IRA and ETA are very good examples. In what way is it different? IRA, ETA and PKK all had similar objectives, they were all separatists. The main objective being 'destabilizing the country'. I'm glad for England and Spain that they have solved this problem, and I think there is nothing wrong in hoping for the same type of solution for my own country.
How can they be the same?
Both England and Spain are educated countries,where the society knows the meaning of democrasy,human development,where you cant buy votes or where the head of a clan desides what to do.
social securty garanteed,living standarts are equal.
IRA was mostly about religion,nothing else(protestants wanted England,katholics wanted Ireland)
Eta wanted the creation of a Bask country.
Both gave up because there was nothing to gain by having a own country in western europe.
The PKK on the other hand has very much to gain,
The final goal is a kurdish country containing parts of Turkey,Iran,Irak and Syria.
Most kurdish people living in these countries are educationaly,economicly behind the Turks,Iranians,Iraqies and Syrians.
The kurdish people believe in the PKKs prommises of a better future if independent from all(lack of education and good living standarts).
Still convinced its the same?
Who doesnt want peace in his country?
But at what cost?
Btw,IRA and ETA had limited finances,PKK has unlimited backing from our so called friends and allies(Germany,France,Switzerland,Denmark,Sweden,Iran,US, to name a few)
But officialy none of the above helps the PKK.