But still why should we believe Curukkaya's book is correct. as far as I see all he provide is this: "there was this girl she was assaulted, I tried to defend her, the organisation attacked me" and nothing beyond this. Nothing can be confirmed. How do we know he tells the truth and does not bend the facts to establish a political base for his upcoming organization? He is a very interested actor in this game, just like Turkish state for example. Should I also believe what Turkish state says also?
This does not make any sense, for example: in the text by Hatice Yasar, she respectfully mentions Sakine Cansız, one of the recently killed kurdish activists. As far as I know she was also a love interest for Mehmet Sener. However the thing is she was a powerful figure in Kurdish movement and she never left PKK. Now after she died every person in opposition to PKK attributes her that she hated PKK, she knew Ocalan was a dictator. OK,, but why she did not say so? Why she continue to act in PKK? How can I believe such non-proven words and memories (which in strict contrast to her involvement in PKK) as truth? For example she reportedly had a problem with PKK after she was released from prison. But why she was not killed? Why she came back to PKK? Why we need to read this event as she knew the reality of PKK and hated it? It just appears to open a door to "Sakine Cansız" to come to their side and form her oppositional national organization with them (she was alive back then). This politics per se. Why you are not disgusted by such politics as much as you do with (old) nationalist centralized politics of PKK? How can you be sure this is not a move to gain political power?
Moreover what we discuss here is historical stuff (most recent event we discuss is in 1993) I do not know about rape but it is obvious that PKK finished other leftist organizations in Kurdistan and not in nice ways. However this should be criticized as history of PKK. What makes you think PKK is still the same organization? What is so totally reactionary about it now? I do not defend their actions but it is true that PKK gained political support through violence, because it was a very concrete (an alive example) hope for Kurdish people that oppressive Turkish state could be defeated by themselves.
Also still the Ocelot's argument stands: Why are we discussing gender and PKK issue on the basis of rape accusations of three men? What is good in such analysis this is obviously an anti-propaganda. I am sorry, I really don't know why you are so deeply emotional about decrying PKK. However it certainly does not help (to make me believe you) defending accusations of rape that is only referenced in two texts (without any concrete proof) and ten weblinks, where these quotes are reproduced again and again, just to discredit all Kurdish women's movement.
If you actually take the time to read the book you can see that it's not just a single girl either.
I was referring to the link to another book which includes part of the quote, I corrected my post on this thread.