“Masoud Barzani: Independent Kurdistan is loyal response to Peshmerga sacrifices,” Rudaw, March 5, 2017:
Barzani [Masoud Barzani, President of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region] said that too many massacres have occurred, leaving no room for reconciliation,’ with a divided Iraq along the sectarian lines of Sunnis and Shiites, as he commented on the prospect of an independent Kurdistan, saying that the Kurds had tried to reconcile with the rest of the country after the fall of Saddam in 2003, but it failed because of the sectarian war between the two sects that has been going on for 1400 years.
“The independence of Kurdistan would create an area of stability in this region. We have already seen too much blood and injustice,” Barzani said, noting that an independent Kurdistan will be “based on the rule of law, respect for democratic rules, coexistence between different identities, and a multiparty system.”
“In the Middle East we can help to reduce crises and conflicts. It is in everyone’s interest,” Barzani said talking about the impact of an independent Kurdistan on the Middle East.”
The largest ethnic group in the world without its own state, a people without a country of their own, are the Kurds. By the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920, they were originally promised local autonomy in Anatolia, with the possibility of establishing, within a year of the Treaty’s signing, an independent Kurdish state. Section 3, Article 64 of the Sèvres treaty stated:
If within one year from the coming into force of the present Treaty the Kurdish peoples within the areas defined in Article 62 shall address themselves to the Council of the League of Nations in such a manner as to show that a majority of the population of these areas desires independence from Turkey, and if the Council then considers that these peoples are capable of such independence and recommends that it should be granted to them, Turkey hereby agrees to execute such a recommendation, and to renounce all rights and title over these areas.”
The detailed provisions for such renunciation will form the subject of a separate agreement between the Principal Allied Powers and Turkey.
If and when such renunciation takes place, no objection will be raised by the Principal Allied Powers to the voluntary adhesion to such an independent Kurdish State of the Kurds inhabiting that part of Kurdistan which has hitherto been included in the Mosul vilayet.
But that promise was never fulfilled; the treaty was annulled. After the Turks under Ataturk had managed to expel the last foreign troops from Anatolia, the Turkish government refused to recognize the commitments it had made in the Sèvres treaty, a refusal reflected in the Treaty of Lausanne, signed in 1923. The result was bitter: no autonomy for the Kurds, and certainly no independent Kurdish state. But the Kurds did not abandon their dream of an independent Kurdistan; though the Lausanne Treaty meant the postponement of the dream of Kurdish autonomy, or of a Kurdish state, it did not destroy it. Though the Kurds are still stateless, circumstances today in the Middle East may have brought their goal closer to being realized than at any time before.
The Kurdish people now number between 35 and 40 million. Most of them are to be found in four Muslim countries – Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Turkey. They have been mistreated, to varying degrees, in all of these countries. In Turkey there are 10-15 million Kurds, about 20% of the population, living mostly in eastern and southeastern Anatolia. There has been a long-running simmering rebellion by these Anatolian Kurds against Turkish rule, involving several different groups of Kurdish rebels, the most important group being the PKK, or Kurdish Worker’s Party. Serious organizing for Kurdish rights began in 1974; an open insurgency started in 1984, and since then there have been varying levels of violence, intermittent truces, suppression by the Turkish army — but the aim of Kurdish autonomy or, for a growing number of Kurds, the further aim of outright independence, remains despite defeats. That desire is no doubt heightened in the Turkish Kurds by their having to endure that Lord of Misrule, the self-proclaimed Padishah, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and in the Iraqi and Syrian Kurds, by their having proven their military mettle against the Islamic State.
About six million Kurds live in northern Iraq, the country where they have fared worst. The Arab army of Saddam Hussein killed 182,000 Kurds in Operation Anfal (a name taken from the eighth sura of the Qur’an, which is called Surat al-Anfal, or “the Spoils of War” chapter), and then moved Arabs into formerly Kurdish-populated villages, in a campaign of forced Arabization. After the Gulf War, the American military provided air cover for the Iraqi Kurds, beginning in 1991, which meant that none of Saddam’s planes dared enter the airspace over Iraqi Kurdistan. The Kurds are keenly aware of how much the Americans have done for them. Since 2003, while Shi’a and Sunni Arabs have been locked in conflict, Iraqi Kurds have enjoyed a semi-autonomous existence in the north. This experience has whetted Iraqi Kurdish appetites for independence, and also turned them into the most pro-American ethnic group – save for Israeli Jews – in the Middle East. It is worth noting that since 2003, not a single American has been killed in Iraqi Kurdistan. Today a Kurd, Fuad Masum, is President of Iraq, but one shouldn’t make too much of this, for it’s a largely ceremonial position, and has not diminished the desire of many Kurds for full independence, and not just de facto autonomy, for Iraqi Kurdistan. When Masoud Barzani (see above) claims that now is the time for Kurdish independence in northern Iraq, he talks about how an independent Kurdistan could help bring “stability” to a region rocked by sectarian conflict. Shouldn’t he wish that sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shi’a Arabs to continue forever? Isn’t that what may make possible an independent Kurdish state in Iraq in the first place?
The Kurds in Syria, of whom there are two million in Rojava, since the civil war began a de facto autonomous region in northern Syria, have proven themselves to be the most effective fighters against the Islamic State, with their Peoples Protection Units, or YPG, doing the bulk of Kurdish fighting. These Kurdish forces have not only had to contend with the Islamic State, but they have been targeted by the Turkish Army, which is supposed to be in Syria only to fight the Islamic State. In its waning days, the Obama Administration was planning to send arms to the Kurds in Syria, but the Trump Administration appears to have dropped that plan, reportedly because it might offend Erdogan.
But why should Washington try to please Erdogan? Since so much of what the Americans do or don’t do infuriates Erdogan as, for example, Washington’s refusal to extradite Fethullah Gulen, and as other Westerners – the Dutch, the Germans – are repeatedly called “Nazis” by Erdogan because they had the gall to keep Erdogan’s men from campaigning among Turks in their countries, it is clear that he is mercurial, ill-tempered, bullying, often hysterical, a false friend who in many ways has become an enemy of the non-Muslim West. He went into a towering rage against Israel because of the Mavi Marmara episode, in which Israeli soldiers dared to defend themselves against attack. He has fomented antisemitism at every level, accusing “the Jews” of harming the Turkish economy, causing a mine disaster, spreading anti-Turkish stories through their supposed control of the world-wide -media, and so on and so predictably forth.
Officially our military ally (and member of NATO), Turkey did not allow the Americans in 2003 to invade Iraq from the north, considerably complicating their military task. Erdogan has now been making noises about denying the Americans the use of the Incirlik airbase they built and share with the Turks, in order to force them to provide air support for his troops in Syria. The Americans are reluctant because they fear that they might inadvertently harm our Kurdish allies in the area. Erdogan is angry that the Americans are becoming too close to the Kurds, whose successes against the Islamic State appear not to please but to alarm him. He has even told the Americans that his first priority is fighting the Kurds; the Islamic State comes second. Finally, and most disturbing, Erdogan appears to take pleasure in his current prediction that a new “religious war” between Muslims and Christians — between “the cross and the crescent” — is brewing in Europe, leaving no doubt which side Turkey will be on. All this makes it harder and harder to justify treating Turkey as an ally or allowing it to remain in NATO.
In Iran there are six million Kurds, both Sunni and Shi’a, who since the First World War have demonstrated various levels of loyalty to the central government in Tehran. In 1946, Kurds in Iran established a “Republic of Mehabad” that only covered a minuscule territory along the border with Iraq and Turkey; it lasted less than a year. When the Islamic Republic was declared, many Kurds were at first enthusiastic, because the Shah had shown no patience with Kurdish nationalism, and they hoped for better treatment. They were soon disabused of that hope. As soon as Khomeini’s Islamic program became clear, the Kurds, always more secular than the Arabs (because their ethnic identity worked against, rather than reinforced, the hold of Islam) started a series of demonstrations that were suppressed far more brutally than they had been under the Shah. The Ayatollah Khomeini called for a Jihad against Kurdish separatists in August, 1979; mass executions of Kurds promptly followed.
All further attempts by Kurds to demonstrate against the Khomeini regime were crushed. The Iranian Kurds were on their own, for in Iraq the Kurds were held down by Saddam’s men after the 1986 Al-Anfal campaign of mass murder against them. And in the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88), two despots, Saddam and Khomeini, forced “their” Kurds to fight against those on the other side, instead of the Kurds in both countries being able to join forces to fight both the Arabs of Iraq and the Persians of Iran.
Now the future of the Kurds in Iran depends on what the Kurds in Iraq manage to accomplish. If they achieve independence, the route will be open for them to aid the Iranian Kurds militarily, perhaps even supplying them with arms that might be supplied by the Saudis, or the Israelis, for both Saudi Arabia and Israel have a stake in weakening Iran. (Geopolitics makes strange bedfellows.) The Saudis have recently announced their support for the independence of Iraqi Kurdistan, knowing that it will cause trouble for Iranian interests in Iraq and, even more importantly, in Iran itself.
Why has the West been so hesitant to support an independent Kurdistan when there are so many reasons why it should be enthusiastic?
The main American worry is that of alienating Turkey. The American government treats Turkey as if it were still the Kemalist Turkey of 1980, or even of 1951, when Turkey was invited to join NATO as a payback for sending its troops to fight in Korea. Turkey was once a stout ally, but that was in the heyday of Kemalism, when the forces of secularism seemed unstoppable and Ataturk’s reforms appeared to be permanent. Erdogan has been systematically undoing Kemalism, that is, reintroducing signs of Islam everywhere Ataturk had managed to banish them – especially in the army, the civil service, and the universities. He has been busy re-islamizing the country; both he and his ministers extol Islam and denounce secularism. Physical attacks by mobs on secularists, including those who only tried to distribute leaflets denouncing the Islamic State, have become more frequent and go unpunished.
He has just ended the ban on the wearing of hijabs by female army officers; he had previously lifted the ban on hijabs in the universities, police, civil service and government. .
Erdogan has built 10,000 new mosques in Turkey since 2004. His Deputy Prime Minister and others in his government have called for turning Hagia Sophia, currently a museum, into a mosque, which would further efface the Christian history of Byzantium, and of Christian Constantinople, for half a millenium the largest and richest city in Christendom, from historic memory. He has waged war on his own officer corps, using the failed coup as his excuse for a massive purge of the secularists in the army, while accusing those officers of taking their orders from Fethullah Gulen, a mild-mannered Muslim cleric who, Erdogan claims, directed the coup from his Pennsylvania exile. That officer corps, which for nearly a century has been the ultimate guarantor of Kemalism, has now been weakened by Erdogan’s removal of hundreds of secularist officers, the same officers whom he accuses of being the agents of a Muslim cleric.
Turkey under Erdogan has, as noted above, been an inconstant ally of the West. It’s hard to believe that a leader of Turkey, a country that for decades has received military supplies and training and aid of all kinds from the Americans, a country that was originally allowed into NATO thanks to American sponsorship, has turned out to be so ungrateful for all those decades of support of every kind.
What the Kurds need is a clear sign that the West, and especially the American government, supports the goal of an independent Kurdistan, beginning with the Kurdish territory in northern Iraq. Suppose our politicians – for example, Representative Tulsi Gabbard — were to begin to make known their own support for such a state by speaking out in Congress? Columnists might begin to write about why an independent Kurdistan would necessarily be a firm ally of the United States. David Brooks, E. J. Dionne, or any of the other grand panjandrums of the American commentariat could devote a few columns as to why an independent Kurdistan makes both geopolitical and moral sense. Just getting people to talk about the possibility, to examine it from every angle, would be helpful. For there are many reasons for thinking that this is a singularly propitious moment for the Kurds, having proved themselves militarily in both Syria and Iraq, to make a move for an independent Kurdish state.
If a state of Kurdistan were to be declared in northern Iraq with American political support, this will not stop the sectarian conflict among Iraq’s Arabs. And, pace Masoud Barzani, both we and the Kurds benefit from that conflict continuing. Neither the Shi’a nor the Sunni Arabs in Iraq now possess the wherewithal to suppress a Kurdish state, and neither will want to divert what military resources they now have to use against the Kurds. In many ways, Baghdad has already lost control of Iraqi Kurdistan over the last quarter-century, ever since the Americans started providing air cover in 1991. The Sunni Arabs might, in fact, begin thinking not about forcing the Kurds to remain within an Iraqi state, but rather, about the possibility of independence for themselves, since the Shi’a-run government in Baghdad, having undone the Sunni ascendancy under Saddam Hussein, now possesses the political and economic power (those oil revenues) that the Sunni Arabs once controlled. Those Sunni Arabs constitute about 20% of Iraq’s population, while the Shi’a Arabs make up more than 65% of Iraqis. That means there is no chance, in the new democratic polity that the Americans helped bring, that the Sunnis will ever again regain the power they once possessed. Instead, as a permanent minority, they are doomed to endure second-class status under the newly empowered Shi’a. But the Sunnis can continue to resist, and might attempt to create a Sunni state carved out of central Iraq, which could count on Saudi Arabia (and the smaller but very rich sheikdoms of the Gulf) to support them with money and weaponry, so that they might stand in the way of further Shi’a expansion. The main goal of the Saudis is to everywhere limit the influence and power of Shi’a Iran, which they regard, correctly, as Saudi Arabia’s mortal enemy. So this sectarian conflict can go on indefinitely, a proxy war between Iran-backed Shi’a and Saudi-backed Sunnis, and it is this war that gives the Kurds in Iraq their chance for independence.
Even more disturbed than Iraqi Arabs at the prospect of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq will be those who run things in Tehran. For they will naturally fear the potentially galvanizing effect on the six million Kurds in Iran and, even more disturbing, the effect on other, non-Kurdish, minorities in Iran. The Iranians have reason to worry. After all, only 61% of the population of Iran consists of Iranians.
The remainder are Baluchis, in the east, next to Pakistan’s Baluchistan, who make up 2% of Iran’s population, Azeris to the north, next to Azerbaijan,who make up 16% of the population, Arabs in the south, in the oil-bearing region of Khuzistan, who number fewer than two million (there are 8 million Arabs in Iran, or 2% of the population, widely dispersed) and the Kurds, who make up 10% of the population, on the western border with Iraq – or what could now be Kurdistan. And then there are a dozen smaller peoples. If the nearly seven million Iranian Kurds were able to rise up and join Iraqi Kurds in the new state of Kurdistan, that would by itself weaken the Islamic Republic. And it would also encourage other minorities to try to break away from Iran. The Azeris in Iran have not heretofore shown great interest in joining their territory to Azerbaijan, and Khomeini’s ferocious 1979 declaration of Jihad against all separatists scared many, but the tug of Azeri nationalism might grow stronger pari passu with the prospect of its success.
Right now Iran is involved, directly or through proxies, in Syria and Lebanon, in Yemen and Iraq. If Tehran had to simultaneously deal with internal uprisings by Kurds, Baluchis, Azeris, and Arabs, it would likely have to pull back from its foreign adventurism, and perhaps have to choose which of its minorities, or the land they live on, it could least afford to lose. The 2.4 million Baluchis in eastern Iran, almost 30% of the total Baluchi population in the world, live in one of the poorest parts of Iran, ignored by Tehran except when some separatists set off a bomb. 70% of the world’s Baluchis live just across the Iranian border in Pakistan, where they have been carrying on a low-level rebellion for many years. The Baluchis have a strong sense of national identity, despite, or possibly because, they are spread between Iran and Pakistan and ill-treated in both countries. They are Sunnis, which is another reason why the Islamic Republic treats them badly. If the Iranian Kurds were to be successful in leaving Iran, the Baluchis in eastern Iran might be inspired to join their territory to that of the Baluchis in Pakistan. The Sunni government of Pakistan would be glad to receive territory subtracted from Shi’a Iran, and might then grant the Baluchis greater autonomy, in the hope of forestalling demands for Baluchistan’s independence. The Iranians are unlikely to want to fight Pakistan in order to wrest back control of an impoverished land and its impoverished, rebellious, and hostile people.
The Arabs of Khuzistan number fewer than two million, though there are another six million ethnic Arabs spread out in Iran. Khuzistan is next to Iraq, but Shi’a Arabs in southern Iraq are not likely to help the Arabs of Khuzistan, for they are grateful to Iran for having backed the Shi’a militias in Iraq to the hilt, with weapons, training, and even some soldiers, for their fight against Sunni Arabs. Kuwait, too, is a country that traditionally has fostered close ties with Iran, calling relations with the Islamic Republic “excellent and historical.” How much of this friendship is real, and how much dictated by considerations of Realpolitik, given that Iran is the most powerful country in the region, is unclear. But what is clear is that Saudi Arabia, the second power in the region, and a determined enemy of Iran, could support a Khuzistani independence movement all by itself, by paying both for military supplies and for Pakistani Sunni “volunteers” (like the Pakistani mercenaries who have been employed to keep down the Shi’a in Bahrain) who could fight against Iranian forces trying to hold onto Khuzistan. The Iranians do not want to lose Khuzistan’s oil, so they will never relinquish the territory. And the deep-pocketed Saudis, for their part, can keep the fight in Khuzistan going as long as they are willing to spend some of their spare billions, and to hire Pakistani mercenaries. The Iranian army cannot simultaneously suppress the Kurds, the Azeris, the Baluchis, and Arabs at home, and at the same time, deploy forces to back Shi’a militia in Iraq, and Assad in Iran, and keep its commitment to Hezbollah (especially if the Israelis keep bombing those supply routes from Syria to Lebanon with such deadly accuracy) in Lebanon.
Even the attempts at rebellion by Kurds, Azeris, Baluchis, and Arabs, whether or not any or none or some of them succeed, will keep the Islamic Republic off balance, occupied with holding Iran together, in the face of centripetal forces to the north, the south, the east and the west, and keep the mullahs out of mischief elsewhere. The regime in Tehran instead will be forever teeter-tottering, as it tries to extinguish separatist fires that can re-flame up at any time, on all four sides.
In Iraq, the Kurds, who are both Sunni and Shi’a, want to stay out of what they regard as a religious quarrel among Arabs, insisting that their sense of peoplehood transcends that sectarian fissure. They have enjoyed autonomy ever since 1991, and have the economic wherewithal, from oil and natural gas fields, to support a viable Kurdish state, even if Kurds elsewhere do not join them. Their bitter memories, of the nearly 200,000 Kurds murdered by Saddam, the forced Arabization of Kurdish lands, the appropriation of Kurdish oil and gas revenues by the Arabs in Baghdad, have been more than enough to keep their dream of an independent Kurdistan alive. Having become used to living with autonomy, they now want more, and as it turns out, in Iraq and elsewhere in the neighborhood, the conditions are more propitious than they have ever been for obtaining Kurdish independence.
In Iraq, where the Kurdish Peshmerga has demonstrated its mettle against the Islamic State, it would be unimaginable for the Sunni and Shi’a Arabs, at this point of maximum sectarian mistrust and conflict, to join forces against the Kurds, or that either sectarian group would expend its own forces to fight the Kurds alone, which would only help their sectarian Arab enemy.
In Syria, the Kurds have won the trust and support of the Americans because they have proven themselves to be the most effective of all the groups fighting the Islamic State. There are only two million of them, and they would not try for independence on their own, but if the Kurds in Iraq declare independence, those in Syria, who enjoy de facto autonomy in Rojava (Syrian Kurdistan) might quickly act to join them. There are several reasons why Assad would not dare, nor even care, to try to stop them. In the first place, he has been weakened militarily by the war, even if he now seems to be winning, and needs to husband his military resources for fighting those who still threaten to topple and murder him. These are the various rebel groups, as well as Al-Qaeda and, of course, the Islamic State, still holding on in Raqqa. The Syrian Kurds have no such desire to topple Assad. They don’t care which Arab rules in Damascus. What they want is be out of Syria altogether, and as far as they are concerned the Arabs can, as in Iraq, fight among themselves for as long as they want.The sliver of land – Rojava– that the Kurds inhabit will not be missed by Assad, who is more worried that he could lose his power, and his head. The Assad regime’s enemies are not just the fighters of the Islamic State and the various Syrian rebel groups. He has one more enemy in the neighborhood – Turkey. Erdogan entered Syria originally, as he put it, to end “the cruel regime of Assad.” He’s put aside that goal for now, but Assad will not have forgotten the threat. Assad, who has defied all the predictions of his demise, has much to gain from an independent Kurdistan. For that Kurdish state consisting of parts of Iraq and Syria will be a permanent threat to Turkey, and to the cohesion of the Turkish state. The loss of Syrian Kurds to this new state would be well worth it to Assad if, as a result, that independent Kurdistan attracts Turkish Kurds, prompts them to a rebellion in eastern Anatolia, and keeps the Turkish military busy trying to put down a large-scale Kurdish revolt, one which they will not easily be able to suppress given the military aid and volunteers from Kurds outside Turkey. Letting the Syrian Kurds join the Iraqi Kurds is the cleverest way for Assad to divert or curb Erdogan’s efforts against him. It’s akin to sacrificing a piece in order to trap, and checkmate, one’s opponent.
In Turkey, the conditions for Kurds rising up in southeastern Anatolia are more favorable than they have ever been. Why? Outside of Turkey, both the weakness — and cold calculation — of the Assad regime will keep it from suppressing two million Syrian Kurds who, while not formally his allies, are the most effective fighters against the greatest threat to him, that is the Islamic State. The Iraqi Kurds have similar battle experience, have heavy weapons from the Americans for the fight in Mosul, and have the declared support of the Saudis for an independent state in Iraqi Kurdistan (not out of love for the Kurds, but because they want to weaken an Iran-backed Shi’a-ruled Iraq). They have experienced de facto autonomy that whets their appetite for more. They are certainly aware that the Shi’a-Sunni conflict between Iraq’s Arabs prevents a united Arab front against the Iraqi Kurds. And there is now strong sentiment in Washington against Turkey, thanks to Erdogan. In Turkey, Erdogan’s despotic and erratic behavior has weakened the Turkish army, beginning with the officer corps that has been demoralized by Erdogan’s arrests, with some of the remaining officers, and certainly all of Turkey’s secularists, eager to see Erdogan come a cropper. He has damaged Turkey’s relations with America and Europe by trying to campaign for Turkish votes abroad, and calling the Dutch and Germans “Nazis” for attempting to stop his interference in their countries. He has damaged, above all, his relations with the Americans, whose military aid he would need to put down a Kurdish rebellion. His re-islamizing of Turkish society, his aggressive demands that the American government hand over Fethullah Gulen, and his repeated gleeful prediction that there would soon be a war in Europe between Christians and Muslims, have lost him many former friends in Washington.
By way of contrast, as we have seen, the Kurds have been solidly pro-American ever since American warplanes began patrolling over Iraqi Kurdistan in 1991 to keep Saddam’s warplanes out. Americans who served in Iraq have reported that the Kurds were the only locals in Iraq whom they fully trusted; they would take their R-and-R in Kurdistan.
To recapitulate all the reasons why the time may be ripe for an independent Kurdistan:
- In Iraq, Sunni Arabs and Shi’a Arabs have their hands full fighting each other for power, and have nothing to spare for keeping determined Kurds in the north from declaring their independence.
- In Syria, Assad has little to lose — two million Kurds and a sliver of resource-poor territory – and a lot to gain, by not trying to prevent Syrian Kurds from joining an independent Kurdish state. This enlarged Kurdistan can stir up rebellious sentiments among Turkish Kurds, and force Erdogan to concentrate his efforts on holding Turkey together rather than trying to unseat Assad, whom he detests.
- In Turkey, the spectacle of an independent Kurdistan carved out of northern Iraq and northeastern Syria, quite capable of holding its own against potential enemies and enjoying the support of the Americans, Israelis, and Saudis, all of whom have their own reasons for supporting Kurdistan, will be watched excitedly by the Kurds of Anatolia. Some of them will no doubt want to join their fellow Kurds, and Erdogan’s attempt to suppress a Kurdish revolt will be less effective than it might once have been, for three main reasons. First, he has weakened his own military by summarily cashiering so many secular – or “Gulenist” – officers. Second, he has lost support from the West, for his undoing of Kemalism at home, and his hysterical outbursts directed at the Americans, the Europeans, the Israelis. Third, the Kurds have shown themselves to be steadfastly pro-American, even as Erdogan becomes more anti-American, and this has not gone unnoticed in the Pentagon or in Congress.
- In Iran, finally, if Iranian Kurds are prompted to join the independent Kurdistan that will have first come into being in northern Iraq, the Islamic Republic will have to worry not only about how best to suppress the Kurds in Iran, who for the first time will have the possibility of receiving outside aid (from Iraqi Kurdistan), but also have to consider what effect too brutal a suppression of the Kurds will have on the Azeris, Baluchis, and Arabs. They may recoil from the Islamic Republic’s display of brutality, and be more determined than ever to promote their own separatist movements. Their success would spell the end of the Islamic Republic and leave a distressed and dimidiated Iran. And for the entire West, and especially America, that would be a good thing.
And should we care if Erdogan’s Turkey were to lose its Kurds – that is, one-fifth of its population and of its land area? Why? What has Turkey done for us lately? Remember that as the Kurdistan in northern Iraq would be strengthened by the addition of Syrian and Iranian Kurds, the position of the Turkish Kurds, who could not receive military aid, including heavy weapons, from that new state – the Turks can’t seal off their entire border with an independent Kurdistan – also would become stronger. The fight to keep the Turkish Kurds in Turkey would be much more difficult for Ankara, with its officer corps demoralized by Erdogan’s purges. The conflict would be different from Kurdish revolts of the past, because the Turkish Kurds would now have their own powerful ally in the neighborhood just to their south, that is, independent Kurdistan. It would not be easy for the Turks to suppress the Kurds in Anatolia, given the military supplies, and even Kurdish volunteers, that could now arrive from Kurdistan. One welcome result of this strengthening of the Kurdish movement would be that the Kurdish conflict will drag on in Anatolia, with the result uncertain. And Erdogan, the ruler who antagonized and threatened the West, would be revealed as not even being able to assure those over whom he ruled that Turkey would remain intact. Would not Erdogan’s regime then collapse? And if it did, wouldn’t the successor be an anti-Erdogan regime, secular, pro-Western regime, one that would return Turkey to its Kemalist past and that would cease to treat the West as an enemy?
The establishment of an independent Kurdistan would weaken Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, four Muslim countries whose regimes do not wish us well. An independent Kurdistan would be the fulfillment of a promise made by the Great Powers in the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920, and breached by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. We have been helping the Kurds since 1991. Most recently, we have supplied heavy weapons to the Peshmerga to aid them in their fight against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. That battle experience, and those heavy weapons, make a Kurdish state more likely. An independent Kurdistan would be an unshakeable outpost of pro-American sentiment in an anti-American Muslim sea. No doubt there is something wrong with this vision of an independent Kurdistan. But I’m still trying to figure out what it might be.
ich says
so they will get their own country
and more violence will ensue
because kurds are still muslims
perhaps all the so called palestinians can join
them in kurdistan and have a 4 way battle of idiots
miriamrove says
because kurds are still muslims….
Your comment here is far from the truth.
The Kurds are among the bravest of all people. As the author says here: A Kurdestan independent state would weaken Iran significantly as the Iranian military are continuously bobbing Iranian and Iraqi Kurds. m
red rose says
The Kurds were slaughtering Christians once Saddam was overthrown in Iraq. If US/UN gives Kurds their own country, then its about time to give the Christians in Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran their own Christian country (the true victims of 1,400 years of Islam persecution).
Don’t forget when the Ottoman Turks slaughtered over 3 million Christians from 1914 to 1923, it was the Kurds who helped the Turks with the killing.
Let’s not be blind to history.
NationOfTheSun says
“The Kurds were slaughtering Christians once Saddam was overthrown in Iraq”
WHAT? Got any evidence of that “slaughtering”?
This …
https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/kurds-preventing-christians-yazidis-returning-home-iraq/#ixzz4bUvozI9r
… should give us all an idea about diaspora “Assyrians” that use Christianity as a shield for their irrational and unrealistic nationalism that has become an illness in their hearts. Instead of staying and fighting for the land with the Kurds, these so-called “Assyrians” chose to live in Baghdad among Arabs like second class citizens (without protest!) or moved to EU, US, Canada. And from there, nothing but poison is uttered from many of them. It’s just wrong. And it’s a misguided hostility, which Kurds don’t appreciate but understand, given the illness in their hearts.
For Assyrians staying and fighting for the land, see:
Franso Hariri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franso_Hariri
Margret George http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4417490/
In Kurdistan, minorities are granted rights and freedoms unmatched in entire MENA. Kurdistan’s independence means a transformation of the region towards democracy and liberties. Kurdistan is a necessity not only for Kurds but for all freedom-loving peoples.
In Kurdish case, Kurdistan will mark the beginning of life for Kurds and the process of purifying life will commence. The strength in Kurds lies in their rooted culture, that is very much the antidote against alien and hostile ideologies and agendas.
And may I take this opportunity to thank you all who support the Kurdish cause of independence. You are doing it for us as much as for yourselves. We are creating a better world together.
gravenimage says
Actually, NationofTheSun, Kurdistan did provide a sanctuary of sorts for Christians fleeing Iraq proper.
But it was pretty imperfect–Christians were, thankfully, seldom killed there, but were sometimes attacked and beaten if they did not vote along Kurdish lines.
If I were a Christian in Iraq, I probably would have headed for Kurdistan myself–but with the knowledge that it was less than ideal, just safer than the rest of the region.
Emmanuel says
Hello from France!
In fact, christians are actually safer in the kurdistan region, by order of Masoud Barzani, (especially in the christian surrounding of Erbilbut called AnKawa, military guarded to avoid kurd musslims attacks!) after him, it will be very dangerous for them to stay there: many kurdes, muslims, annonced they will then kill them and take their properties…
Rose, you are right: Christians are massacred by muslims from the beginning of islam… during 14 centuries, and you have still actually many examples of that, including the Kossovo in Europe nobody speakes about.
I am sorry to say that, but US has serious politics responsabilities in the actual situation in the world, resulting in bad military choices and too mutch links with jihadists and muslim countries, and few help to persecuted christians having in fact losted their countries (all the region was christian many centuries before islam)… I hope that your so criticized Trump will do better (it is not difficult!)
Pal says
Red Rose,
Yes, you are very correct saying that it were the Kurds which mainly carried the Ottoman slaughters against Christians esp in Asia Minor. And the Ottomans, i.e. the then Turks, were very good in using and instigating intra-ethnic rivalries. They always used Kurds against Christians left and right as well as local Muslim “militia”, called the “basibozuk” (meaning “their heads are hollow”) against local Christians. Kurds did it with pleasure since firstly they felt distinguished by authorities to carry that holy war and secondly because as Muslims they annihilated unbelievers.
Terry says
Kurds also have Christians of various faiths.
red rose says
Kurds are sunni muslims (same sect as ISIS). You are thinking about the Yazidis – different group of people.
NationOfTheSun says
Ezidis are Kurds. They are the Kurds that resisted Islamic expansion but couldn’t hold on to Kurdish religion Zoroastrianism and therefore created a “reformed” (or, corrupt) version containing Zoroastrian elements mixed with Christian and Islamic.
There are also Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, Bahaii Kurds. Islam doesn’t characterize Kurdish identity; Kurdish CULTURE and HISTORY does.
harbidoll says
Kurds are not Ishmaelites or Arabs. (his hand will be against his brothers) -Different people.
gravenimage says
There are many non-Arab Muslims who are still devout Muslims and very dangerous.
NationOfTheSun says
Hey gravenimage,
For some reason I can’t reply directly to your other post (see below) and therefore replying to this post of yours.
Christians are not seldom but NEVER killed in Kurdistan. That just doesn’t happen. You are correct that Kurdistan been sheltering Christians both from Baghdad and Ninewa province that is now outside KRG (but will probably be part of KRG post-ISIS). Kurdistan is doing the best she can under the circumstances.
Last time Kurdistan had elections was in 2013, before ISIS and refugee crises. Refugees would anyhow not be eligible to vote. Minorities in Kurdistan are automatically granted 11 seats (out of 113, I believe) in the parliament and often get ministerial posts but their organizations do take part in the elections.
In 2013, Assyrian Democratic Movement, Chaldean Syriac Assyrian Popular Council, Sons of Mesopotamia, and Armenian Berunt Nissan Markos and Aram Shahine Dawood together got 13 924 votes out of near 2 Millions.
Given these numbers, does it make sense to you that Kurds would “beat Christians up for votes”?
gravenimage said
March 29, 2017 at 10:42 pm
Actually, NationofTheSun, Kurdistan did provide a sanctuary of sorts for Christians fleeing Iraq proper.
But it was pretty imperfect–Christians were, thankfully, seldom killed there, but were sometimes attacked and beaten if they did not vote along Kurdish lines.
If I were a Christian in Iraq, I probably would have headed for Kurdistan myself–but with the knowledge that it was less than ideal, just safer than the rest of the region.
Don Foss says
I spent 26 months in Erbil working as a civilian contractor. I was evacuated in August ’14 by orders of our State Department via the Baghdad Embassy, after another filmed beheading and ISIS having taken Mosul right down the highway and thousands of not-very-well-screened refugees steaming into Erbil – a fear that ISIS members were among them. Kurdistan was the 4th Islamic country – autonomous though it was – that I had lived in as a civilian contractor in the petroleum industry to that point. They are the friendliest people and the least religious (though Muslim by birth), which is one of the reasons their neighbors don’t like them and why although they have a tougher history and more legal claim than the Palestinians by far yet are ignored by other Islamic countries. They have large Christian and Yazidi communities and it’s a large annual event that tens of thousands of Muslims and Christians celebrate Christmas Eve together in Ankawa . Kurds take pride in their diversity. You can party, drink, go to bars and dance in Erbil. It was the only Islamic country where I could openly date a Muslima, One of my younger friends/co-workers from Texas met his Muslim girlfriend’s family and became close to them. It was the only place I did not feel the dark and oppressive cloud of Islam always hovering above me out in public. The Peshmerga? An excellent representation of the Kurds. If only all Muslims were like the Kurds the world would be a much better place.
Charlie Bass says
@ Don Foss LOL I love the way you make up history. You are a Kurd.
Kurdistan has never existed as a country in the entire history of planet Easth. Kurdistan was only ever a region, never a country.
The Palestinians have always had a country, and it was the west tha gave palestinian land to the jews without askinger permission from the Palestinians.
Do you also consider the PKK to be good kurds as well? You know the ones that are listed on the US/EU terrorist lists?
Nice try Kurd.
Pal says
Charlie Bass,
PKK fighters Are Nothing Else But FREEDOM FIGHTERS.
They Fight for freedom of KURDISTAN, while Kurdish political parties and movements in parliament and society do their political and societal acts.
In all Ottoman and Turkish history – more than 7 long & bloody centuries – ALL ENSLAVED BY THE MUSLIM-OTTOMAN TURKS peoples, Christians and Muslims alike, were Usually smashed, so they Normally Rebelled and that’s why they were CALLED TERRORIST by the ottoman/turkish governments and authorities.
No matter PKK is declared by US and Europe as terrorists – it’s a forced political move due to geostrategy of Turkey – PKK are Freedom Fighters.
Absolutely same Freedom Fighters, with their rifles in their hands, were – for many centuries – the: Greeks, Armenians, Serbians, Bulgarians, Romanians, Assyrians, Arabs. All they were “Terrorists”. Today, they are Free peoples, Unlike the Kurds.
There is NO DIFFERENCE between their fight and the Kurdish Fight.
That’s it.
Terry says
Charlie bass
THE ” PALESTINIANS” WERE NEVER A COUNTRY. The name “palestine was given by the British. THE ” PALESTINIANS” ( who were just originally referred to as Arabs WERE GIVEN A COUNTRY. IT IS CALLED JORDAN.
Jews have a 3,000+ year history there- and about 1,000+ on Temple Mount- regardless of what the Useless fucking Nations says.
aND, YES, IN 1948, 1956, 1967 AND 1973 the arab states-all united against ISRAEL- WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF TENS OF MILLIONS (IN 1973, ESTIMATED AT ABOUT 100+ MILLION) AND THEY- THE ARABS LOST- EACH AND EVERY TIME.
THEY- THE ARABS STARTED THE WARS.
AND MORE MUSLIMS HAVE BEEN KILLED IN SYRIA IN THE LAST DECADE OR SO THEN BY ISRAEL IN THE LAST 70 YEARS.
EmHotep says
PAL you are supporting a globally recognized terrorist organisation, which wa are tired of killing their members. But being tired is not a big issue because we will kill all of them.. Any good pkk member is the dead one. So we will execute all of them, nice and easy.
And if you keep saying PKK is not a terrorist organisation than ISIS is a charity and they are also freedom fighters, according to your logic.
gravenimage says
Thanks.
Kay says
Off topic, request for help:
I belong to a philanthropic women’s group that is minimally Christian (people place a hand on the Bible when joining). Those of you who have remarked that Western liberals are the greater problem in promoting Islam may be correct. There are currently proposals about being inclusive to Muslims. Needless to say, most are uninformed on Islamic beliefs and practices.
I am not an expert. I am here asking for especially pertinent quotes from the Koran that show the misogyny of Islam. I want also one quote on antisemitism and one on violence (or a few very pertinent). I want also a recommendation for a source to recommend for reading or watching (Submission?).
I plan to write a letter and hope to influence the decision making.
I never wanted to be in this position. It looks as if I will be alienated from yet another social group.
Thank you.
miriamrove says
It looks as if I will be alienated from yet another social group…
It is better to tell the truth. I was born and raised A Muslim and I voted for Trump and I am alienated and I do not give a …m
Kay says
Yes, I agree miriamrove. Thanks for the encouragement and I honor your fortitude.
Hugh Fitzgerald says
On misogyny in Islam: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/women-worth-less.aspx on women as inferior to men, in every possible way, and don’t forgetg Qur;an 4.34, which tells a man he can beat his wife.
On antisemitism in Islam: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/02/robert-spencer-the-roots-of-islamic-anti-semitism
On violence in Islam: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx
And don’t forget Qur’an 98.6, describing Unbelievers (you, me, the members of your club), as “the most vile of creatures.”
‘
You might prepare a one or two-page list of such Qur’anic quotes (and at least one from the Hadith, about the inferiority of women in Sahih Bukhari): on women, on Jews, on violence against Infidels. Make copies, and pass them out.
As for a book: I’d recommend Robert Spencer’s “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam”
Let us know what happens.
Kay says
Thank you. I will do my best.
NationOfTheSun says
Reply to Hugh Fitzgerald:
Your and general Christian critique of Islam as an ideology that oppresses people, and women, is real and valid.
As far as Kurdistan is concerned, once independent; a stream of consciousness is waiting for the opportunity to speak up and out: Islam has no place in Kurdistan. Zoroastrianism is the religion that Kurds will promote and increasingly subscribe to. But this is an issue of generations and Kurdistan will not be part of secterian approaches that attack and alienate the “oppressed”, rather than win them over.
Kurdish way of dealing with Islam is not reactionary but an authentication of the Kurdishness that has historically been oppressed. De-Islamisation of Kurdistan is a Kurdish issue, not a Christian. And it’s a natural process. Very worthy of praise.
NATURALLY are we allies but I see that many Christians act like Islamists in reverse, doing a “Christian Jihad”, which is not appropriate.
Kurdistan appreciate allies; so should the true allies.
gravenimage says
NationOfTheSun wrote:
Reply to Hugh Fitzgerald:
Your and general Christian critique of Islam as an ideology that oppresses people, and women, is real and valid.
………………..
Hugh is not Christian; he is an Atheist.
As for your belief that the Kurds are poised to all convert to Zoroastrianism, I’m not at all sure what you are basing this on. Most Kurds have been Muslim for centuries. and by historic background are as likely to have been Christian, Yezidi, or pagan as Zoroastrian.
For what it’s worth, though, I would be happy to see them all become Zoroastrian. I just don’t see any evidence for it.
gravenimage says
Great, Hugh–I was going to post links to the Religion of Peace site myself. Good stuff.
NationOfTheSun says
Again, I have to reply to this post of yours instead. What you wrote is below.
Kurds were Zoroastrian before the Muslim expansion. There were Jewish and Christian Kurds (that have survived until today) but long before that and until Islam, Kurds were Zoroastrian.
Kurds have a memory of Kurdish-Arab wars and the massacres they inflicted upon us. Ezidi Kurds will tell you about 73 Genocides that Muslim Arabs and Ottoman Turks committed against them. Songs are being sung, stories are being told about “The Muslims”.
Obviously it will take time over generations but what we will have in a free and independent Kurdistan is Kurds, finally, deciding for themselves how they want to shape their lives. Islam has very much been a tool in the hands of the states that control Kurdistan, used to undermine Kurdish identity. Once Kurdistan is free, this kind of hostile attacks will stop, which will be a good start.
I advice you to have a look at Zoroastrianism. It’s a powerful religion going back to the Sumer and, I believe, is the mother of all religions. It’s actually a mistake to call it “Zoroastrianism” because it, Mazdayati, existed long before Zoroaster.
But Zoroaster was a Kurd, which says something about the strength of the Kurdish connection. The natural Kurdish course is towards Zoroastrianism, or Mazdayati, in (free) Kurdistan. It will take time and effort, for sure, and not everybody will convert back, but there will be a revival among Kurds that have religion inherent in Kurdishness itself.
Note also that versions of Zoroastrianism (Ezidi, Yarsani, Alawite) are already broadly practiced among Kurds today. There is a ground to build upon. There are two main Zoroastrian organizations in the world; one of them is Kurdish.
gravenimage said
March 29, 2017 at 10:52 pm
NationOfTheSun wrote:
Reply to Hugh Fitzgerald:
Your and general Christian critique of Islam as an ideology that oppresses people, and women, is real and valid.
………………..
Hugh is not Christian; he is an Atheist.
As for your belief that the Kurds are poised to all convert to Zoroastrianism, I’m not at all sure what you are basing this on. Most Kurds have been Muslim for centuries. and by historic background are as likely to have been Christian, Yezidi, or pagan as Zoroastrian.
For what it’s worth, though, I would be happy to see them all become Zoroastrian. I just don’t see any evidence for it.
Pumbar says
Kay
Excellent sources are http://www.answering-islam.org and http://www.wikiislam.net
Misogyny;
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/women_inferior.htm
Anti Semitism
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/references-to-jews-in-the-koran
Violence
Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”
Hope that helps.
Kay says
Thank you
gravenimage says
All excellent links.
red rose says
Kay – The quran, hadith, and sira are filled with violence, hatred, and destruction of Christians and Jews and their properties. It instruct its followers to convert or kill the people into becoming Muslims. The quran is filled with over 100 verses of violence towards non-Muslims. There are many sources if you don’t have time to read the books. Here are some really good ones.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
https://www.politicalislam.com/
http://inthenameofallah.org/index.html
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/
And if you want to watch videos, here are some good channels on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/user/Acts17Apologetics
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9JU55HpvRvCSb1TO2w_eDA
no_one says
The only reason I don’t like it is because Turkey may try to compensate territory from Bulgaria, which is Christian. Turks try to make it bilingual and some refuse to speak Bulgarian. They even have a Turkish party there which is supported by Turkey.
Hugh Fitzgerald says
The ethnic Turks in Bulgaria are a problem. But if Turkey were, as you suggest, to try to take territory from Bulgaria, it would have another country to contend with. Remember the Russo-Turkkish War of 1877-78, that Russia won, and among the consequences of that victory was the establishment of the Princiipality of Bulgaria?I think a nationalist (with echoes of pan-Slavism) Russia would come to Bulgaria’s defense. And such war might even provide the occasion for pushing ethnic Turks out of Bulgaria to Turkey, so that that problem is removed.
no_one says
In the recent election cycle a Turkish ethnic party was campaigning in Turkish. That is very scary.
gravenimage says
I hope so, Hugh.
DFD says
As much as I respect Hugh Fitzgerald, nay, admire him, I don’t think so. For the very reasons he mentioned.
First of all, NATO is under the auspices of the NATO gov’s, primarily of course the US. Erdogan will immediately play the Russian, or rather, the Putin card.
Next, NATO leans heavily, bordering on the subservient, towards Islam. Sorry, I meant of course to our trusted friends and allies, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and… cut it short: Oil! That means also gov. bonds held by these (meaning we are indebted to them!), grants to “cultural” centers, scholarships, etc., shares in ‘our’ companies, bla, bla, bla… And their leftist allies. Correction, their Maoist/Anarchist and Bolshevist allies, i.e., the Black Block. Look at a guy called George Soros: Quote: “To feel and even think that the white race is inferior in every conceivable plane is natural, given its history and current documents. Let the white race west country perish in blood and suffering. Long live the multicultural, racially mixed and classless ecological society! Long live anarchy!” Yes, the real George…
Link: Nya Dagbladet, Judisk miljardär bakom stöd till invandrargrupper Publicerad — 9 maj 2014 . Bottom of page, even you don’t speak the lingo, you will understand, read bit by bit.
Ever heard of Kosovo? That’s the place where King Lazar faced the Turkish hordes, his battle cry: “Today we give up everything for Christ, and Christ for nothing!” And today? It’s a US/NATO base. And a Muslim ‘country’. Ethnic cleansing of Christians still continues… Sorry, but that **IS REALITY**.
Not a single Muslim wants to see a Kurdistan, except a Kurd. The NATO countries, including Britain, are left to ultra-left. Not officially, I know. The US? Trump would like to… But can he do as he wants to? Take a good look. I wish he could.
Establishing Kurdistan? That means Russian air and naval bases in Turkey, at the Bosporus. Hostility from the Arab gulf, 100%. Sorry, but that’s reality. BTW, the Saracens were Kurds, Sal-ah-Din was a Kurd. You don’t remember? They do. Perhaps one should ask Christians and Yaziris what happens to them by the Kurds, when the west doesn’t look.
Hugh Fitzgerald says
“Not a single Muslim wants to see a Kurdistan, except a Kurd.” I disagree. I think quite a few Berbers in Algeria and, to a lesser extent, Morocco, would be heartened by the establishment of an independent Kurdistan.
As for “hostility from the Arab gulf” the Saudis have already come out in favor of an independent Kurdisth state.Here’s a brief quote: ” As it turns out now, even Saudi Arabia has a stake in the Kurds’ fate and appears to be in cahoots with the state of Israel in order to facilitate the formation of an independent Kurdish state or Kurdistan in the region. Would this now mean that Turkey’s direct and short-term interest in cheap gas might very well undermine its territorial integrity in the long term? Some time ago, the former Saudi General Anwar Majed Eshki publicly declared that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is striving “peacefully [and behind the scenes], for the creation of [a] Greater Kurdistan . . . [a] new state [that] will embrace one-third of the territory of each of the said three states,” meaning Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. But this entity would arguably be based solely on ethnic and/or political considerations”.
http://journal-neo.org/2016/01/11/turks-saudis-kurds-whats-going-on
Finally, were Turkey to allow the Russians to have bases in Turkey, that would mean the immediate expulsion of Turkey from NATO, and an end to any cooperation between the American and Turkish military. Russia has a naval base at Latakia, in Syria, and given how much Assad relies on the Russians, it’s for keeps.. As for the likelihood of Turkey giving Russia bases in Turkey, I can’t see it. The Russians and Turks have been historic enemies since 1568, fighting right up through the First World War. As Wikipedia succinctly puts it: “The Russo-Turkish wars (or Ottoman-Russian Wars) were a series of wars fought between the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire between the 16th and 20th centuries.It was one of the longest series of military conflicts in European history.”
DFD says
That bit about Saudi Arabia is news to me. I stand corrected in so far – and in so far as their honesty concerned? Different question altogether.
The Berbers, most excellent, and I referred to these frequently. They hate Arabs and even want their original alphabet re-introduced. As I said in another post, their queen Daya / Kahina may yet make a come back – she is still remembered and highly regarded. And they build lots of monuments to her.
Yes, they would be supportive of a Kurdish state, but please note what I said: “Muslims”. The Berber’s that are rebelling, in growing numbers, are Christians, and Christian converts. And Christianity is rapidly growing among them. I don’t know to what extent it is out of genuine conviction, i.e., accepting Jesus, or to what extent it is sheer opposition. As far as they are concerned, Islam = Arabs, and thus it needs to be fought. As long as it is A) against Islam and B) against Arabs, count on the Berbers. You may reverse A & B, at your option or the individual preferences of a given Berber.
Political, or at least verbal support for the Berbers by ‘the west’, zero. For one thing, those rebelling, and frequently fighting, actively or sabotage, or simply by overpainting road signs in the own alphabet by night, are Christians. Do I need to point out how Christians are viewed from Berlin to Washington? And what is probably worse, from a western point of view, and even a Chinese one, is their frequent statement that they don’t want any outside ‘help’ because they don’t want to become ‘geopolitical assets’ – they are no patsies. On a personal note, and I mean it to be friendly 🙂 , I wouldn’t call a rebelling Berber a Muslim. Unless you sit in a heavy tank, located inside a strong bunker and your throat is made of a titanium-tungsten alloy. Mind you, calling him an Arab would be a lot worse…
You are right about the Turkish/Russian hostility. However, there were stranger bed fellows in history. For instance, Czechoslovakia wasn’t attacked by the Germans, it was attacked by the Germans **and** their chummy ally, the Poles! German took the Sudetenland, the Poles the rest, practically all of it. Strange bedfellows, no?
Turkey and Russia? Noticed how nigh irrelevant the shooting of a Russian diplomat was? Turkey, our NATO ally, now receives Russian S400 AA missiles! Turkey would be out of NATO, for sure. But that’s a worry for NATO, not for Erdogan who **actively** seeks a confrontation with the west. Look at it from Erdogans point of view, western “shackles” removed, his troops are already here. He keeps all his weapons, from F16s on downward, and gets the latest Russian ones on top. Plus money, he has made such a mess that a few weeks ago he was asking in Berlin for loans, whilst simultaneously calling the Germans Nazis… Oddly enough, even Merkel, his main dhimmie, refused.
Now, look at it from Putin’s point of view: The entire south/south eastern flank of NATO removed. In one go, not a shot fired. Instead, smiles and handshakes, and oh, the political score at home and abroad. Putin the master politician! And the general propaganda value! “…Evil, evil west, look, look! The fled from the west and we help and protect them!” What do you think how Pakistan and other such countries will see this?
Traditional hostility? Never mind given what can be gained, for Putin and the Turks. Trouble? There are a several million Turks in western Europe. Trouble yes, but for whom?
Hugh, I wish you’d be right about this. But given what Erdogan wants, what the price for Putin is to gain, and for NATO to lose… The naval base at Latakia, OK. But Russian cruises and SSNs at the Bosporus, plus Migs, Tupelovs, etc. – I can see Putin and every Russian general drooling. Too much to gain for both. Historical hostilities? Moscow is home to Europe’s largest mosque, opened by Erdogan and Putin. Moscow is also the European capital with the largest Muslim population. Putin accepted a sharia ruled state at his southern border, Chechnia. Also consider what states Putin is chummy with, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, plus a few others…
I just can’t see it.
Terry says
I did not read all of Mr. FitzGerald’s article.
But- regarding Putin-he plays all angles.
As an example. His top people went to Israel, and said (pissing off-sorry, nicest term I could think of) and said that temple Mount ( which he- the top aide) visited- is Jewish and Israeli. (An English language Israeli website about a month or so ago-after Trump was sworn in, anyhow). Putin sold Iran a missile and air defense system AND GAVE ISRAEL THE CODES . (Iran, a few days ago).
Russia is supposedly an Iranian ally, but does nothing when Israel bombs Hezbollah supply caravans (of weapons) and on a few occasions, Syrian bases and supplies.
Putin is probably doing the same with Turkey-just using them.
Maybe he took a page form good old Ollie North, and sold the Iranians and Turks defective weapons and systems. Would not surprise me.
EmHotep says
DFD your comment is the only meaningful one on this topic, in general americans are not capable of reading the middle east issues in a logical way, because they are sided with the well known country. Just think about Turkey+Russia+Iran+China and all other Turkish countries coalition, would Americans want to see this coalition… I don’t think so, so they should stop messing up the things until we get rid of erdogan.
NationOfTheSun says
Reply to DFD:
Quote:
“Ethnic cleansing of Christians still continues…”
“Perhaps one should ask Christians and Yazidis what happens to them by the Kurds, when the west doesn’t look.”
Re-check your sources. 1: Ezidis are Kurds, why would Kurds hurt themselves? Religion does not define Kurds but Kurdishness does. Kurds are a multi.religious nation.
For Christians, Kurdistan is the only country where Christians enjoy rights and freedoms that no other country in the MENA have granted them. I dare to say Kurdistan stands out in the entire world for the way she is protecting Christian minorities. Is there any law that you know of that forbids Muslims to buy property of Christian areas? Kurdistan has such a law for Christian districts in Kurdistan.
Your idea that Kurds are Muslims therefore that’s the end of it, is rather extreme. Not that we have anything to prove to anybody but that kind of view of Kurds is wrong and unfair.
Regarding your point about “no Muslim wants Kurdistan”. That’s also wrong. Iran is the only country that openly opposes Kurdistan’s independence. That’s it.
DFD says
Christians and Yazidis (or whatever they are properly called) are also Syrians, and … I think it’s well known what certain Syrians are doing to them!
That some of them are Kurds, so what! A lot of Jews murdered by the Nazis were Germans, highly decorated even during the WW1…
So, I do not consider your comment in that respect to be meaningful, of course, you are Kurd, as is clear from your writing. That’s **not meant to be discrediting** your comments. You may believe these yourself, or may be not. This is known only to you.
I have however read on various sites, Christian and political, European and US, that Christians and Yazidis were persecuted, driven out or even murdered by Kurds.
Yes, that you are Muslims plays a role, and a very severe one. I do not what Islam stands for!
You also said: “….Iran is the only country that openly opposes Kurdistan’s independence. That’s it.”
You could have fooled me. So Turkey is not opposed and wants to give territory for a ‘free and independent’ Kurdistan? AMAZING. Same with Iraq and Syria. Any other ones who are not opposed to Kurdistan, who wants to surrender their territories for you?
Everything else you said I consider to be in the same ilk. As I said, I don’t blame you for trying. It may even be the case that you deserve the benefit of doubt.
From me however, you cannot have that benefit, because you are Muslim. Turn secularist, Christian, Jewish, whatever, and I will reassess my views. But with a Muslim….
As you said, so say I: That’s it.
NationOfTheSun says
Reply to DFD:
You can’t expect me to take you seriously, when you insist on talking to me sitting on your high horse! Step down and let’s talk.
You don’t have full knowledge over who is who in Kurdistan. You see no variations in what you are looking at; meaning you don’t see. You can’t simply approach me with your Jihadist Christianity and expect a resolution to our favour. You are not even coming up with any resolution, other than “Christianity is good, Islam is bad”. And?? What are we going to do with it? What is it that you want? It’s not clear and I suspect it’s because it’s not clear in your head, which is a problem because one wants to know where one’s enemy or friend stands.
You are not allowed to say simply “Christians and Ezidies”!. The Ezidi Kurds are still Kurds. “Ezidi” signifies a “religion” (a reformed or corrupted version of Zoroastrianism). You have Jewish Kurds, Muslim or Christian Kurds; then you have Ezidi Kurds. They all are Kurds. Can’t you for a moment step back and acknowledge and appreciate the inherent freedom and diversity in Kurdistan that this multi-religionism represents?
You talk about Syria. Let me remind you that Armenian Christians in Syrian Kurdistan are the ones that escaped Turkish Genocide, finding refuge among Kurds in Syria. Same Armenians, escaping Genocide, will be found in Iraqi Kurdistan. Armenians in Syrian Kurdistan have been most loyal to our common past and to the land, and have prayed for Kurdish success.
Assyrians/Syriacs, on the other hand, been deeply connected with regimes of Assad and Saddam/Iraq; to Kurdish disgust and amazement. They have now rights and freedoms in Kurdistan that they NEVER had in their entire lives. If you are concerned about Christianity and Christians, then, you should argue for them to stay and live on the land, freely; instead of fleeing to abroad and becoming sick-hearted.
If you are using Christians for your own private agenda of Christian Jihad, then don’t, because that kind of stuff won’t do for us. We are Kurds. Your ancestors know this very well. We have a memory of fighting Islam and contrary to what you think, our problem with Christianity was about crusades and not Christianity itself. If you reconsider your position and if you are sure about what it is that you are doing; then you work with like-minded people on the ground. At the moment, you seem nothing but a Christian missionary; the time of which has passed long ago. Wanting to replace Islam with Christianity is a bit cheeky, if not treacherous and insensitive of sufferings Islam has caused for inherently none-Muslim communities.
You talk about Kurdish persecution of Ezidi Kurds (!) and Christians, without evidence. Is that not petty slander? Is that not a hostile position? I consider this hostility as specifically directed towards Kurds and Kurdistan, and my question then is “what do you have against Kurds?” Are you using Islam as a way to get to Kurds? Or are you really so Islamophobic (yes, I had to use that word) that your eyes see nothing else? If your problem is only with Islam, then please, stay away from commenting on issues directly related to Kurds because we are dealing with enough injustices already.
You personally think of yourself in the position of granting benefits of doubt but consider this: I’m the one to give out benefits of doubt and at the moment, I’m holding it.
I suspect I will keep holding it for you, unfortunately.
gravenimage says
NationOfTheSun, DFD does not practice “Jihadist Christianity”.
DFD says
@NationOfTheSun
===============.
Taqyia, with a nationalist stint.
Total crap. I am not on a high horse, but on a **realistic** horse! If that’s too difficult for you to comprehend, look at yourself: 1,400 years of lies, assaults and deceptions, doesn’t matter if you are Sunni (Kurd), Shia or whatever.
You are whining about persecution, homeland, and how moderate, mutliculti and tolerant you are, BULL..T! You have been beaten to that game and claim by the Ahmadiyas. They proclaim the same lies as you, yet their founder stated that he came to break the cross and slaughter the swine’s – that’s us and the Jews. Yes you were persecuted, so what! Muslim persecutes Muslim, understandable when there are no Christians or Jews about to persecute. So, what else is new?
Oh, whilst you were indeed persecuted by the Turks, you helped the very same Turks **murdering 1.5 million Christians, the Armenians**. And you want us to help you? Go to hell!
There are plenty of cases reported in various Christian publications/websites detailing what you do to Christians when you think the west isn’t looking. You Sunni…. Muslim!
Christians and Yazidis fleeing towards Kurds? Lesser evil than ISIS, that’s all. They lived, and live rather secure under Assad, unless they oppose his gov./regime, whatever one wants to call it, as per ones political preference. So what? Here in the west we are being persecuted, regardless if we are Christians, Jews or Atheists, for criticizing Islam – your religion; Sunni! Understood?
You are secular? Bullocks! You are either Sunni or PKK, that’s hardcore, ultra-communist. The ones who kill people for wearing a cross – unless they felt kind hearted, then it was a Gulag. The PKK is outlawed in most western countries, for good reasons.
You want help from us? What for? You said that only Iran is opposed to giving you your own state, out of their territory. So get one from your well meaning neighbors, Turkey, Syria, Iraq etc.! According to your statements that should pose no problem. Further, what do you need weapons from us for, when your neighbors are so well meaning and have no objection to you? Hmh.! And you are so brave and courageous, and so victorious… Then what the hell do you need our weapons for?
You said that you fought the Crusaders not because of religion but because – they were Crusaders. The Crusades began because the likes of you constantly attacked, harassed, plundered, enslaved and murdered Christian pilgrims.
I am a “Christian Jihadist”? Not yet, but I am getting there, in an accelerating manner. Oh, and I wouldn’t refer to myself as a Jihadist, since I am not primitive and backward. I would or will refer to myself, or identify myself then, proudly as **CRUSADER**! Understood?!
You de-masqueraded yourself, your obvious mixture of taqyia, kitman and duruna speaks volumes.
I see no need for any further converse with you.
EmHotep says
You have never been a nation poor kurd, wake up..
Cornelius says
Hugh and I had many disagreements over this issue in the past, all centered around his previous insistence that the Turks could be persuaded to accept an independent Kurdistan, something I always maintained was extremely unlikely. It’s nice to see he has abandoned that position and now believes in presenting the Turks with a fait accompli.
Any expectation that the Turkish oandIranian Kurds will anytime soon realize their national aspirations is simply not realistic. But for the Kurds of Iraq and Syria, the situation is entirely different. The time may never be more propitious than now.
Wellington says
“No doubt there is something wrong with this vision of an independent Kurdistan. But I’m still trying to figure out what it might be.”
What’s wrong is that the Kurds are Muslim. That is where the wrong lies even though you, Hugh Fitzgerald, argued your point very effectively and with the usual amount of pertinent detail. Damn shame the Kurds aren’t Christian. Then your argument for an independent Kurdistan would be ideal (and I do realize that the better is the enemy of the good but…….).
Yes, all that you aver is quite worthy of consideration. Tactically it makes a lot of sense. But respecting long-term strategy, often called grand strategy, I have to wonder what alliance with any Muslim element eventually brings any lasting benefit to the West. Seems to me that the time is way past due for the West to simply call out Islam for the giant menace to the West which it surely is.
In summary, tactically you’re correct but strategically you’re not since following what you have advised (which has merit as I already mentioned) only prolongs what ultimately needs to be done, i.e., once and for all describing Islam as the best disguised and longest-lived malevolence of all time.
You know, sometimes Realpolitik needs to be chucked for truth’s sake. Time for truth’s sake I would contend. Way overdue where Islam is concerned.
No more divide and conquer stuff since this is just short term stuff. Time for Islam, all of it, to be characterized for the iniquity which it is. After all, doing otherwise hasn’t been that effective, now has it? And as a bonus, calling out all of Islam for the menace which it is to the West would be so refreshing——-and, I would argue, the best strategy in the long run.
But a close call here. You’ve made yours. I’ve made mine. Sick of Islam. All of it. Whether practiced by Kurds or whomever.
Cornelius says
Man! As usual, no mincing of words ole buddy.
Truth to power….isn’t that what the lefties say? It certainly applies here.
Somehow, we’ve got to get Sec. Mattis on board. One likes to believe that his continued references to “the perverting of a great religion” are lip-service to ingratiate us with our Arab/Muslim allies in the fight against ISIS. Why can’t the SOB just remain mum on the subject? He’d alienate no one, yet he wouldn’t be contributing to our culture-wide myopia on all things Islam.
Hugh Fitzgerald says
I know we want the same outcome. But I don’t think “divide and conquer” or variants thereof, are to be dismissed as “short term stuff.” You want results, and you want them now. What if that is not possible? Petty clearly, it is not. The West is not now on the offensive, and is run by people who stoutly refuse to recognize the full menace of Islam.
To simultaneously weaken Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, to create a pro-American regime smack in the middle of all four countries, and to heighten awareness, among the 80% of the world’s Muslims who are not Arabs that Islam — it can’t be repeated too often — is a “vehicle for Arab supremacism”(as the Kurds are so keenly aware)– all this.strikes me as nothing to sneeze at.
I share your feeling — “Sick of Islam. All of it.”. Just as much. Maybe more.
But I don’t see the Kurds in the same way you do. There have been unsubstantiated reports about the Kurds not alllowiing Christians and Yazidis to come back to their homes. I can find no evidence of this. The Kurds rescued 5000 Yazidis in Sinjar and brought them to safety in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Yazidis speak Kurdish, and many Kurds regard them as fellow Kurds.
We are trying to figure out ways, are we not, to weaken the Camp of Islam, under our current politically wretched conditions,– we don’t have John Quincy Adams or Winston Churchill or Oriana Fallaci in the corridors of power — not in some hoped-for apocalyptic battle worthy of Hollywood, but necessarily by slow degrees. Internecine war, both sectarian (between Sunni and Shi’a), and ethnic (especialy between non-Arab and Arab Muslim), is already under way. Why dismiss it with such impatience? Wasn’t the Iran-Iraq war a good thing? Isn’t the Saudi Arabia-Iran proxy war in Yemen a good thing? Let’s hope for more of these good things.
DFD says
A Kurdish regime would neither be pro-American nor be pro-west in whatever form. Only initially, and then for a very brief time. The political leadership of the Kurds is PKK. Kurdistan Worker Party – hardcore communists. A large number of Kurds aren’t Muslims any more, but atheists in the communist, Marxist sense.
Yes, fighting would be intense, very vicious, and the west, that means NATO and the US in particular would be bound to a regime that is first of all hardcore commie, and then heavily Islamic influenced.
I’d love to see them fighting with the Turks, 24-7, but for crying out loud, let us not get involved!
Terry says
I have read (some on JW, at different times, and elsewhere) that Kurds are also Christians; possibly a few Jews, and other religions, and in their regions/areas, no religious discrimination.
The fact that they are communist-I would look at that as I (in hindsight-I was a baby and young child during the heyday) like the Israeli kibbutzim. There was no (real) industry; there was little- so the people joined together-in collectives-socialism- and shared, and prospered.
As the prosperity grew, and the economy grew -the kibbutzim are less a factor.
I could see the same here.
Wellington says
“You want results, and you want them now.”
Yes, I want results. After some 1400 years of the best disguised form of evil continuing to prosper, aided to a significant degree over the last half century by a multitude of willfully clueless Western elites in the political realm, the media and academia, I surely do want results. And wanting such results I would not necessarily characterize, as you did, as wanting them NOW, but I would like them SOON.
Meanwhile, you’re into tactical matters with the Kurds, which I understand, even support, but which OVERALL PROVES MY POINT, i.e., how much more coddling of Islam needs to occur, how many more tactical approaches need to be employed, before the whole damn religion is accurately described by the West as the enormous menace to liberty which it surely is?
In fact, I’ll “give” you the Kurds in this regard you mentioned, yet another tactical initiative, but when will the time come when all of Islam, ALL OF IT, is accurately depicted as the totally screwed-up, completely ass-backwards, belief system which it is? How much more time do you think is necessary?
But wait, the Eastern European world has produced such leaders who are approximately as impatient as I am, for instance Victor Orban of Hungary. Time for the rest of the West to follow, to emulate. I mean this man minces no words, nor does the leader of the Czech Republic, nor do so many major political figures in Poland. And so on. Meanwhile, though, Putin continues to stupidly think the West is more of a problem than is the Islamic world, proving once again that Russia has an uncanny knack of being on the wrong side of history again and again and again. But I digress.
So, OK, let’s “do tactics with the Kurds.” But when will the real game be up, the great pretend game, so that we no longer have to coddle Kurds or whoever for yet another tactical reason? I mean 1400 years and counting does try one’s patience. Time (or very close to the time) to call a spade a spade. Or am I guilty of wanting things too soon?
Baucent says
How many Christians from the Irbil camps have been allowed to return to their villages around Mosul?
Peter Clemerson says
Clearly, High Fitzgerald and Wellington are at odds with each other only on issues of time scales and tactics. This might be a good place to air some views about how we, the West, might on a longer time scale rid the world of the blight of Islam. Guns are unlikely to work so an intellectual weapon is needed. Science and technology are slowly killing religion in the West so the only long term solution that I can see is yet further scientific and technological advances which will have to be directed at the adherents of Islam. Christianity has survived in both the Americas during the last two hundred years of scientific advances but the ‘No religion’ cohort is now expanding in both continents. Christianity is dying in Europe. It seems that more advances are needed to deal a death blow to Islam.
Advances in wind technology and photo-voltaic cells are still taking place and both technologies are likely to reduce the cost of electricity generation considerably below even today’s level, which are now matching those of carbon based fossil fuels. Sustainable energy sources currently supply only about 3% of the worlds energy needs and will require trillions of dollars of investments and decades of time to make a serious impact on Middle East oil revenues. However, it seems likely that the market will ensure that this will happen, slowly but inexorably. The exporters of Islam and oil have only a few decades of prominence left so we will have to endure them for a while but not for ever. Once the world’s dependence upon them had been eliminated, we can expect them to decline relatively to a level of world importance comparable to that of the nineteenth century.
What about Science? Science needs to provide us with the intellectual tools to destroy Islam. Can it? There are two advances that can reasonably be expected in the next several decades which might supply the necessary weaponry. Suitably exploited, they should destroy Islam, given its dependence upon a creationist text. These are the discovery of life on other celestial bodies and the creation in the laboratory of life forms similar to those on Earth. They would establish that no supernatural intervention was necessary for life to exist. Exciting laboratory-based advances towards the creation of life are currently taking place at Harvard. Non-Earth-based life may be discovered on Europa, a moon of Jupiter, or on Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, both of which are believed to have sub-surface oceans, or in the form of traces of now extinct life on Mars, where there was once surface water. Discoveries in any of these areas, and preferably in a combination, would demonstrate that life is naturally generated wherever the conditions are propitious. Discoveries following the launch of the James Webb space telescope next year are likely to demonstrate the abundance of such conditions in our enormous universe. The Ayatollahs, Imams and Mullahs are already frightened of science with good reason and have every reason to become more so. Generations younger than ours can reasonably look forward to a time when these promoters of an evil superstition will be intellectually destroyed.
DFD says
Hi Wellington,
agreed, see my two posts above, and my third one below. Let’s stay clear of them. By ‘Let’s’ I mean **all of us**!
And Islam is the enemy. If they want to fight among each other, let’s not interfere, except with weapons and munitions delivery.
DFD says
Sorry, the third one is just above this one, the linking arrangement between posts….
Daniel Triplett says
Agreed Sir. Great post.
Yes, we need to think of the “long game,” as in how do we want the World to look in 200 years, and move the chess pieces right now that produces our desired outcome. We agree there’s no room for Islam in that picture.
Right now, America has the power to call all the shots. But as every great power in history has learned, being King of the Hill doesn’t last forever. So the question becomes, “What will America do with our time in the sun?” Will we squander it and piss it away, or will we use our unprecedented power, authority, leverage, and weapons to change the entire planet, redrawing boundaries, and erase the biggest threat ever to confront mankind?
The time to hit the ball out of the park is now.
“Total War: Extinguishing Islam from Earth” @dantriplett
https://medium.com/@dantriplett/islamic-jihad-is-total-war-for-all-marbles-6c858098b76e
EmHotep says
I would like to kindly express that this topic is far more beyond the Jihad Watch’s comprehension. As Turkish seculars and Atatürk followers, we do not want to discuss it here.
JW should focus on the threat of islam and its global effects. You can not write 1000 years of history by new artificial states. Also never ever discuss the Treaty of Louisiana 1923 since it was signed with blood and trying to change it will lead to bloodshed all over the world.
We first need to focus on to overthrow ERDOGAN and his islamic network, which is a part of muslim brotherhood, that also includes fethullah gülen movement. (we are still expecting some movement from US if she is sincere about anti jihad)
So all of the responsible countries from the current situation in the middle east, must help us to bring back strict secularism to Turkey, than everything will be solved one by one, with a high standard democracy. Our resistance movement is working for this.
Turkish Kemalist Seculars.
NationOfTheSun says
Reply to EmHotep,
As Turkish “seculars” (Turkish ANYTHING is fake) and mass-murdering Ataturk-lover, you shouldn’t even be here, let alone telling people what they are allowed to discuss. Are you really so much part of the gang that you are speaking so freely? If so, I’m out.
If these people on Jihad Watch are taking Turks like yourself in, then I am out. I don’t mind waiting another 100 years.
Turkish so-called “secularists” are the once that established Turkey on Kurdish land and proceeded to exterminate Kurdishness and still do it by forcing Kurdish children into Turkish education and schools. Democracy? Turks never known and never will know democracy. In any case, even if Turks had the best democracy in the world: it wouldn’t change anything for the Kurds; north of Kurdistan would still be under Turkish rule and Kurds be subordinate.
What will happen and what Erdogan is tasked to do is open up Turkey’s state-structure for “local” governments, which will eventually lead to Kurdish self-rule in north of Kurdistan and move on to re-unification of entire Kurds and Kurdistan.
This is an inevitable process that has begun and will continue independent of whatever it is you will be wanting or thinking. Turkey is too big and will be cut into two pieces. (Only two: Kurdish and Turkish. No Greek, Armenian etc nonsense).
By the way you write, you want to project confidence, yet, looking at Turks’ practice, it’s evident that you wouldn’t survive one day in the wilderness around you that your delusions have created. If you are so confident, get out of Kurdistan, leave Kurds alone and show for the world what a Turk is made of. Stand alone, as we Kurds have done, and then we’ll see your true prowess.
Again, if you have a place among folks at Jihadi Watch, then that’s unfortunate and it will say something about them and I will be out.
gravenimage says
EmHotep is not persecuting Kurds.
EmHotep says
Dear Gravenimage, we only persecute the PKK terrorists. PKK is accepted as a terrorist organisation by US and other world countries so our military is taking care of them. Other normal kurdish citizens are just normal citizens of Turkey as we have many different races in Turkey. This issue is nothing to do with islam, kurds was muslim even before the Turks.
So kurds who support pkk are same as erdogan for me, they want a war we will give them one. We will wipe out islamist and pkk supporters, those they are coming very soon.
EmHotep says
I think you have not learned your lesson, how many more of you we need to fuck?
NationOfTheSun says
“I think you have not learned your lesson, how many more of you we need to fuck?”
1- You are admitting to Turkish crimes, that clearly have gone unpunished Admittedly, Turkish crimes against Kurdish nation haven’t been fully exposed yet. But You are doing a good job exposing it yourself; confirming that Kurds and Turks are two separate nations with two different destinies.
2- For Kurds, and this is one weakness of Fitzgerald’s text, although he compensates it vision-wise by separating Kurds from Turkey, it doesn’t matter whether Islamist Erdogan or Secular Kemalists are in Turkish power. They both are Turkish, alien, hostile. At the moment, Kurds “prefer” Erdogan//MHP to CHP/PKK.
3- PKK is a Turkish making; It’s a “controlled opposition” that has been eating Kurds from within and I wouldn’t mind if you took your PKK with yourself and disappeared from Kurdish Life.
4- EmHotep, behind that facade of your lies the emptiness of not having real answers to real questions. As a Kemalist or any Turk, how do we suggest we do with our Kurdish-Turkish relations so that everybody benefits and we help improve the region? Other than having this orgy of yours, that is.
EmHotep says
You PKK follower we are waiting for you and will enjoy to wipe you out, you will have nothing from anatolia, you are tribal neanderthals and we will always catch you.. Look at the so called kurdish cities now, they are not there anymore, how was the taste of fire at the lodge 🙂 Come again to cizre and see what happens …
Meanwhile I am non muslim Turk.. So Jihad Watch is about islam and I have been writing here since 2010, you fucking fascist.
So you motherfucker we are waiting for you at the lodge 🙂 If you want I can put a video here to show how we blow up your terrorist brains 🙂
Sam says
It is very difficult to figure out what is best for America in these situations. Additionally our administrations do not take into account the best interest of US citizen. So if I were president of USA, I would wash my hands of all muslim counties FOR GOOD
Terry says
A good friend of mine, a very observant, deeply religious Jew, a few years ago, was in, KANSAS CITY, KANSAS on business. Taking a taxi- the driver was a Kurd-who invited my friend ( who accepted) to a meeting (that evening or the next-I am not sure)of Kurds.
His take- very pro- American, VERY PRO JEWISH AND PRO-ISRAEL, ( and for DFD- re their communist group) LOOK TO ISRAEL AS TO WHAT A KURDISH STATE COULD ASPIRE TO- with elections, but starting (as israel to a great extent was from 1947-48 through the mid 1950’s -at least) socialist.
jewdog says
I find it interesting that Trump has been unwilling to supply arms to the Kurds for fear of offending the Sultan. I’m afraid that Trump had picked some old-time military stalwarts who may not be able to imagine that Turkey is no longer NATO material.
NationOfTheSun says
Reply to jewdog:
It’s still early in Trump administration. Turks are cornered and easy now to work with. Trump needs to do more than “arming Kurds”. Kurdistan is getting independent. Trump is faced with that reality and needs to advance American position.
Kurdistan is being independent within framework of “Iraqi” confederation. Kurdistan is not the problem: it’s the Arabs that lack nationhood and are sectarian religiously. Iraqi Kurdistan, independent, will remain within this Iraq until Sunni and Shia Arabs sort their issue out.
DFD says
How gracious….
NationOfTheSun says
We are still to see the (fruits of) US-Russian “special friendship”.
Baucent says
There have already been reports that the friendly Kurds of Irbil are preventing Christian Iraqi refugees from Mosul and villages near Mosul from returning to their villages, saying it is too dangerous. But people on the ground say there is no reason why the Christians could not return now to those villages….unless the Kurds want to keep Christians out. There is a suspicion the Kurds are eyeing the Nineva Plain area as a future part of “Kurdistan”, so preventing the Christian from leaving Irbil could be part of that plan.
Transmaster says
I have personal friends who have fought along side of the Kurds. They all tell me that while the Iraqi’s and their army was a pack of cowards, and backstabbers The Kurds where the finest warriors they had ever fought with in the region. The angels of death, the female Peshmerga, are the worse fear of the Daesh. Indeed the mighty Holy Warriors of the Daesh are so terrorized by these Amazons they have been know to blow themselves up to keep from being captured. The Kurds are the one Islamic ethic group that looks upon the United States as liberators. With the establishment of Kurdistan with a strong US presents we have the perfect foil against Iran, Turkey, and Russia. The PPK the communist Kurds are mostly in Turkey and they are not like by the other Kurdish groups. Soldiers I know who where stationed in Kurdistan before the Sultan of Stupid pulled out told me that in the Kurdish regions they did not have to carry their weapons. The Peshmerga knew who the terrorist where and these people learned that if they tried to carry out attacks in Kurdistan they would die a horrible death. Indeed I believe the United State should do what the British did and establish a Brigade of Kurds as part of the United Stated Army and train them as the UK trains their Brigade of Gurkhas. What better force to fight Islamic thugs.
Baucent says
What makes you think they will never be Islamic thugs? There are plenty of examples of Kurds who have become Jihadists. Even Saladin from the time of the crusades was a Kurd. They will not be loyal to the West.
Karwan says
Thank you Mr. Don Foss for your excellent comment! I’m a Kurdish man from Arbil (Erbil, Irbil), born muslim but I’m atheist since my 20 years old (nowI’m 42 years old), Since 1995 I try to discuss Islam with my family, my kins and friends, the aims were: if possible to give up religon (any one) to become atheist (sceince and logic are the enemies of Religion), if not, they may become secular and give up religious practices (islamic practices in my country, South Kurdistan), since then, seven of my friends became atheists, some others became secular et modernized look and mentality. It is true we have some islamist parties and factions, unfortunately the corruption of secular parties and government, encouraged many people to join islamists, specially (Islamic Brotherhood, kurdish branch, the Kurdistan Islamic Union – Yagkrtu,, this party is pacifist but it is dangerous for our society because it works on education and social culture to re-islamize the society like Erdogan’s Party in Turkey. But the aappearance of the ISIS endangered the political projects of these parties, they cant’ hide the black side of islam showed to the word and muslim peoples by ISIS which is most loyal group to Muhammad’s teachings, it is the real and true Islam!! Anyway, I published many articles in kurdish about religion, islam, islamism, saying that religions are human inventions, islam is invented by Muhammad himself as a very big Lie!! In Koran, there are many many paradoxes, scientific, historical, geographical, linguistic errors… I’m for the modernization and secularization of the Kurdish society, but I should admit that we cannot make all people atheists, because many of them need a faith, an existential answer for their existential questions, so the existence of a god or a creator of the Univers is necessary for them, at least for psychological reasons! The Kurds deserve an independent state, the Kurds are not arabs, they are more secular and pro-western people. Anyway, for commentators who dislike the Kurdish people (because of its religion of because of its history) I say: please don’t generalize, and if there were any injustices in the past, the cause was the Ottoman State which was encouraging people against Armenians and Assyrians. The Kurdish people love christians (wehave a kurdish christian minory, some of them recently converted to christianism, some others are historical christians and their mother tongue is kurdish, we have other religious minorities such as Yezidis and Yarsanis), and the historical tensions between the Kurds and the Assyrians (a small minory stayed in the region, many of them became arabs and muslims, since the advent of Islam and the Arabs to Mesoptamia and the Levant, many of the white arabs in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, are historically and anthropoligically assyrians, chaldeans, phenichians, Arameans, Armenians, who converted to Islam and become arabized) are purely political since the collapse of the Assyrian Empire by the Medians in 602 BC (Median People or Empire, Medias are one othe Kurd’s ancestors, others are Hurrians, Mittanis, Kurts, Gutis, Lulubis, Subartu…etc.) and in the era of the Ottoman State, there were some tensions between muslims and christians (because of the Russian-Ottoman wars),, but now, Kurds love assyrians, chaldeans, armenians, western peoples, please do not politicize the question, Personnally, I prefer that the Kurdish people to become secular and modern, orto convert to christianism ( a pacifist religion, islam promotes violence, war, injustice specially against non-muslims, inequality) or to return to their prehistorical religion (the zoroastrianism which is more compatible with contemporary values: freedom, justice, peace, fraternity…). NB: The Assyrians,specially those who live diaspora hate Kurdish people, this hate is purely political and historical, they think of the collapse of their empire 602 BC at the hands of the Medians (the ancestors of the Kurds), and the ottoman kurds some centuries ago,,, so this sentiment is exagerated and not deserve modern peoples who should promote peace, fraternity, justice, democracy….. please dont’ take us to prehistorcal events (602 BC)!!!!
NationOfTheSun says
Reply to Karwan:
I love to return to “per-historic” events. Like you said, Kurds were a grand nation then, as they are a grand nation now, and it’s healthy to look at the past to understand, at least, segments of today. The Medians and Babylon in unison ended Assyrian tyranny. That was a turning point for world events and “somehow”, that was used against us. There is a stronger academia promoting Assyriology than Kurdology today. Why is that?
With regard to your remarks, “atheism” is not something to be promoted. It’s rather a stage people go through until they realize that life is more than the material. You are correct in your assessment that Zoroastrianism will probably be returning home in Kurdistan. People don’t realize that Zoroastrianism (or rather, Mazdayatî) is THE religion that all humanity once shared and some still do: native Americans, shamans of Siberia, aborigines of Pacific Ocean all talk about “Universal Spirit” (creator and created being as one), independent of the forces of good (Ahura Mazda, which Christians and Muslims call “God”, or mistakenly, ” the creator”) and evil (Ahriman). This “trinity” is expressed variously in various religions. Point is, all religions today are corrupt versions of the original religion that is Mazdayetî. This is a huge point to consider for the seekers of truth and soldiers of goodness.
Is it not exciting to be a Kurd, anytime, but especially today? We have fresh, unadulterated minds; a clear history and vivid culture; this enormous force waiting for security and peace to prevail and come out for beauty and goodness. It’s not an exaggeration to say that Kurdistan has far reaching implications beyond Kurds and Kurdistan. It’s not a coincidence that people have called Kurdistan “Eden”.
Karwan says
Thank you (Nation of The Sun) for your nice and rich reply. My phrase (Please don’t take us back to prehistorical events 602BC, the collapse of Assyrian Empire) is addressed to those Assyrians who hate the Kurds because of political and historical reasons, not because of (islam), they politicize the relations between societies and peoples. You know! in South Kurdistan, some kurds were converting to christianism but those nationalist assyrians didnt’ like that, they denounced this wave of “christianisation”!!!! When I talk about assyrians, I mean some Assyrians in Diaspora hate Kurdish people and dare to tell that frankly and publicly because political and historical issues, they even monopolized the christian religion in Kurdistan and Iraq! Anyway, You are right, concerning us, the Kurds, we have had a great power in the era of the Medes, even later in the era of dynasties and princedoms! The question for me was the religion and faith, not politics, but I saw some comments probably written by those nationalist assyrians who tell the word (the foreigners who dont’ know well the region and its peoples) that Kurds oppress the christians in Iraq (Kurdistan), they are wrong, they are lying, they are leading a political propaganda behind “the christian scene”! I defend the values of freedom, justice, equality, fraternity which we cant’ find in Islam that is why we shoud tell our people to get rid of this dangerous religion, if possible the Kurds could return to their historical religion, Zoroastrianism (the mouvement commenced now in Diaspora and in South Kurdistan, many many Kurds are adopting this peaceful religion), but if it is not possible, why not converting to christianism?! (I mean for those who cannot live without faith,,, personally, I’m atheist, and I know very well that it is impossible all the people or society become atheist or agnostic), but I have a political concern, if we have a plurality of religions, confessions, sects, the Kurdish Nation become in danger, it will be divided and torn down like peoples who have sunnis and shiis, catholics and protestants and many many other confessions (Ireland, for example)! Thank you for reading!
NationOfTheSun says
Thank you, Kak Karwan. For Kurds religion is a must. It’s like music, there must be something. Zoroastrianism, like Ezidi, means extra for Kurds because their holy books, Avesta and Mes-hefa Resh are originally written in Kurdish. History of Zoroastrianism pretty much history of Kurdish nation. So it means extra for Kurds. Personally, I’m a Buddhist, which is also linked to Zoroastrianism, I am finding out, and know for a fact that we need less of Islam and not more. But like we see in Turkish and Assyrian cases, people use issues to cover their particular agendas. I think Diaspora Assyrians (not same as the Kurdistani Assyrians) are betting on a wrong horse. They would rather have Assadian, Saddamian, Arab “patronage” (barely surviving) than Kurdish rule, which means they will be thriving. Kurdish-Assyrian conflicts (there is only one: Christians helped British bomb Kurds; Simko punished them by massacring a few hundred of them. That’s it. For 1000s of years, peaceful coexistence. Kurds don’t do genocides, like Turks are proven to have done. If from “Great Assyria”, still few thousands “Assyrians”, 100s villages in Kurdistan remain in tact, it is because Kurds have protected them. How else would they have survived until today, if not by finding space within Kurdish communities? And then blaming Kurds for Turkish crimes on Armenians and Assyrians/Syriacs, so much slander on this page towards Kurds. The subject-matter of the article would naturally attract mosquitoes but still… Btw, Kak Karwan, have you noticed it’s been 40 years and Kurds are still 40 Million?
Seabird says
I appreciate your thoughtful Kurdish perspective ànd have no issues with a Kurdish State created in Iraq or Syria. In the case of Anatolia, however, where Kurdish “death squads” where used by the Turks to exterminate about 3mil. Christian Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, Chaldeans, Maronites-and even Yezidis, seizing their homes and property, stealing their children and women, you will find few supporters for any “Kurdish State” created there without full acknowledgement (and reparations) for the the bloodshed and heartbreak the Turks and Kurds caused to the people there.
The animosity (in some cases outright hatred) those people feel towards both Turks and Kurds is the direct response from the violence expressed towards them in 1915 not 602bc.
While the Kurds are an indigenous people to Southeast Turkey, they lived a very primitive life in Anatolia. A good book on this subject is “the Slaughterhouse Province”, by Lesley Davis, an American consulate official stationed there at the time who documented the atrocities committed there (and the lifestyle of the Kurds).
In addition to the Genocide charges, 7 provinces within eastern Turkey (including Mt Ararat) are claimed as historical Armenian lands by the Armenian Republic and there are also Assyrian and Greek claims which would also have to be reconciled.
The establishment of any “State” in Anatolia without addressing those issues could never be accepted or supported there.
On the other hand, in Diyabakir, Turkey, not only did the Kurds allow a huge Church to be built there, they donated $400,000 towards its construction and even built a monument to the Christian victims of the Genocide.
That is something all Kurds should be proud of.
It isn’t “nonsense” like another Kurd stated or “shouldn’t be discussed” like a Turkish commenter suggested.
***** (Really great writing (as usual) Mr Fitzgerald).
Karwan says
Thank you Mr Hugh Fitzgerald for your excellent article.
vera says
Mr. Fitzgerald, a very timely and welcome post. It has caused me to do a major double take. I have been in the past a supporter of the ethnic state, because that’s how I grew up. But at the same time, I realize that most “ethnic states” are artificial creatures that must be “kept pure” at considerable cost. The old Czechoslovakia only became a relatively pure ethnic state because of the Nazi purge of Jews, and the post-war purge of ethnic Germans. I now think that trying for this idea is a mistake. People think it will solve problems, but in the long run it creates even worse problems.
Rojava is a wonderful thing, I hear. Then keep it a wonderful thing. Don’t ruin it with more crap “nation building” because the US so much wants a friendly entity out there. Hasn’t the time come finally to consider the Swiss model seriously? There, four ethnic groups, French, German, Italian and Romansch, have been living in peace for centuries. Why? Because of real federalism — a group of fiercely independent, self-determining areas coming together for the advantages of a confederation.
Modernity has been an ally of the ethnic state, and the results of that experiment have not been so good. Meanwhile, in the US, enemies of deep federalism have pushed more and more centralization. Isn’t it time to reconsider? How about finally inventing federalism even stronger than the Swiss have had? How about real regional self-determination? How about true respect for local and bioregional cultures without hitching them to global power politics?
Now that I am thinking it through, it seems to me that such a move would be a lasting solution for Scotland and Catalonia, as well as the Kurds, and I think that all the four parties (Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey) would far be more amenable to strong regional independence than losing a large chunk of their territory. We would also forego the spectacle of the new Kurdistan turning into a stooge of the west and fomenting conflict to win more territory, as well as the danger of its inevitable internal cleansings and vulnerability to islamism when finally in power, geopolitically speaking.
So I say: isn’t it time for us to invent deep federalism? It would both preserve national boundaries and so political stability, while creating room for local and ethnic self-determination. Resilient polyculture, rather than fragile monoculture? Looking forward to your thoughts.
Angemon says
Indeed. I understand that supporting a Kurdistan state would mean to support an enemy of an allied (on paper) NATO member to wage war against said “ally”, but nowadays what’s there to win by supporting Erdogan, who has clearly chosen to support “radical” islamic tendencies? NATO needs to be revamped, and if that places Turkey, through fault of its own actions alone, at odds with NATO, then maybe it’s time for a quick, swift kick in the direction of the “Exit” door.
Zenobia van Dongen says
One important aspect the author has neglected is the trend toward tyranny by the Iraqi Kurdish government,, evidently teading toward a typical sleazy Middle Eastern dictatorship.
gravenimage says
The independence of Kurdistan would create an area of stability in this region.
…………………
Maybe–I hope so. Certainly, the Kurds have been less savage to Christians and other Infidels in recent years, and have provided a rough sanctuary.
But they are still Muslim.
During the Armenian Genocide, they were both persecuted by Turkish authorities *and* slaughtering Christians.
I hate being cynical–I do as things stand now support a Kurdish state–but I think we should proceed with caution, and not just assume the Kurds are automatically civilized.
jo says
he is the hidden imam mahadi
Pal says
Hugh Fitzgerald,
I would like to thank you for your professional and well-pointed analysis! -:)