Quote: Originally Posted by
Shawn_7 
To deny that a problem exists does not solve the problem. Obvious, is it not? So to deny that Kurdistan and Kurdish people exist does not solve the Kurdish issue.
At the same time, to deny the Armenian Genocide does not delete the Armenian Genocide. This is obvious too. The right comparison, I think. There is an historical accurate documentary on this matter (beside 2006 documentary), it's called Grandma's Tattoos and was shot by the Armenian-Swedish director Suzanne Khardalian
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/grandmas-tattoos/
Let's say it's like when USSR denied the Katyn Massacre. USSR denied that there had been a massacre until Gorbachev admitted it in 1990-91.
So well, in your opinion Kurdistan does not exist and Kurdish people are not a people.
I see. Nothing to add, in this case.
Shawn, as usual you take my comments and put the most extreme spin possible on them.
I never said there was no such thing as a Kurdish people, or even a Kurdish identity. I said there was no such thing as a definitely definable Kurdistan. I'm going to repeat myself here: There were Kurds, but they were like the Bedouins, a bunch of nomadic tribes that roamed around a particular area that had no cities, no centralized government and no defined borders.
And, if you look at the Bedouins, they roamed the entire Arabian peninsula. There is a Bedouin people, a Bedouin culture, and even a common language (although it may just be a dialect of Arabic). But, there is no Bedouinia, or Bedouinistan. Why not? Does that mean that Bedouins don't exist?
I don't deny that there is a Kurdish problem. But the problem is not what you seem to think it is. The issues you are talking about are not the issues the majority of the Kurds want fixed. The majority wants to be able to use their native tongue on official documents and have it taught in schools as a second official language. Kind of like Basque in Spain, or Spanish in America. And they want the right to have print and broadcast media (TV and radio) in that language as well. Both of these issues are being worked, but the PKK terrorists are hindering rather than helping things. I already mentioned that they have a level of autonomy, because they get to elect all their own local officials, and regional governors. True, they have to govern inside the Turkish framework, but it's better than having their local officials appointed by the Turks.
It's the PKK, like ETA in Spain, who want their own separate country. The average Kurd knows exactly what will happen if the PKK gets what it wants. A worse situation then what they have how, run by ruthless dictators. Not the quiet peaceful country the PKK advertises that it wants, because that's just their PKK propaganda.
I mean, any large group that thinks the right way to win what they want is to specifically target women and children with their attacks, has given an indication of the type of government they will impose. And, as I used in an earlier example, any group that gathers "support" by robbing the people they are supposedly supporting, has made it clear what type of "democracy" they can look forward to.
Two premises you may want to argue against, so I'll give more detail on them now.
One, how can the PKK be hindering increased rights for the Kurds? Simple, you go as a group to the government, and through standard political means, ask for something you feel is a right. But, while you're asking, and the government is considering your request, another group enters the picture. They claim to also represent you, but while you're trying to talk, they're throwing rocks at the government representatives, and demanding even more concessions from the government. How long do you think it takes before the government tells both groups to go F themselves? And when the government does that, the rock throwers say "see, just like we told you, the government will never give us our rights". An even bigger problem is that the talkers won't denounce the rock throwers as being terrorists, because both groups are Kurds. That, and the Kurdish talkers fear they will be the next target if they denounce the rock throwers.
As for the PKK specifically targeting women and children, I'm not saying that's all they are targeting. They do target military and police establishments as well. But, when you set off a bomb in the center of the market district in the middle of the week, who do you think the bombs will kill? Turkey, like most middle-eastern countries, has large open air markets. And, like most middle-eastern countries, the women do most of the shopping. So, if you set off a bomb in the busiest section of the market, while most men are at work, who do you think it would kill? And, since the PKK obviously knows this, setting off bombs in these areas amounts to targeting women and children.
So, that's the Kurdish situation. The majority don't want what you think they want. A violent minority are the one's who want that, because they will be the one's in charge if they get what they want. And, if they do become the leaders of a new "Kurdistan", the average Kurd will be worse off than they are today, because they've proven what kind of leaders they will be. Try looking at both sides of the issue, not just the PKK propaganda you see on Roj TV.
I don't know how the Armenian issue ended up in here, but I'll address it anyway. It was a tragedy, but it was in no way, shape or form, genocide. During WW I, the Turks were fighting against the Russians. During these fights, certain groups of Armenians took up arms and attacked the Turkish forces from behind (a bid for autonomy maybe). Those attacks failed, but of course they pissed the Turks off.
Now, the Turks could have killed them all, but even they felt it would be a massacre and even genocide. Instead, they told all the Armenian inhabitants of that region that they were no longer welcome in Turkey, since they had tried to back stab them. And, they force marched all those people to the Turkish border and left them there. But, the only Armenians they force marched were those from that particular region. They didn't go to other regions of Turkey and force the Armenians there to move, and there was no systematic plan to ensure the Armenians died. They just wanted the traitorous back stabbers from that region out of their country.
Yes, people died, and it was a tragedy. But, since the entire population of that region was only a little over 1 million people, and 90% of them survived, claims of 1.2 million deaths are a gross exaggeration. Official Turkish records show somewhere between 100,000-150,000 deaths. Still a whole hell of a lot of people. The march was very poorly planned, without enough supplies to ensure things went smoothly. But this was a war torn country at the time, so supplies for traitors to the Turkish people were not a high priority.
To claim genocide, you have to prove a systematic effort to eliminate a particular group of people. Just the fact that only the Armenians from the region that rose up and attacked the Turkish forces from behind were forcibly deported already disproves the genocide claim. Armenians from areas that didn't rise up were not deported. And, the fact that they didn't kill them outright, just took them to the border and told them never to come back, also disproves the genocide claim. As I said before, poorly planned, and poorly executed, but not an attempt at genocide, just an attempt to deport a large number of people who had risen up against the Turkish government.
All of this could easily be proven, if the Armenian Diaspora would allow it to be debated or verified by an outside entity. But Yerevan has said that before they will open their records, and allow them to be compared to the Turkish records, Turkey must first admit that it was genocide. That's like saying to someone that before they can go to court to prove their innocence, they must first plead guilty to all charges against them. The Armenians, having more global influence, are pushing their side of the story. The Turks are trying to tell their side, and prove it too, but no one can hear them over all the yelling the Armenians are doing.
Like I've said before Shawn, although not in these words, don't just jump on the bandwagon of the people who are yelling the loudest. Listen to the stories from both sides of an issue before you jump to judge. Neither side may be telling the 100% truth, and the truth may be somewhere between the two. And, that's what you have a brain for, to listen to both sides, and figure out the truth yourself, not take what only one side is feeding you...
:)
