Sweden will do what i've mentioned because they cannot afford not to.
Sweden will do what i've mentioned because they cannot afford not to.
In Turkey, anyone can be a terrorist. There's even this legal concept of "aiding terrorist organisation without being member of it" and aid can be something simple as writing article which support their cause and the "supporting their cause" definition often can be very broad too because you might be accused of supporting a terrorist organisation due to something like advocating for the right of learning the mother thong in schools. You can easily go to jail for supporting something like that if the Kurdish political movement demands it too(terrorists want it, if you want it too then you are helping the terrorists).
All the issues arise due to the difference of terror definitions between Turkey and more liberal countries. In Sweden you can march with the poster of Abdullah Ocalan, the founder of the terrorist organisation and in Turkey you might be accused of supporting terrorist if you say Mr. Ocalan by mistake(you are expected to parrot something like "baby killer" or at least "head terrorist").
Another problem with the Turkish stance is that it's inconsistent. This terrorist organisation is not formed in a vacuum, it is a response to oppression on the Kurds by the Turkish state and the politicians can dial down the terrorist accusation and talk about "Making mothers stop crying and discussing the issues and finding a violence-free solution" if it fits their current political position.
10 Years ago Erdogan was the champion of the Kurdish rights(the original oppressors are the secular nationalists, in an attempt of nation building. They oppressed islamist too, so at that time Erdogan was a freedom fighter) and was on a brink of Good Friday like resolution on the issue when fractions of the opposition said that he was a traitor and terror supporter. Today the roles are completely reversed, Erdogan is the hardcore nationalist and the opposition wants a resolution and dialog on the Kurdish issues and the PKK associated but pacifist political movement supports the opposition, which is probably why Erdogan is against "Sweden joining NATO unless gives us the PKK terrorists". The elections are in less than a month, Sweden will most likely join NATO once they are no longer useful to the Erdogan's propaganda or the opposition wins the elections.
I hope Sweden never bows to the Turkish demands because that would mean reducing the Swedish freedoms of speech to Turkish level and I promise you, the Turkish freedom of speech sucks.
In turkey saying the Kurds should have an independent state, via peaceful means makes you a terrorist.
In the US you can openly campaign for illegal succession and it’s fine as long as you don’t t start engaging in overt acts.
Kurds were prevented from having a state by the brits who made wholly sure that it would never happen (revenge against salahudin ayubi).
PKK has been classified as a terrorist organization in Sweden since 1984. It was the second country to classify it as a terrorist organization, only after Turkey.
Your comment makes no sense.
That being said I think Sweden has been a bit weak on Kurdish terrorist supporters recently. Most (at least Scandinavian) left wing parties have a soft spot for leftish terrorists. I can see why, they are usually oppressed underdogs.
Plenty of normal people are victim to this sort of flirting with ideas rather than confronting the reality on the ground. You see the same sort of thing with people who (or at least used to) defend Russia for being tough, when in IRL it was mostly a persuasive sheen on top of a cheap mafia state.
https://menaaffairs.com/un-report-again-reveals-ypg-pkk-terr...
Also, it's not as much who is targeted by the attacks as why. The Kurds are under genocidal attack on three sides and have a lot more global sympathy than other groups.
(maybe rumor is correct word, just feels a bit odd to use in this context)
https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-...
If we take Agiza as an example, he was illegaly extradited from Sweden. When it was discovered, there was somewhat of an outrage, he was given money for damages (much by Swedish standards) and later granted residency.
So yes, Swedish government f-ked up at that occasion. That obviously does not mean that because of that, Swedish courts will now forever auto-accept any requests from turkey to have people extradited despite no proof of crimes. That's not what rule of law means.
In fact, you can see proof of this today - Swedish courts are mostly rejecting requests from Turkey and the people still wlka free in Sweden.