lol
Terrorist Attack in Turkey Kills 28
- Thread starter The Midnight
- Start date
lol
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Even without a Kurdish state Turkey has to embrace the Kurdish people politically, economically, and culturally. There are more Kurds in Turkey than Iraq. If Turkey wants to protect its sovereignty it will need to solve its internal Kurdish issues and they can't do that by fighting the PKK.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
it's not really lol-worthy-- it wasn't exactly an easy process to form Canada in its early stages. Quebec nearly separated as recently as the 90s. Also, there is constantly seats won in elections by the Bloc Quebecois-- a party who's main platform is essentially separation. The wars waged between the English and French historically were way more bloody than anything the Kurds and Turks have managed.
Last edited by a moderator:
And the problems with the Kurds in the middle east have last generations longer than anything that happened during British v French wars in the 15-1800s.
So yes lol.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
you're dismissing my very logical posts for reasons I can't really understand-- and I'm not sure you understand Kurdish and Canadian history as well as you think you do.
Revolts did occur sporadically in Kurdish territories, but it took till 1880 for a proper uprising to be organized. It was led by Sheik Ubeydullah, who for the first time made demands for a Kurdish ethnic group or nation to be made.
FWIW the Norman Conquest was in the 11th century, and Charlemagne was whooping Anglo-Saxon *** before then.
That doesn't mean that the horrors they endured are the same. Like the depictions of the Kurds being subjugated subjugated as a people in the 7th century (centuries before Canada), 11th and 12th century battles (again a few centuries before Canada and British/French wars here) and subjugation or when Saddam was gassing them in the 80s. You over estimate the Quebec hardship on a historical sense when compared to the time frame of the middle east and the conflicts there.
Also I wasn't dismissing your reasons. I was just laughing. But I digress.
Even though I'm probably alone with my POV, I think the biggest problem is the volatile and inconsequential actions of Western Europe.
Germans want to offer humanitarian aid, but stay out of any military operation.
France wanted to have nothing to do with it despite being a long time ally of Syria in the beginning and once they had the Paris bombing, they went full 180 and were like: YO WE GOT HELLA BOMBS.
England like: We're on an island and bank on being able to stay isolated from that stuff over here. And additionally we're trying to stay out of everything that costs money.
IMO the French turnaround caused so much chaos.
When they started their military operation, Turkey and Russia decided to take their window of opportunity and pull some shady stuff. Instead of trying to contain IS operations, Putin went full on Assad's enemies with reasoning like: There's Al Quaida among them. Ye no ****? Having a terrorist minority under rebels gives you the right to bomb civilians?
Turkey's planes "accidentally" couldn't find IS troops and "accidentally" drop bombs on Kurdish resistance fighters that are secretly backed by Western Europe.
But at the same time Western Europe needs Erdogans cooperation because like 20% of the EU went full nazi and I mean full 21st century style xenophobe racists. So instead of finding a solution to distribute Syrian refugees that simply don't want nothing to do with the war in their country, they'd rather voice concerns that terrorists are mixing with refugees? Like they couldn't enter the countries otherwise if they wanted to...
MY personal favorite next step in the crisis would be Western Europe targeting Assad's military facilities. If you want to get Russia to the table and play with open cards, you gotta hit them. With Putin that's been the case for a while now that he's banking on deescalation attempts.
From Germany's side I hope we'll get out of the EU at this point and establish bonds and intercultural exchange, trade and politics with more stable countries in a more controlled setting where conflicting interests have a less detrimental/insurmountable impact(I know it's unrealistic - Still hope it would happen)
Germans want to offer humanitarian aid, but stay out of any military operation.
France wanted to have nothing to do with it despite being a long time ally of Syria in the beginning and once they had the Paris bombing, they went full 180 and were like: YO WE GOT HELLA BOMBS.
England like: We're on an island and bank on being able to stay isolated from that stuff over here. And additionally we're trying to stay out of everything that costs money.
IMO the French turnaround caused so much chaos.
When they started their military operation, Turkey and Russia decided to take their window of opportunity and pull some shady stuff. Instead of trying to contain IS operations, Putin went full on Assad's enemies with reasoning like: There's Al Quaida among them. Ye no ****? Having a terrorist minority under rebels gives you the right to bomb civilians?
Turkey's planes "accidentally" couldn't find IS troops and "accidentally" drop bombs on Kurdish resistance fighters that are secretly backed by Western Europe.
But at the same time Western Europe needs Erdogans cooperation because like 20% of the EU went full nazi and I mean full 21st century style xenophobe racists. So instead of finding a solution to distribute Syrian refugees that simply don't want nothing to do with the war in their country, they'd rather voice concerns that terrorists are mixing with refugees? Like they couldn't enter the countries otherwise if they wanted to...
MY personal favorite next step in the crisis would be Western Europe targeting Assad's military facilities. If you want to get Russia to the table and play with open cards, you gotta hit them. With Putin that's been the case for a while now that he's banking on deescalation attempts.
From Germany's side I hope we'll get out of the EU at this point and establish bonds and intercultural exchange, trade and politics with more stable countries in a more controlled setting where conflicting interests have a less detrimental/insurmountable impact(I know it's unrealistic - Still hope it would happen)
addictionary
Well-Known Member
addictionary
Well-Known Member
That is because the foundation of the US and Canadian state -or let's call it colonization- were in the colonization era and the uprising of Kurds or for other examples withing the Ottoman territory the Armenians were fires that are lit in the age of nationalism. It was a stream of nationalism, but there was enough propaganda by the social engineers of the Western developed governments to push these people -we might say minorities- towards demanding their own country. People used to live in here peacefully and in harmony before these uprises. But if I know this correctly, Kurds were always autonomic people with their feodal structure and local leaders always staying as a force against the Turkish state, let it be Ottoman Empire or the Turkish Republic. There is no discrimination against Kurds in Turkey. Or against people with headbands. They just dramaticise things to gain leverage and sympathy in the eyes of public within the country and abroad. Kurds in SouthWest majorly born into and grow with the PKK propaganda and the understanding of the problem of the situation today. So they think "Turkish state has invaded our lands. Let's throw them out!" Or an Armenian is raised with the idea of "Turks have slaughtered us." All are political manipulations. I just feel sorry for my national identity being remembered with bad things all the time because of this. I think we should first measure how "humane" each and every one of us, and then look at the nationality or just don't look at the nationality at all.
It's not a popular opinion in Germany apart from right wing citizens. It's my personal one. And it's not a closet-nationalist reaction of mine to force separation or isolation from other ethnic groups/religious movements/nationalities/influences. I just think the EU is failing in its foundations and the way I see it is that you've got an alarmingly increasing growth of nationalism in a lot of countries. Including Germany, don't get me wrong.
But the degree to which EU politics are dysfunctional, backfiring but mostly the stalling potential almost every government possesses. I don't believe that's salvageable.
If Germany were to leave hypothetically, who would the EU rely on then? France? Where 25% of the ppl are legit Nazis that would love nothing more than ignoring/rewriting the constitution, trying to forget about the centuries in which France has added countless colonies which to this day speak French and from where it draws a lot of ppl to France with the promise of a better life?
They're gonna stabilize the Euro if Germany was to leave? England wants nothing to do with any form of "commonwealth v2".
Mediterranean countries are basically borderline broke anyways. Who's gonna back the overwhelmingly large number of struggling countries that either try to steer against their downfall or stay on course with the development.
Scandinavia+the Netherlands? Maybe.
I don't even think the name of a national currency is of any importance if the economy that it's representing is stable and sought after.
Look at Switzerland and their transformation that they're undergoing for quite a while.
I just think the instability and insecurity that a German Euro exit would cause, would grant the opportunity to strengthen bonds with other selected countries(in or outside the Euro zone) and there would be mutual interest.
addictionary
Well-Known Member
So what you're saying is that EU is an experience that is doomed to be over. It's nothing promising compared to what kind of scale of a political union it sought to be. But I think if Germany sought out, other big ones would follow. Economical crisis-es give birth to many macro level changes. I think we are in the adolescence ages of one and when I say we I mean Europeans, Arabs and Turks.
People like their "divisions" to much. Just look at the British. They are openly contemplating leaving the EU. Scotland wants to leave England. Catalonia wants to leave Spain, Kurds want to leave Turkey/Syria/Iraq.
A strong, unified EU would be good for America. But it won't happen. People are tribal and in todays world society those tribes are often nations.
addictionary
Well-Known Member
We globalize with internet and advanced conditions for physical movement to see more distant cultures and yet we still grow disgust and hatred towards the different. There is something wrong in this.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using JazzFanz mobile app
Embracing our differences doe snot have to based off disgust and hatred. It often is but does not have to be. It is an easy trap to fall into.
But I agree that the world is trending towards more and more inclusion.
Well I personally don't understand that hatred. I mean Ppl don't like each other on a case to case basis. They use that as an excuse to not deal respectfully with each other. And then there's other nationalities and on that level it's okay for a lot to generalize. Which is horrible.
But we as a society influence each other and we have the power to change these influences to a certain degree.
Like when I listen to the news and reports say: On a plane accident 10 Germans died. Total number of casualties is 300.
German families devastated etc etc heard it all.
I'm like: So these other 290 casualties relatives and loved ones are less important or feel different about it? Maybe less devastated?
You are provided with a perspective each and every day about how nationality matters. And then you wonder why ppl generalize and heavily rely on prejudices.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
So you're concerned about the reputation of your national identity but dismiss history and the complaints of minorities within your country? They are nationalists but Turks are not?
In the US we were insanely oppressive to Native Americans and African Americans. We committed acts of genocide. We wrote discrimination into our Constitution, raped, murdered, enslaved, tortured, confiscated their property, abducted their children and forced them to abandon their mother tongue. Today I think it is safe to say that most African Americans and Native Americans are proud to call themselves American citizens. How? Why?
I think it's because we have finally been honest about our history, we started to listen to their complaints and we began the process of addressing them.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Maybe the US should join this unified EU you speak of.
Why is people governing themselves such a bad thing. Why are larger states with less representation per capita preferable to smaller ones?
addictionary
Well-Known Member
I think America being the "land of free" and promising more than Turkey has got something to do with it. If you had a lesser control over your own people as a lake of social groups that include ones that wants to form another country by taking soil from you which includes people that do not want to get separated, then you would have similar problems.
I actually am over my young blood excitement to bash the capitalist US about everything and I love the way things work out there at some ways. Especially people leaving the different alone part. If we are ever to see some calm in our lifetimes, we need to be like Americans in showing tolerance towards the ones that we do not share much in common with. Because everything is going **** in here and the leaders are pushing the society into the fire for political rant.
What you said in the 1st paragraph, I think you misunderstood something I said. I did not reject anything, although if you mean genocide, I do reject it. It is a one side propaganda of many terrible things happened and sufferings made by both hands. If you mean the Kurds, they too suffered but again through the hands of politicized military and party settings, their speech has become a part of the propaganda they keep cooking for years that includes Kurds are discriminated. There is nothing like the back then invaders of America had done to the Native Americans. Or the enslavement of African Americans. We were never that savage, sorry. The conflicts that were happened never were these kinds of inhuman acts.
Maybe the entire blurriness of our problems instead of being clear slavers and genociders make our problems hard to go away. If the lines were sharper, the backfire would be harsher but it would be solved for good. Instead, our problems just hang in the purgatory.
I never hinted at or said any of those things.
All I did say was that a unified EU is better for America. I never said if it was better or worse for European nations.
addictionary
Well-Known Member
It's never a bad thing. The nationalism and unity state ideal is the reason people cannot govern themselves. You cannot wake up to the idea to cut some soil from the "nation states" and form your country is what is the problem. And when you spill blood and the ones who made it spill are still in action, you cannot expect the "nation state" and their people to suddenly feel it's OK to let you decide your own and meet your demands.