On Sunday 21 November 2004 Ugur Kaymaz, a 12 years old child, was helping his father loading his lorry when the police shot both of them dead. His father was gunned down with 8 bullets. Ugur had 13 bullets in his body. The child was repeatedly shot from his back at very close range. Nine bullets entered his little body through his back. The fact that Ugur was shot from very close range was documented by forensics doctors of the Judiciary.
On 18 June 2009, the High Trubinal Court ruled that the police who shot Ugur from his back together with his father have acted in self defense. How is it acting in self defense, let alone being justifiable by any means, to shoot a child from behind at close range with 13 bullets? What kind of "law" would allow and tolerate such abomination?
Think again... Is PKK really a terrorist organization? Don't you think the real terrorist is the Turkish state that shoots Kurdish children from behind, breaks their arms, smashes their skulls with butt of a weapon, tries and imprisons them as adults, AND sees such abomination justifiable?
The Turkish state is determined that it will either assimilate Kurdish children or annihilate them.
I have a question for those people who insist the PKK should lay down arms unconditionally. Are they willing to protect these children if the Kurdish defence forces lay down their arms? I didn't think so.