Syrian YPG terrorists 'directly responsible' for Ankara attack

[T-Rex]

You're suggesting they should take as long as India has taken to find the culprits in the massacre of approximately 10,000 Indian Muslim men, women, and children in Gujarat? How about explaining to your friends in Iran how many of those massacred by the Indian Hindu terrorists were Shiites....because the atrocities that were committed by Indian Hindus in those cases were not less than anything dreamed up by ISIS.

Or leaving that aside, how many of those responsible for the massacres of Indian Sikhs have you tried?

Is there a reason why 'justice' in India moves so slowly when it concerns the massacres of some?

You nailed him pretty good but trust me, most of these indians are hypocrites of the highest order.

 

[mohsen]

Kurdish group claims responsibility for Ankara attack

so , once again Turkey's lies were revealed.
this is how terrorists and their supporters fabricate the news to justify their murders and support of ISIS.
Gosh, they even fabricated a name to make their lies more believable, just shameful.

 

[madmusti]

To explain why we see no difference between PKK&Co.

 

[retaxis]

Is this a terrorist attack? Yes and No

In my perspective it is not. Why? Because the primary target was military with civilian collateral which is sad but unavoidable.

America bombs iraq and Afghanistan and half the time there is more civilian casualties than military casualties! Does that make America a terrorist state? (in this discussion lets assume they are not for now)

Thus In this sense because the primary target was military with collateral I dare say it is not a terrorist attack

In my mind a terrorist attack means the primary target is civilians e.g. the Uyghur terrorist attack in China where they threw bombs at women and children market shoppers to wound/kill as many as possible. That is a terrorist attack because the target was women/children/elderly who were shopping. The target in this case was military.

 

[xenon54 out]

Is this a terrorist attack? Yes and No

In my perspective it is not. Why? Because the primary target was military with civilian collateral which is sad but unavoidable.

America bombs iraq and Afghanistan and half the time there is more civilian casualties than military casualties! Does that make America a terrorist state? (in this discussion lets assume they are not for now)

Thus In this sense because the primary target was military with collateral I dare say it is not a terrorist attack

In my mind a terrorist attack means the primary target is civilians e.g. the Uyghur terrorist attack in China where they threw bombs at women and children market shoppers to wound/kill as many as possible. That is a terrorist attack because the target was women/children/elderly who were shopping. The target in this case was military.

I wonder if you would say the same when it was isis.
You cant just redefine terms as it suits you.

Terrorism | Define Terrorism at Dictionary.com

 

[T-Rex]

Is this a terrorist attack? Yes and No

In my perspective it is not.

Another proof that YPG terrorists committed this terrorism.

America bombs iraq and Afghanistan and half the time there is more civilian casualties than military casualties! Does that make America a terrorist state?

Why don't you ask uncle sam that question? I thought you were very candid, well I suppose I was wrong.

In my mind a terrorist attack means the primary target is civilians e.g.

Such as the Russina bombing of hospitals and schools!

 

[Schutz]

Is this a terrorist attack? Yes and No

In my perspective it is not. Why? Because the primary target was military with civilian collateral which is sad but unavoidable.

America bombs iraq and Afghanistan and half the time there is more civilian casualties than military casualties! Does that make America a terrorist state? (in this discussion lets assume they are not for now)

Thus In this sense because the primary target was military with collateral I dare say it is not a terrorist attack

In my mind a terrorist attack means the primary target is civilians e.g. the Uyghur terrorist attack in China where they threw bombs at women and children market shoppers to wound/kill as many as possible. That is a terrorist attack because the target was women/children/elderly who were shopping. The target in this case was military.

Its not a terrorist attack if the two parties are at war I agree, although when its a group instead of a nation it gets a bit less black and white.

 

[mustafa erkan]

Is this a terrorist attack? Yes and No

In my perspective it is not. Why? Because the primary target was military with civilian collateral which is sad but unavoidable.

America bombs iraq and Afghanistan and half the time there is more civilian casualties than military casualties! Does that make America a terrorist state? (in this discussion lets assume they are not for now)

Thus In this sense because the primary target was military with collateral I dare say it is not a terrorist attack

In my mind a terrorist attack means the primary target is civilians e.g. the Uyghur terrorist attack in China where they threw bombs at women and children market shoppers to wound/kill as many as possible. That is a terrorist attack because the target was women/children/elderly who were shopping. The target in this case was military.

They have attacked many times to civilians before but I am afraid these attacks doesnt make them terrorist for you.I simply can say daesh ,ypg,pkk and all of them terrorist.Terrorism is the same for political ıslam or other political gains like YPG and pkk killed peoples.
If we except your perspective we cant call terrorism as a crime.

 

[-SINAN-]

Its not a terrorist attack if the two parties are at war I agree, although when its a group instead of a nation it gets a bit less black and white.

Yeah, it's only terror when people kills white civilians...

Is this a terrorist attack? Yes and No

In my perspective it is not. Why? Because the primary target was military with civilian collateral which is sad but unavoidable.

America bombs iraq and Afghanistan and half the time there is more civilian casualties than military casualties! Does that make America a terrorist state? (in this discussion lets assume they are not for now)

Thus In this sense because the primary target was military with collateral I dare say it is not a terrorist attack

In my mind a terrorist attack means the primary target is civilians e.g. the Uyghur terrorist attack in China where they threw bombs at women and children market shoppers to wound/kill as many as possible. That is a terrorist attack because the target was women/children/elderly who were shopping. The target in this case was military.

4 Year old kid and her mother injured critically.

Many woman among wounded......most of the wounded are dead was civilian workers.... but some terrorist lovers, say this was an not terror attack.....

You know those who say "this was not a terror attack"......i wish you a terrible death in the hands of the terrorists.

 

[Serpentine]

Yeah, it's only terror when people kills white civilians...

4 Year old kid and her mother injured critically.

Many woman among wounded......most of the wounded are dead was civilian workers.... but some terrorist lovers, say this was an not terror attack.....

You know those who say "this was not a terror attack"......i wish you a terrible death in the hands of the terrorists.

By definition, terrorist attack is one that solely targets civilians, not military targets.

As an Iranian, if a group that is at war with us targets Iranain military, although I would personally consider them as terrorists, but by definition they are not or to be more precise, that particular attack is not a terrorist one unless they actually do kill civilians on purpose, only for the sake of putting terror in people's hear or killing them because of faith, race etc. I know this definition has many shortcomings and many are abusing it, including the West mainly.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Disgusting terrorist attack.

Now I wonder if America will stop supporting YPG.

 

[T-Rex]

By definition, terrorist attack is one that solely targets civilians, not military targets.

But when the Asad regimes forces are attacked by FSA people like you call that terrorist attack, now isn't that hypocrisy?

 

[retaxis]

But when the Asad regimes forces are attacked by FSA people like you call that terrorist attack, now isn't that hypocrisy?

When Islamic Uighur terrorists specifically target Chinese farmers and water melon sellers Turkish members call them heroes and freedom fighters. When the Kurds attack their military they cry terrorism. I have not heard such hypocrisy before but then again the Turks have p1ssed off just about all their neighbours and won't shy from actual genocide from achieving their aims which they have done plenty of in the past

 

[-SINAN-]

When Islamic Uighur terrorists specifically target Chinese farmers and water melon sellers Turkish members call them heroes and freedom fighters.

Most of the Chinese members in PDF are liars and slanderers....thanks for proving it one more time.

P.S: Long live Turkic people and East Turkistan.

 

[retaxis]

Most of the Chinese members in PDF are liars and slanderers....thanks for proving it one more time.

P.S: Long live Turkic people and East Turkistan.

Thank you for proving my point that Turks are terrorists first and foremost and will kill innocent women/children/babies. The rest of the world will laugh as you scream "terrorism". The kurds are nothing but freedom fighters and I along with the rest of the world approve the deliverence of every weapon up to nuclear weapons to the armenians/kurds/greeks/alawites etc. Terrorists should not be given quarters

According to the Turks these guys are the "good guys"

Turkistan Islamic Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia