The situation in Northern Iraq:Turkey launches attacks on Kurdish area

Kurds were an ethnic group no larger than Turks around the time, around the Southeastern Anatolia when Ottoman Empire was collapsing. However this does not change the fact that Kürt Teali Cemiyeti had worked in favor of mainly the English, an equivalent of Armenians being armed and used by the French around the area. Breeding like rabbits and forcing Turks out of the area by any means is as much democratic as they are crying for, I guess.

Dirts ? :laugh4: Innocent puppy story again ? Ah yes, we had presidents, parliamenters, ministers, artists etc. who were Martian but not Kurdish.

Sometimes it needs more than reading through propaganda websites, articles or books; such as paying a visit, or taking the actual ideas from the counter party when it is about reaching a healthy judgement on sensitive issues..

Well, on topic itself. Kirkuk is ethnically being transformed to a Kurdish city. Turkmens are continuously forced out of the town to maintain the public image of Kirkuk being a Kurdish city in majority. "Dirt", anyone ?

Mesud Barzani, who was pathetic enough to kiss the boots of Turkish soldiers once he came across, is now like a fed and tamed angry kitty, trusting to the elders since that Turkey will not dare to take offence against him, due to Turkey being trapped between EU bull and "one drop of honey for everyone, I own the game" guy named USA. Ally ?! Bleugh !

We have a Turkish proverb for such pathetic little bullies :

"Dog thinks that it is his shade which is of the oxcart he's moving along"

Tribesman, as callous as it may seem, in Iraq, if people aren't getting blown up regularly, then frankly it doesn't matter. I read the Iraqi newspapers. Not that it is totally necessary, as when the Baghdadis have their twice or thrice weekly running gun battles, we usually hear them. In Basrah rival militias are fighting and dropping mortars on the Brits, and in Diyala all hell has broken loose. Does Kirkouk have problems? Sure. But as wrong as you think Barzani may be, it's easy to see why he gets away with it.

Quote:

---

Tribesman, as callous as it may seem, in Iraq, if people aren't getting blown up regularly, then frankly it doesn't matter.

---

Ah but it does matter , in fact the violence and events in the north are probably of more concern than those elsewhere in the country . Since if you look at the more complete picture they involve open and direct action by neighbouring States plus the very real threat of an escalation of those actions , one of those States just happens to be an ally of yours .
Much was made about the issue of Iran detaining British sailors in the Western media , big news- little problem- minor incident .
There wasn't much coverage of the Iranians shelling Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq was there .
Its something they try and avoid , like dealing with the US/KDP raid into PUK territory .
Its that prospect of a wider war combined with a return to the internal Kurdish factional war that is a real big threat .
The large scale ethnic cleansing in the north ( while not getting the spectacular boom bang nasty picture headline coverage as the rest of the country) and the pressures on the ceasefire agreement is building into a real major upcoming bloodbath .
And don't forget , the terrorist militias up there are large , very well financed , very well armed and are backed by some very serious opposing regional powers , it widens far beyong the shia/sunni arab problems that make the headlines , but also encompases all of them .

Apart from being an extremely compelling argument for investing in energy efficiency, bioplastics and renewable fuels (read: break all dependence on the area and leave it to its own devices) what is to be done?

In Europe we've fought our wars or race, religion and politics. Possibly more in the future, but none for 50 years.

I see no need in getting involved in futile multi-sided messes any further than we've already managed to to do.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

Kurds were an ethnic group no larger than Turks around the time, around the Southeastern Anatolia when Ottoman Empire was collapsing. However this does not change the fact that Kürt Teali Cemiyeti had worked in favor of mainly the English, an equivalent of Armenians being armed and used by the French around the area. Breeding like rabbits and forcing Turks out of the area by any means is as much democratic as they are crying for, I guess.

---

Newsflash: demographics are always changing, even if you ignore the instances where natives where forcibly expelled (wich, for the record, I abhor)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

Dirts ? Innocent puppy story again ? Ah yes, we had presidents, parliamenters, ministers, artists etc. who were Martian but not Kurdish.

---

That's not really relevant, is it? (especially the artists...)
There have been plenty of non-Russian state officials in the USSR (heck, Stalin was Georgian), that doesn't mean that the occupation of these countries was rightful, good for the populace or wanted by them.
Wasn't there a ban on educating kids in the Kurdish language well into the '90ties?

I was under the impression that the predominately Kurdish parts of Turkey were economically underdeveloped anyway, so I don't see the point in clinging on to them in the face of fierce seperatism.

Quote:

---

Newsflash: demographics are always changing, even if you ignore the instances where natives where forcibly expelled (wich, for the record, I abhor)

---

Newsflash: If you feel like becoming a majority or some kind of reasonable force somehwere, you come and get it.

Quote:

---

That's not really relevant, is it? (especially the artists...)
There have been plenty of non-Russian state officials in the USSR (heck, Stalin was Georgian), that doesn't mean that the occupation of these countries was rightful, good for the populace or wanted by them.

---

Why did you omit people from those I gave examples of, who were powerful enough to change things legally in favor of their origin ?

Quote:

---

Wasn't there a ban on educating kids in the Kurdish language well into the '90ties?

---

Newsflash 2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey

PART ONE


GENERAL PRINCIPLES



I. Form of the State


ARTICLE 1. The Turkish state is a Republic.



II. Characteristics of the Republic


ARTICLE 2. The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and social state governed by the rule of law; bearing in mind the concepts of public peace, national solidarity and justice; respecting human rights; loyal to the nationalism of Atatürk, and based on the fundamental tenets set forth in the Preamble.



III. Integrity of the State, Official Language, Flag, National Anthem, and Capital


ARTICLE 3. The Turkish state, with its territory and nation, is an indivisible entity. Its language is Turkish.



Its flag, the form of which is prescribed by the relevant law, is composed of a white crescent and star on a red background.



Its national anthem is the “Independence March”.



Its capital is Ankara.



IV. Irrevocable Provisions


ARTICLE 4. The provision of Article 1 of the Constitution establishing the form of the state as a Republic, the provisions in Article 2 on the characteristics of the Republic, and the provision of Article 3 shall not be amended, nor shall their amendment be proposed.

---

Quote:

---

I was under the impression that the predominately Kurdish parts of Turkey were economically underdeveloped anyway, so I don't see the point in clinging on to them in the face of fierce seperatism.

---

Since no parts were predominantly owned by the Kurds, -your only true statement- "economically underdeveloped" part was a place hard to live for Turks as much as it was to Kurds.

And the most important point buddy: No stone or a piece of dead wood of this land is dispensable. My ancestors spilled their blood for these lands without hesitation against giants, and it will take blood again for those who'd like to claim ownership on it. Period.