'Terrorist attack' hits Turkish aerospace firm near Ankara – DW – 10/23/2024
www.dw.com
A blast and gunfire were heard at the premises of the headquarters of Turkish Aerospace Industries. The Turkish interior minister called it a "terrorist attack," adding that it caused deaths and injuries.

A blast and gunfire were heard at the premises of the headquarters of Turkish Aerospace Industries. The Turkish interior minister called it a “terrorist attack,” adding that it caused deaths and injuries.

  • pandapoo@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    182·
    12 days ago

    Is it terrorism to attack military facilities and military contractors…?

    This company manufactures drones and aerial platforms that are used to to kill Kurds, or at minimum, members of Kurdish militias.

    If the Kurds had the capability to launch an aerial bombardment of their production facilities, we would recognize that as a legitimate military strike, of a legitimate target, but they don’t have those advanced capabilities.

    If they followed executives home and murdered their families, okay, terrorism… But you can’t call this terrorism, while cheering on Ukrainian drones strikes on Russian industries, inside of Russia.

    • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.worldEnglish
      71·
      12 days ago

      Its a very weird line.

      Back in ww2 when the allies ran the bombing campaign of German cities the “justification” was that civilians were being used to manufacture arms for the armed forces therefore a part of the military logistics network, and in fairness yes they were - like the British were at the start.

      On the other hand it is a deliberate attack on civilians who are not in uniform, not part of the armed forces and not combatants. You could quite easily follow this path to everyone who pays tax or trades with that country as supporting the war effort.

      Going at it from a different direction, terrorism is defined as non state actor, using violence against civilians, for a political objective. Therefore terrorism.

      Is it justified - probably not but neither is much of warfare. Proportional but didn’t minimize civilian casualties.

      Is it terrorism - leaning towards yes.

      • pandapoo@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        5·
        12 days ago

        The WWII allied strategic bombing campaigns are nothing close to what occurred here. The comparison is at best, ilconceived, but at worst, intentionally disingenuous.

        This company manufactures weapons to sell to their government for a profit, which are then used to kill a particular ethnic group. That means it’s a part of their military industry, and as such is a legitimate target.

        Terrorism does not require a non-state actor, I don’t where you got that definition from. Terrorism is any attack that is strictly against civilian non-combatants, for the express purpose of achieving a ideological or political objective. This was an attack on a military contractor who is actively profiting and engaged in this specific conflict.

        A very lopsided conflict that Turkey has been engaged in for decades, so for Turkey to cry foul about this, and decry it as terrorism, is particularly loathsome.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    94·
    12 days ago

    The scare quotes around “terrorist attack” seem a bit unnecessary. This seems to be confirmed as an attack (and not an accident) and it caused terror.

    I’d be skeptical of regurgitating whoever Erdogan blames for the attack - but an attack it was.

    • pandapoo@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      131·
      12 days ago

      Legitimate military target. It’s a military contractor and weapons manufacturer, whose systems are used to kill members of the group who likely attacked it.

  • HootinNHollerin@lemmy.worldEnglish
    31·
    12 days ago

    pootin offering his condolences to Erdogan for an attack on a Turkish manufacturer of F-16s is rich

    • pandapoo@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      10·
      12 days ago

      Considering this company manufacturers military platforms that are used to spy on and kill Kurds, it was probably the PKK.

      • deegeese@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        24·
        12 days ago

        So Iran wouldn’t help them, and no clear motive for Israel, which leaves Russia as the most likely state sponsor.

        From Wiki:

        As of 2024, Russia is still not among the states that list PKK as a terrorist group despite intense Turkish pressure.

        • pandapoo@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          2·
          12 days ago

          Putting aside the wide range of political considerations and subjectivity that goes into the decision-making process that each country has when they decide who to consider terrorists, or not, I’m not sure I understand what your point is.

          Are you saying that because Russia doesn’t list the PKK as a terrorist organization, that means Russia is behind this attack?

          • deegeese@sopuli.xyzEnglish
            14·
            12 days ago

            I’m just guessing they had help, and that Russia is the most likely benefactor in order to hurt Turkey for helping Ukraine.

            No grand conspiracy, just ordinary realpolitik.

              • pandapoo@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                1·
                10 days ago

                The YPG is not the same as the PKK. Kurds and Kurdish militias aren’t a monolith…

                Unfortunately the USA has classified the PKK as a terrorist organization, so no, it is highly unlikely they coordinate much, especially involving Turkey.

                I agree that the person you’re responding to is wrong, and pretty dim, but that doesn’t mean you should counter their bad takes, with possibly even worse ones.