Talk:Kurdistan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Miscellaneous

The time has come for a radical expansion of this page and its various links. The centrality of this region in the U.S. plan to invade Iraq and what might interfere with it, in particular a post-invasion potential to exacerbate the Iraq crisis seriously with Turkish vs. Kurdish conflicts, makes it pretty important right now.

Among other things it might make implementation of a post-Saddam democracy more or less impossible, at least in the North, given the concerns of the Turks and their influence in NATO. It's also well known that Turks consider Mosul to be "theirs", and that Iran has interests in the region as well. This is potentially a vast mess.

Not quite. All Turkey, and other nations in the region want is that Kurds not to be in charge of Iraqi oil. If you think about it after their dealings with the PKK and miscelinious others you cant really blame their reservations. The main reason its so difficult the kurds can achieve anything is because of organisations like PKK. I cannot speak in Kurds in general but I serriosuly dont see why this is an issue for the Kurds within Turkey. In any country if you scream I am "this race" I am "different/better/greater/smarter" from you, I want my "own nation", last thing you should expect is a positive response. While it may sound matcho to scream out insults and ridiclous claims to surrounding nations, it hurts your rate of success. things would have been diferent if Northern iraqi leaders had any idea how diplomacy works. In diplomacy you dont show someone elses teeth as soon as the americans leave I am sure Iraq will be screaming less insults to none. --Coolcat 17:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We'll better get this article in shape!

controversial edits

The following revert was done for the stated reason that a user was banned, apparently without regard to the edits, which were substantial [1]. Is this not clearly counter to policy?

Why Kurdistan should not be considered a region or a country

Removed the following paragraph because it sounded biased. Please re-write, someone! --Guppie, 31.12.2003

"Preventing official formation of Kurdistan is of Turkey a major goal of regional control. Because of NATO alliance of Turkey and United States, USA is hesitate to support Kurds in Iraq, even backing away from promises in war."

It would be nice if someone listed/linked the exact provinces of Iraq which are inhabited by Kurds. --Shallot 02:14, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kurdistan have never existed before in history and will never exist in the land of Ashur - Assyria. Kurds can make border OUTSIDE Assyria but once they claim Assyria as theirs they want to OCCUPY a land. ASSYRIA is the historical name for upper Mesopotamia with its capital Nineveh (Mosul of today). And some day Assyria will rise just like Isaiah said - the true prophet that prophezided about Jesus.

Creating a nation is more rigorous than what people think. First of all the populution in the area must support your claims. Then countries need to recognise you. After that the UN has to declare you a country. For the country "Kurdistan" this process havent started.

You can declare yourself a country as much as you like but unless people think you are, yu aren't. Also, you cannot come up with regions on your own unless you own Political, Millitary, and Diplomatic control over the region.

That is pretty much why I want to declare it as "high density Kurdish populated area" for the sake of a) clarity, b) neutrality, c) reality

Hence this article is pointless. However a group of people like to refer to this hypotetical "motherland" of theirs under this umbrella.

Any nation that does not own the territory declaring the region as something else than what it is is rather futile as well. This is like US declaring Canada a 51st state out of the blue. Unless they invade the place it would only be a sign of futility. (Just for clarity of the ignorant US never declared Canada a 51st state it was merely an example to explain my case)

The comments in the article refering to the accent ridicule. That happens almost anywhere. In the US for example the Soulthern accent is ridiculed up north on a daily basis. Back in Turkey its simmilar, although some people are quite easily offended. --Coolcat 23:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So officialy there is no Kurdistan. Its as valid as Yugoslavia. Which used to be an actual county.

If officialy it does not exist claiming it to exist is rather irrational. --Coolcat 17:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

Could somebody explain the "ethnic cleansing of millions"? It's not the same to murder millions than forcing their relocation.

If you actually read the article on ethnic cleansing you might notice that the first sentence states "The term ethnic cleansing refers to various policies of forcibly removing people of another ethnic group. At one end of the spectrum, it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population transfer, while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide." So unless you believe the Turkish scholarly propaganda for the last 80 years that Kurds are nothing but "mountain Turks" and the language a dialect of Turkish, this constitutes ethnic cleansing. - Dejitarob 04:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the facts, the things you have mentioned are the events that have taken place after the '80 coup d'etat and did not last much. So the so called 80 years is nothing but a simple exaggeration. And stuff like "mountain Turks" is not taught scholarly. The saying was one of many gaffes of Kenan Evren.kunefge 23:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kurds are not a race. They may be a sub-race. primarily on the planet there are 3 races. The European (White), Far Eastern (Yellow), African (Black). Everything esle derives from these three geneticaly. Kurdish dialects will have great difficulty communicating with each other if they can at all. Some scholars refer to them as uneque languages. If Kurds have Iranian orrigin that means they are Iranian not Kurdish. If they are this race of people isolated from the rest of the worlds Gene pool in the past, oh I dont know 2000+ years? They are a race on their own. --Coolcat 17:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not dismissing the Kurds as a race. All I am trying to explain is the distinction of a Kurd isn't too terribly diferent from people around, Geneticaly speaking. The culure isn't to far off either. People exchange cultures. Some of Turkish traditions originated in Greece, some of the Greek traditions originated in Turkey. Exchange of cultures is only natural. That's how things have been since the beggining of time. --Coolcat 17:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Biased?

"In this war, the Turkish government destroyed more than 3,000 Kurdish villages and performed ethnic cleansing of around several million Kurds from their land, with full acknowledgement from the West. Even the everyday use of the Kurdish language was strictly banned in Turkey until recently. There are tens of thousands of documented cases of torture, disappearances etc."

That is more than likely propoganda. Does not belong to wikipedia --Coolcat 07:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Turkish government had to vacate and relocate the villages because of the terrorist threat, or aid to terrorists due to fear of death or raid. And they were not "Kurdish villages" they were villages of Turkish-Kurdish people living in. Therefore rather than the government the terrorists should be blamed, because the aim of the action was to secure the villagers. Also there has not been any "ethnic cleansing" because these people were Turks (as the Kurds are also considered Turks in Turkey, which I think Europe and America is foreign to that belief) and "cleaning" their own people is not sth the government would do.

Another matter is that the everyday use of the Kurdish language was not banned, people talked Kurdish publicly but talking Kurdish in the senate was banned but now by a law recently made it is not either. I have seen those documented cases of torture, disappearances etc. because of the terrorists. One last thing is the last sentence. Rather political and vague, thus more a speculation as what it suggests. As a result I see the Turkey section of the article not representing the truth and thus biased.

"the aim of the action was to secure the villagers" The villages were not under attack, rather Turkish military posts and positions. The fact of the matter is, the government forcibly relocated around 3,000 villages west because of their sympathies and support for the PKK i.e. supplying intel about Turkish security forces movements, food and shelter. The Turkish government denied this all along, saying only about 2-3% of the villagers help the PKK, while the PKK would never have been able to operate without the support of the local population. "One mans terrorists are another man's freedom fighters" goes the saying attributed to Reagan talking about Nicaraguan contras. Simply calling one a terrorist does not justify the use of torture or any similar abhorrent actions.

"Another matter is that the everyday use of the Kurdish language was not banned" Any reference to Kurds, their culture or use of their language was banned until President Özal exempted private discussion in 1991, essentially making legal what was already widespread [2] [3]. However, the passage of an anti-terrorism law the same year made any talk about "seperatism" an issue of national security and punishable by jail and fines. Therefore, public speech and publications that promote Kurdish culture are heavily restricted. - Dejitarob 22:42, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"One man's terrorists are another man's freedom fighters"? They were called terrorists because they were killing people -including "civilians". You may believe that you deserve a country of your own; but if the way to your dream goes through Turks' lives or our country, believe me you are better off as you are today. If your dream is to improve the lives of your people, believe me you are not alone because they are my people as well.

They are declared a terrorist organisation by the EU and the US. --Coolcat 07:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"The villages under question, were under attack by PKK. The villagers were threatened by Pkk militants for aid (food, clothes etc) and the ones who opposed were killed. The locals express this especially in late 80's and early 90's that "if you oppose the government you get imprisoned but if you oppose the Pkk you get killed." Pkk obtained their so-called sympathy through spreading fear which can be seen as one of the means of terrorism. Fear was the main driving motive of the group against the locals. Therefore there are reports of many distressed villagers calling for aid during the turmoil most of whom are relocated. Evidently those people had no sympathy for any terrorist action or the ones that are using it as an instrument to obtain power, rather they were forced to help. Also there is a vast difference between being a terrorist and being a freedom fighter. The ones that grasp this difference bring peace, others bring only death, destruction, turmoil and hatred among the inhabitants.kunefge 23:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is a thin line between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. Their job description is almost identical. Senseless killing at its best. --Coolcat 07:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

I think that the brutal killing of Kurds by Saddam Hussein should be mentioned in this article, as it is an undisputed part of Kurdish history. At least Halabsha should be mentioned, where Hussein killed 20,000 Kurdish civilians with mustard gas manufactured with components purchased from Europe. I'm surprised it's not mentioned anywhere in the article.

Early autonomy in Iraq

Didn't early Saddam establish some kind of autonomy for Kurds?

Not that I ever read of. In 1991 there was a semi-autonomous region enforced by no-fly zones as the article states. - Dejitarob 02:54, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

He did. According to the Dutch Bosatlas, the was an official Kurdish autonomous are since 1970. It meant nothing, however. Gerritholl aka Topjaklont | Talk 20:27, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The map in the Kurdish Wikipedia

The map in the Kurdish Wikipedia is claiming much more for a possible Kurdistan, as can be seen at [4]. It goes south as far as the oil rich Khuzestan province of Iran, and includes Masjed Soleyman, the first city of Iran where petroleum was discovered, which is clearly populated by Arabs, not Kurds. Would someone experienced in the matter, or the Kurdish language, please explain? Roozbeh 23:15, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Differences with the Kurdish version

There are many differences between this article and its Kurdish version. It really seems to me that these are not the same thing. The Kurdish version [5] looks much more like a plan of a future country instead of an encyclopedic article about the region. Unfortunately I don't know Kurdish, but I can read the name of cities like Khorramabad (Xorramabad in the article) which is clearly a Lur (See Lur, Lorestan, and Demographics of Iran) area. Would someone who knows Kurdish please explain or make sure the Kurdish version is encyclopedic? Roozbeh 23:25, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Abdullah Öcalan is still being imprisoned lifelong in Turkey since 1999 for his terrorist activities, murdering thousands of Turkish villagers and war crimes against Turkish Republic.

Can somebody fact-check this affirmation ? I can't find any supporting information on the article of Abdullah Öcalan. Bogdan | Talk 17:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The "Turkey" section is pure propaganda!

The person who wrote this should be anti-Turkish and anti-Kurdish, misstating the facts and aiming to make the peoples enemy at each other. Because nearly all the section was deliberately expressed falsely. All the "Great Turkish Race", "Fascist Turks", "Kurds were massacred", "Ridiculed, oppressed Kurds" stuff are purely histrionic deceptive statements. This is so clear that, even the comedy movies are considered "antiKurdish". Can the writer of the article show me one ridiculing thing against the Kurds, in those movies? Also there is no active dispute going on, why is the article locked? One last thing, make your propoganda in places other than here, this is an encyclopedia!!kunefge 28.09.2004

In my opinion the entier article is extremely biased. Most of the "information" is pure propoganda and is not remotely close to reality.

The accents of Kurds in Turkish is not "a source of entertainment" and the accents they use is not used only by them, Turkmens in the region use this accent also. The movies that have been mentioned are socio-comedy movies criticizing the feudal economy in the Eastern Regions in Turkey as anyone who watches can easily see. Karagöz is a comedy play so nearly all of the characters have funny styles, thus the "Kurd" character (Harputlu) is also one of them (and not the main). I guess the writer doesn't know much about the Ortaoyunu because as it is a "public play" the dialects and cultures of different districts appear which demonstrates the richness of culture in Turkey. Also the social remarks are also falsely presented, "bear" means "impolite, rude" and it is used in this way, and there is no direct connection with Kurds. "Fascism ... has always been marginal in Turkey" says Erik Jan Zürcher in his "History of Modern Turkey" and adds that the idea never found support by the government. So the people whose quotes have been put, represent only a very small fraction.kunefge 12.10.2004

If you cant handle humor which Karagöz is about I feel sorry for you. --Coolcat 07:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

purely histrionic deceptive statements According to whom? Your Turkish history book? Turkey has been through numerous military coups, assassinations, rampant human rights abuses and didn't even have a constitution till 1982. In 1993, Robert Kaplan states the Turkish military organized a quiet coup after Ozal's death. In 1998, the military sent a memorandum to Prime Minister Erbakan requesting that he resign, citing his support for religious policies deemed dangerous to Turkey's secular nature, which he did shortly after. Pro-Turkish historians and apologists say fascism was marginal, but it appears ultra-nationalism and the military has always played a large role in Turkish politics. If you believe that the Turkish section is pure propaganda, feel free to add Turkish counter claims into the article, if you think you can do so citing reputable sources. - Dejitarob 03:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me let me get this straight now you blame everything to the Turkish Millitary. in 1998 thre was no coup read the dictionary definition. My source is not a Turkish history book I was alive in 1998. The only reasion Kurds werent massacred by Saddam during Gulf War 1 was the Turkish army as there was a very significant presence. The Tukish millitary prevented what happend to Iran. Religion based goverments simply dont work. There is no such thing as quiet coup. If Turkish Armed forces hated the kurds so much I dont think any Kurd would be alive today. As Turkish Army is ranked #11 among world armed forces derived from technology, man power, performance. --Coolcat 07:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dejitarob, perhaps you could as well cite a reference from a reputable source when claiming that Turkey had no constitution until 1982, because even the Ottoman Empire had numerous constitutions (1808, 1839 proclamations, and 1876 and 1909 constitutios), and the constitution of the Turkish Republic was shaped, signed and approved by the Ankara parliament even before the republic was proclaimed, in 1921. There were other constitutions before 1982: 1924 and 1961. It would be ridiculous to think of a republic without a constitution, wouldn't it? Also, let me remind you that as far as assassinations and military coups go, well the United States had a few assassinations, and Greece, Cyprus, Spain also had some coups.

Turkey had a constitution since it declared its independence. Anything before that is interesting but not Turkeys responsibility. --Coolcat 07:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A request for references claiming that comedy films did not ridicule Kurds is irrational. One certainly must ask for proof for the opposite, though. Someone who has to make any comments about those films ridiculing Kurds by mimicking their accents perhaps has to differentiate between a Kurdish accent and, say, a Sivas accent. --leandros 23:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Have you ever watched American comedians mock soultherners? Humor by definition finds what is funny. Any accent than the "regular" accent will be funny.

Subjective and Full of Hate

Article about Turkey,is subjective and anti-Turkish.This shows typical double-standart of the west.Andrew Jackson can kill Indians,Polk can kill Mexicans and steal the northern half of Mexico whose inhabitants were prodominantly Mexicans,Winston Churchill can crush Irish rebels(and Kurdish rebels in Iraq).When west does it,it is ok and it is always for the name of democracy,peace and prosperity.But when Turkey react against fundamentalist(not patriotic)rebellion(not supported by region people but the feces-eating British Empire),Turks are called Fascist killers. You can deny the Kurdish prime ministers,parliment members,rich businessmen,artists who enjoy their lives in Turkey.You can deny the region people who elect their own representetives in Turkey and cheer for 2 warlords as if they are the legal representetives in Northern Iraq. USSR was collapsed.Yugoslavia was collapsed.Iraq was collapsed.But make no mistake.Turkey is a legal country whose borders were not drawed by some politicians but by the bloods of heroic soldiers who died in the War of Independence.

Turkey drew its own borders. That makes them Uneque in the middle east (asside from Israel which also drew their borders, sort of) --Coolcat 07:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

@ Mr. Anonymous

I don't think that you can object to a single fact in the article. Didn't Sabiha Gokcen bomb Dersim? Didn't Bozkurt talk that way? You are not aware of even your own history. All you can do is mere jingoist propaganda but no mention of a denial of the material facts and quotes cited in the article. The article is full of historical evidence. And you, sir, on the contrary, just talk "westerners want to divide us", "all the world envies Turks", etc., etc, typical nationalistic (either of left or right variants) paranoia. You cannot stand the fact that someone talks about the reality. Please be strong enough to face some labour and try to read something else than your standard Turkish schoolbook text. - Bad Samaritan Mr Bad Samaritan

Well, I dont know where you are from and where you lived. I lived throughout the country in question. I am not a college professor who makes up random comments on things he really has any idea of. In Turkey a kurd was elected president. While Kurds want "rights" the right way to achive those is through democratic way called the parliment. Now if Kurds feel like burning turkish flags on their Party convention that makes poor publicity --Coolcat 07:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First of all I would like thank you for discussing this matter with me in such a kind language. I did NOT deny the reaction of Ankara government to the uprising.I am NOT a nationalist in a racist way but I am a defensive patriot against the enemies of my country.I served my country in the war against PKK.I saw my fellow soldiers killed by terrorists.I SAW the war.I can't be neutral because I am in the one side. Mr Bad Samaritan.Tell me one uprising in history whose aim is to divide a country,which is not responded by war.Even in the civil war,Northern Yankees crushed their Southern brothers. 600000 people died in American civil war.I will not deny Ankara made mistakes.Can you deny that there is a Kurdish elite who enjoy their life in Turkey?If you notice PKK terror started RIGHT AFTER GAP(South-Eastern Anatolia Project)started in 1984.GAP project is same as the TVA(Tennesse Valley PRoject)whose aim is to develop the poor region.If you know the area,there is NO terror in Gaziantep,Sanlıurfa and Diyarbakır whose population is %99 Kurd.Why?Because those people are happy with their life. My proof of "Westerners divide us"-theory is simple.The guns we got from the terrorists we captured,were made in the west;most of the countries who make them(ironicly)are NATO members who are supposed to be allies. Mr Bad Samaritan.You advise me to read something else.Ok I will.But I advise you to read history and especially people who uprose against Turks.-Preston @ Mr. Preston

The GAP project would benefit the kurds most. Primarily organisations like the PKK are responsible for the lack of progress.

Sir, first of all, I shall assert that I can understand your sentiments rooting from a violent past, sealed with a so-called "low intensity warfare" in the region. It is true that one may have shaped his/her political stand with an autobiographical background. However, what we have here is something utterly different from what you try to discuss. You admit that you can't be neutral in such a matter. Yes, nobody can, in such a matter so thoroughly political. What should be discussed is the "factual accuracy". You claim that "Northern Yankees" (by the way, there existed no "Southern Yankees" at all) crushed the South. Well, that's a historical fact. And I thought you could have gone further by mentioning the atrocities by General Sherman's troops. Now, we come to a point. This is the distinction between assertions and apology. What you are trying to do is simple and intrinsical apology. You claim that Ankara made "mistakes" (a discourse you could not hear in Turkey until recent times), that is to say, is justified for what she has done. And those "mistakes" are merely the facts themselves. In fact, you don't deny the facts, justify or - at times - criticise them. This attitude does have nothing to do with your objections. I mean, nobody in the US denies the Sherman atrocities but also nobody (at least with minimal mental sanity) tries to justify them. You may feel free to compare the case of Kurdistan to another case in the world (GAP to TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) or Kurdistan to Basque Country (remember Mrs. Çiller?)). But, I should say that each case is unique with its own particularities and peculiarities. Finally, Antep and Urfa were the powerbases of PKK prior to coup d'état. I prefer to stick to the point that you should read more. But the problem is that, sir, there are too much prejudices of you. First of all, you should get rid of the judgement that any Kurdish aspiration is necessarily an "act of terrorism". I think that is what the whole deal is all about. Best Regards - Bad Samaritan Mr.Bad Samaritan

It is nice to hear from you again.I'd like to clear out something and I'd like YOU clear out something if you please.I went to collage in the states.Then I served in the army 18 months (12 months in Hakkari).I am honest to myself and everyone else.I will and cannot change. First of all,I have no BIAS nor hatred to Kurdish people.I am not racist nor stupid so I have no hatred against to Greeks,Armenians,Jews as some idiots(I accept) in my country have. Mr Bad Samaritan.I'd like to know your ethnic background.Because while I was in collage,I saw and met people who have never been to Turkey,never met one single Turk in their life but hating Turks.Are you one of those people?Because after we met and knew each other,ALL of them changed their minds and stopped hating. But if you are a Kurd from the region,I will emphasize my statement "Ankara made mistakes".Ankara didn't make mistakes by trying to respond the civil war.Ankara did make mistakes by listening Kurdish feudals who think only themselves,not the region people.You know Ataturk tried to improve the region by building schools boys AND GİRLS(which was unthinkable in 1920's Islamic world). But after 1950,politicians became populist and gave up the healing the region.I believe everyone deserves What I am trying to say,"-Problem can be solved by school and business not by guns.But make no mistake.There won't be a Kurdistan in Eastern Turkey." There is a Turkish phrase."-Do you want to eat to grape?Do you want to beat the farmer?" What I really want to know "-Do you and WEST want to make conditions better for Kurds?Or do you want to divide Turkey as you wanted in 1920?"I welcome the first one by all means but forget the second one to the end of the world. One last thing.1-History repeats itself.2-People and politics are always same everywhere. With respect-Preston

I insist kurds are in general a peacefull group of people. An average Kurd living in turkey does not have claims for an independent state. i never met such a person and I moved around the country once every two years or so fourth. Any nation with a future will opose loosing terrioty. I honestly believe an independent kurdish state in the region would lead to a war at best. Instead of changing Law and order completely, kurds should use what they have. Turkey did not massacre the kurds. Saddam on the other hand did. Kurds should use democracy and diplomacy to achieve their goals. In diplomacy you dont get everything you want. You make comprimises. The system is based on finding something that benefits both sides. Any attempt to take more than you give will not work as thats a one sided deal that hurts the other party. --Coolcat 07:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The facts represented here point out only to a small faction and being deliberately tried to be shown as this small faction is the main and only driving force, therefore misrepresenting the facts by what we call a biased perspective. Let's suppose Bozkurt uttered those, so what? I can quote only the Kurds who are fascist and show that the aim of Kurds is to terorrize and exterminate different races/groups (which actually is not the case where most people fall in this fallacy, and not only for Kurds) This is not the way an encyclopedia presents the facts. Many people like Bozkurt may have said so many things but the main course of the Turkish government was not and is not how he "aimed" it would be. (Still I could not be able to find a resource to validate his speech, can anyone tell me one?) Also it can easily be seen from only the "Great Turkish Race" theme that the user tried his/her best to misrepresent the facts by trying to show people defending their country as fascists. That's why there is a huge difference between encyclopedic representing of facts and biased representing of facts.kunefge 00:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)