apo is a real (Personal attack removed) 88.240.169.28 01:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)madturk88.240.169.28 01:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No insults please. —Khoikhoi 04:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For the record...

Öcalan can speak Kurdish, at least according to this article. —Khoikhoi 23:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/b/d/Talk%7EAbdullah_%C3%96calan_3a72.html"