Kurdistan Independence Referendum

[bigdaddy1204]

Why not just let them have a country?

[ioannis76]

Why not just let them have a country?

It's not that simple. Turkey has many different nationalities/minorities (Alewites being one, for example) within its borders. If they allow the Kurds to escape, then others will follow.
Besides, it hurts the image of the powerful centrist Empire that Turkey has of itself, not to mention that a Kurdish state would make Turkey irrelevant in the mid east for the US.

Yet, this animosity in the population was always limited, people would warn each "its not the Kurds, its the PKK". Kurds and Turks never had any problem living together.

Preeety sure that dragging a man tied on an armored vehicle through the streets (the case of Haci Lokman Birlik) and then defending this ery, would create just a tiny little bit of animosity.

[Yayattasa]

It's not that simple. Turkey has many different nationalities/minorities (Alewites being one, for example) within its borders. If they allow the Kurds to escape, then others will follow.
Besides, it hurts the image of the powerful centrist Empire that Turkey has of itself, not to mention that a Kurdish state would make Turkey irrelevant in the mid east for the US.

That's a non-argument. Turkey is the second largest infantry in NATO, it's never irrelevant.

[PointOfViewGun]

Preeety sure that dragging a man tied on an armored vehicle through the streets (the case of Haci Lokman Birlik) and then defending this ery, would create just a tiny little bit of animosity.

Who exactly defended that? When? Where?

[Vanoi]

That's a non-argument. Turkey is the second largest infantry in NATO, it's never irrelevant.

Numbers don't mean . Its Turkish bases that are important. But considering the path Turkey is taking currently i don't seem them remaining in NATO for much longer.

[bigdaddy1204]

I prefer if you say the path Erdogan is taking. Turkish people are good, the president is not. A bit like many countries.

[Love Mountain]

I saw Muizer post in the Catalonia thread that the people aren't stupid enough to actually secede due to the costs that would come with it. I agree with him, but apparently we both underestimated people's stupidity. KRG's declaration of independence is likely to spark conflict. I'd advise using threats of independence to leverage more territory and autonomy instead. But, we may yet see just how stupid and idealistic people are.

[Vanoi]

I prefer if you say the path Erdogan is taking. Turkish people are good, the president is not. A bit like many countries.

I want to agree with you but even you have to admit there are plenty of Erdogan supporters. And right now, it doesn't look like Erdogan will stop being the leader of Turkey anytime soon. There is a reasons why the US is building airfields in bases in YPG territory.

[PointOfViewGun]

It's a rather naive idea to think that USA is trading YPG for Turkey as a substitute.

[Vanoi]

Not trading, but just diversifying. Having second options in case Erodgan decides to restrict things like the use of Turkish bases by US forces.

[PointOfViewGun]

Not trading, but just diversifying. Having second options in case Erodgan decides to restrict things like the use of Turkish bases by US forces.

The context of this line of discussion wasn't use of temporary airfields for USA, or any kind of diversification for that matter.

[ioannis76]

Who exactly defended that? When? Where?

Did you even bother to read about it? The Prime Minister of Turkey said that he was killed attacking the police with a grenade launcher. Government supporters originally said the photograph was fake, and the turkish military said that they were dragging him on the street because they believed he was booby trapped (no ). I can't post links here because it's against the rules, just google his name and you'll find lots of information regarding this particular atrocity of the turkish state in Sirnak.

[PointOfViewGun]

Did you even bother to read about it? The Prime Minister of Turkey said that he was killed attacking the police with a grenade launcher. Government supporters originally said the photograph was fake, and the turkish military said that they were dragging him on the street because they believed he was booby trapped (no ). I can't post links here because it's against the rules, just google his name and you'll find lots of information regarding this particular atrocity of the turkish state in Sirnak.

Any actual source on anyone defending it? Not making excuses about it to distance themselves and their institutions from the act, but actually defending it as that's what you claimed they did? If you can make such a claim you can easily post sources on it. So, you can drag your feet just to let the mud smearing do its job, or you can back away from this ignorant and bigoted propaganda.

[dogukan]

You still see all the things from one side. Those people waged a WAR OF SURVIVAL. Capital was occupied, Sultan was puppeted, armies were dispersed and some tribal leaders come to them and say "we will not backstab you if you cut a chunk of that land for me". This is a threat, this clearly shows that they were acting as hostile outsiders. What kind of response did you expect? What kind of treatment? Are they just supposed to let a chunk of their land ruled by some savage tribe in 20th century? Would Iraqi Kurds of 21th century give a different response to Turkmens and Arabs? Blame is partially on Ottoman authority for not properly dispersing and settling them in 1800s just like they did with many other tribes.

Armenian/Assyrian cosmopolitan life has nothing to do with Kurdish tribals. Kurdish tribes were savages thats a fact. They were still sending around tribal raiding parties to kill and kidnap in 20th century. Not to mention the traditions, honor killings etc. Even though the whole country was backward, Kurdish tribals were in a deeper .

I guess I have to properly explain what I mean by "good willed civilized, political efforts to find a mutual ground and establish mutual empathy".

First of all, they had to make the people and the politicians feel that Kurds were peacefully embracing this state just like the next person. They didnt to that, they acted like outsiders from the beginning, provoking the ruling elite. Then it went downhill, instead of making it up for the previous mistake and establish friendly contact, they started armed rebellions. Establishing a deep animosity in the ruling elite. You threatened them with conflict during the foundation of the nation, now you openly attack the newly founded nation. Best idea ever.

But this conflict was merely between Kurdish tribal leaders and a small Turkish ruling elite. Turkish general population had no animosity towards Kurds and even to this day this animosity has never reached the uncivilized levels covering the entire population. The animosity has started with PKK. Kurds AGAIN established an outsider, hostile political and military stance&movement. Instead of trying to change things from the inside, they again acted from the outside using force instead of being part of the national political arena and mildly try to establish mutual empathy.

I'm again telling you that you are free to say that Kurds were uneducated and uncivilized so that they knew no other way to demand what they geniunely wanted. I can understand that. Although you gotta understand that response they got was also understandable.

Try as much you want. You cant win.

I see things from one side? I was born to your side, I grew up listening to your side, I WAS your side. I never grew up with the "kurdish rhetoric", I was introduced to their pov in at best 2014-15, and before that I was sympathetic-supportive of them but did not really care about their story.
You realize that you and me went through the same education system?

You don't seem to understand social studies much if you throw around that "tribal leader" concept around like that. That is not how it works. Being tribal does not mean "being savage". Savage itself is a loaded term. From the pov of colonizers, the whole world were savages. For the Chinese, the British were savages.
Sort your conceptualization if you want a healthy discussion, you are coming here with words you loaded with your own meanings.

They did not backstab anybody. Backstabbing assumes that there is a mutually benefical and AGREED contract between the two parties.
You understand that meaning right?
We are talking about 1920s...Turkey hasn't even filled its FIRST DECADE. You realize Turkey is not an "objective" phenomenan? It is CREATED by people. It didn't have inherent borders carved into the grounds.
So there is no land to grab. Turkey simply ignored the international rules and overrided it, won a war and ENFORCED its will. This was not a diplomatic and peaceful process. I am not judging it, I am stating a fact. The Kurds do not fall into a backstabbing position here.
Even then, they actually SUPPORTED the war effort. They did not rebel then because the Kurdish intelligentsia saw westerners as an imperialist invasion as well. It was Turkey that backstabbed(if you will) because Turkey was the side that broke the pact(the promises regarding autonomy and identity) and killed the leadership and then ethnically cleansed some villages and then attacked the Kurds.
You realize the Kurds in Syria today for instace are the remnants of some of those Kurds that were expelled grom the lands they lived on in a criminal campaign?

*Traditions and stuff are not an argument here. I don't see its relevancy. Unless you think colonizers had a moral right when they took over the world. MORAL RIGHT, I mean, I am not judging the pragmatics and economics of imperialism. You are referring to moral issues here to make the Turkish case legit.

Nobody had to accept Turkey. Nobody. It was created from zero, given artificial borders and was forced upon people and then became factualized with the education system and recoginition by international community. Thats it. Stop mystifying countries.
Kurdish people did not have any obligation to accept this situation. Where are you getting this idea from?
They were NEVER aske dtheir opinions. The conditions were enforced on them. You are talking like what happened was a natural outcome that was supposed to happen.
History is made, not taken from platons world of ideas. You had too much Turkish nationalism(aka romanticism). You take your concepts and reality for granted when you explain this phenomena. It does not correspond to anyone here, you have to make a case for your epistemology first...no one her went through the brainwashing you went through in Turkey. They cannot relate to things you take for granted. I can. I know how it feels to think that way. But I am not of that position.

Yeah there was no animosity towards Kurds. Your average Turk did not know much about Kurds, let alone that they were Turks until an education system told them that. You can read Yakup Kadri's journals regarding his impression on Anatolian people during the 1920s if you want. An average Turkish villager(which vast majority were) couldn't even differentiate between Greek and Turkish soldiers. Yakup Kadri writes how when Greek soldiers arrived, some celebrated(because they thought it was the army, bad guys or good guys is not something that matters to them) and were concerned about taxation and conscription. This is your average Turk's relation to real world in the period we are talking about.
Kurds were not known to Turks until PKK actually. Most people didn't know ther was such a thing as Kurd. Even some Kurds didn't know it until they realized they don't speak the same language with the state. And many barely realized that due to illeteracy. People forget how young a country Turkey is sometimes.
For youe average Turk, Kurd was not something of familiarity until 80s. And even in movies they might have seen(no internet, not much tv, no information regarding this in school except the fact that everyone is a proud nationalist Turk), it was "eastern" accent. This phenomenan was BARELY sorted out in AKP's leadership. It is a very new thing actually.

Change things from "inside"? What inside? Again, your conceptualization. You are taking for these borders as a natural phenomena.
Do you talk o Mosul and Kirkuk as "inside"? they were also misak-ı milli....

As for your last point...what?

[PointOfViewGun]

I see things from one side? I was born to your side, I grew up listening to your side, I WAS your side. I never grew up with the "kurdish rhetoric", I was introduced to their pov in at best 2014-15, and before that I was sympathetic-supportive of them but did not really care about their story.
You realize that you and me went through the same education system?

You don't seem to understand social studies much if you throw around that "tribal leader" concept around like that. That is not how it works. Being tribal does not mean "being savage". Savage itself is a loaded term. From the pov of colonizers, the whole world were savages. For the Chinese, the British were savages.
Sort your conceptualization if you want a healthy discussion, you are coming here with words you loaded with your own meanings.

They did not backstab anybody. Backstabbing assumes that there is a mutually benefical and AGREED contract between the two parties.
You understand that meaning right?
We are talking about 1920s...Turkey hasn't even filled its FIRST DECADE. You realize Turkey is not an "objective" phenomenan? It is CREATED by people. It didn't have inherent borders carved into the grounds.
So there is no land to grab. Turkey simply ignored the international rules and overrided it, won a war and ENFORCED its will. This was not a diplomatic and peaceful process. I am not judging it, I am stating a fact. The Kurds do not fall into a backstabbing position here.
Even then, they actually SUPPORTED the war effort. They did not rebel then because the Kurdish intelligentsia saw westerners as an imperialist invasion as well. It was Turkey that backstabbed(if you will) because Turkey was the side that broke the pact(the promises regarding autonomy and identity) and killed the leadership and then ethnically cleansed some villages and then attacked the Kurds.
You realize the Kurds in Syria today for instace are the remnants of some of those Kurds that were expelled grom the lands they lived on in a criminal campaign?

*Traditions and stuff are not an argument here. I don't see its relevancy. Unless you think colonizers had a moral right when they took over the world. MORAL RIGHT, I mean, I am not judging the pragmatics and economics of imperialism. You are referring to moral issues here to make the Turkish case legit.

Nobody had to accept Turkey. Nobody. It was created from zero, given artificial borders and was forced upon people and then became factualized with the education system and recoginition by international community. Thats it. Stop mystifying countries.
Kurdish people did not have any obligation to accept this situation. Where are you getting this idea from?
They were NEVER aske dtheir opinions. The conditions were enforced on them. You are talking like what happened was a natural outcome that was supposed to happen.
History is made, not taken from platons world of ideas. You had too much Turkish nationalism(aka romanticism). You take your concepts and reality for granted when you explain this phenomena. It does not correspond to anyone here, you have to make a case for your epistemology first...no one her went through the brainwashing you went through in Turkey. They cannot relate to things you take for granted. I can. I know how it feels to think that way. But I am not of that position.

Yeah there was no animosity towards Kurds. Your average Turk did not know much about Kurds, let alone that they were Turks until an education system told them that. You can read Yakup Kadri's journals regarding his impression on Anatolian people during the 1920s if you want. An average Turkish villager(which vast majority were) couldn't even differentiate between Greek and Turkish soldiers. Yakup Kadri writes how when Greek soldiers arrived, some celebrated(because they thought it was the army, bad guys or good guys is not something that matters to them) and were concerned about taxation and conscription. This is your average Turk's relation to real world in the period we are talking about.
Kurds were not known to Turks until PKK actually. Most people didn't know ther was such a thing as Kurd. Even some Kurds didn't know it until they realized they don't speak the same language with the state. And many barely realized that due to illeteracy. People forget how young a country Turkey is sometimes.
For youe average Turk, Kurd was not something of familiarity until 80s. And even in movies they might have seen(no internet, not much tv, no information regarding this in school except the fact that everyone is a proud nationalist Turk), it was "eastern" accent. This phenomenan was BARELY sorted out in AKP's leadership. It is a very new thing actually.

Change things from "inside"? What inside? Again, your conceptualization. You are taking for these borders as a natural phenomena.
Do you talk o Mosul and Kirkuk as "inside"? they were also misak-ı milli....

As for your last point...what?

You exchange one dogma for an other and try to pass it as enlightenment. You two argue the same thing in principle, and merely represent different far sides of a coin.

[dogukan]

What exactly is my dogma setekh? In what sense am I being dogmatic?

[LinusLinothorax]

What exactly is my dogma setekh? In what sense am I being dogmatic?

You are talking to a wall.
But I have a question for you: How would you judge the situation of the Assyrians and Armenians in Iraqi Kurdistan? Most of northern Mesopotamia was settled by the Kurds, after they, together with the Turks and some Arabs, ethnically cleansed these areas from Assyrians and Armenians under Abdul Hamid II, during WW1 and sporadically during the 20's and 30's. Now, I would be in support for the Kurdish state to 100%, IF the Assyrians are granted an autonomous region in Ninive. However, I don't hear that nice news from there, like that during the ISIS invasion of the major Christian town Qaraqosh, the Peshmerga promised to defend the town from ISIS, but just retreated in the night (Same crap in Sinjar with the Yazids, reminding me of this popular statement: "A radical Muslim wants to chop your head off. A moderate Muslim wants a radical Muslim to chop your head off."), or that the KRG is promoting the settlement of Kurds in Ninive. How are the talks concerning an autonomous Christian region going? What chances do the local Christians have for survival, considering that western politicans don't give a about them anyway and that Islamic fundamentalism is an ever-growing threat, even in Kurdistan?

[dogukan]

You are talking to a wall.
But I have a question for you: How would you judge the situation of the Assyrians and Armenians in Iraqi Kurdistan? Most of northern Mesopotamia was settled by the Kurds, after they, together with the Turks and some Arabs, ethnically cleansed these areas from Assyrians and Armenians under Abdul Hamid II, during WW1 and sporadically during the 20's and 30's. Now, I would be in support for the Kurdish state to 100%, IF the Assyrians are granted an autonomous region in Ninive. However, I don't hear that nice news from there, like that during the ISIS invasion of the major Christian town Qaraqosh, the Peshmerga promised to defend the town from ISIS, but just retreated in the night (Same crap in Sinjar with the Yazids, reminding me of this popular statement: "A radical Muslim wants to chop your head off. A moderate Muslim wants a radical Muslim to chop your head off."), or that the KRG is promoting the settlement of Kurds in Ninive. How are the talks concerning an autonomous Christian region going? What chances do the local Christians have for survival, considering that western politicans don't give a about them anyway and that Islamic fundamentalism is an ever-growing threat, even in Kurdistan?

There are 2 major Kurdish factions. PKK-PYD and KRG has different policies and outlooks on these matters. I support the prior, which are for total autonomy to all ethnic groups and their proportionate representation.
KRG isn't that bad compareted to rest of the middle east, but Kurdish nationalists do have the potential to turn into what they struggled against.
KRG sees assyrians and even yezidis as a liability. I am not a fan of KRG or Barzani's political machine, I just think their independence will pave the way for the other groups to come out eventually.

[Admiral Piett]

Quite a few Congressmen and Pentagon officials called for a division of Iraq from the very beginning. Must be something to that I imagine? Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds have demonstrated they have little desire to live together peacefully within the same state. Immediate independence to Iraqi Kurdistan, the Shia region ultimatelly allying with or annexing to Iran, and the Sunnis living on their own or joining the Syrian state could have probably averted the entire ISIS conflict, imo. Destroying old colonial national lines is not a bad thing.

[PointOfViewGun]

PYD sees KRG as a liability too, hence, they tried to suppress their political presence in Syria through braking up their rallies by force, raiding their offices, and arresting their officials.

What exactly is my dogma setekh? In what sense am I being dogmatic?

It's nothing complex. You merely exchange one filtered glasses for an other. It's like an absolute value graph. You put "| |" signs around your preferred political group and voila. You either start ignoring anything negative about it or start twisting those negatives with dubious arguments. Regular people suddenly become demons and angels based on the camp you're on.