Facts that came out from the persistent follow-up of our colleague İdris Emen have raised thoughts that a very complicated network of relations may be present beyond this act.
The person who recruited Gönder for ISIL fought in Syria and went back to his hometown, Adıyaman. The police did not monitor this person, though they watched this person influence young people, despite parental warnings.
Right before Gönder joined ISIL and disappeared, his family went to the police and told them their concerns. The police again watched the situation, interrogated the young person and released him.
When Gönder disappeared, his family even reached Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğluand informed authorities that they suspected their son had joined ISIL, but the police and the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) were not able to track him.
While Gönder was wanted by state security forces, he came back to his country and went to Diyarbakır. He obtained a bomb from some people over there and he caused the death of four people with his terror attack.
We learned from Emen’s story at daily Hürriyet that, during his time in Diyarbakır, he was taken from his hotel by the police; he was notified that he was a draft evader and he was released. Whereas experts state that Gönder’s name should have been included in the list of “missing persons associated with terror” but according to a statement by the Diyarbakır police dated June 26, there was no information about him “preparing for an illegal act.”
How can this be true? The information that he had joined ISIL was given to theAdıyaman police, even the prime minister was informed, but did the Adıyaman police keep this information to itself? Why did the police intelligence not share this information with other departments?
There could be a negligence of duty in this case, but there is more than one negligent action in this incident. Starting from Gönder’s recruitment to ISIL to his family informing the police of this, there is a series of negligence.
Conspiracy theories may be misleading but when so much negligence pools on one person, then there should be a meaning to it.
There is a profile that is “extremely suitable to be used” and this negligence series may be pointing to the “being used” part.
The whole problem is indeed finding who used him. What we need to look for here is who was expecting to benefit from this attack and who protected him until he planted bombs in Diyarbakır.
I have a guess but I do not have any information to prove this, so I cannot write my guess.
Who do you think protected and used him?
If the region went into turmoil after the bombings in Diyarbakır, if there were more deaths, what kind of an effect would this have had on election results?
Would it have been more difficult or easier for the HDP to cross the threshold?
There are a series of questions here and this time this incident should not be left as another one the “unsolved cases.”
No comments:
Post a Comment