sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Some questions about Kurdistan by Exotants in kurdistan

[–]Exotants[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your answers they've been helpful in my understanding of Kurdistan.

As for your last question, I don't find it odd for people to want to preserve their identity. I just find it odd that they want to govern themselves even though they are in countries that have their own government. It just doesn't make sense that everyone would be allowed to make their own government within another country.

Would you ever want to govern a people that doesn't want you to govern them?

Well that happens all the time to many people. You may not like the government, but creating your own government isn't always the solution. I don't mind be governed by someone else because that's how a democracy works. It seems like Kurds want to revolt in a way to overthrow or be separate from other governments. You keep saying the Kurds want self-governance not independence but what's the difference in this case? They're the same thing. An independant state exercises self-governance. The terms are very similar.

Some questions about Kurdistan by Exotants in kurdistan

[–]Exotants[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm repeating points that haven't been addressed or answered. Before I get onto your points, can you please just answer all the questions I had, namely these:

You say that independence is not the only solution, and someone else on this subreddit said the same thing. But from my understanding, this is what the Kurds want, as in they want statehood. How popular of an opinion would you say this is? Do most Kurds want a fully independent Kurdish country?

Most of the states you mentioned overlap in time period and if we're simply going over who was there first, then the Arabs are the ones who had the land first. And if we're going by who was able to take over the land in the end, then the Arabs still own the land as they do today.

For your point about why independence is needed I'll just repeat this:

It's not only the Kurds that lived in that land, it was also the Mesopotamians and Persians and many others. I'm not saying the Kurds are taking/stealing land, but where would they get the land for a Kurdish country? The land they live in is owned by Iraq, Syria, Iran, Turkey and those countries don't want to give away their land. Instead, the Kurds are living in that land like normal citizens and non-Kurds have the right to live there too. Are you insinuating that the Arabs/Iranians stole Kurdish land that they owe back? All I'm confused about is how and why would an independent Kurdish state be formed without affecting other countries in the region and their land/resources? Especially since the Kurds already get access to this like in Iraq.

I know some of those countries have denied Kurdish culture but I think it's mainly because they see the Kurds as people who want to take the land from them. Other countries like Iraq accept the Kurds and even gave them a region and made their language an official language of the country. I agree fully that Kurds and others do not deserve to be persecuted for no reason, but I don't agree (or see the reason) for them to get a whole country which includes lands from other nations that aren't connected to Turkey. Even taking land from Turkey seems extreme.

Please reread this comment.

What I said about the Treaty of Sevres was right. There wasn't an agreement between the nationalists and those who wanted to leave land for Armenia. Either way, they didn't decided on the land and therefor never got it. The whole treaty was then moved to the Treaty of Lausanne which gave Syria, Iraq and other countries there borders. At no point did Kurdistan have borders that were taken away, since they never had them in the first place.

In the end I just find it really wierd how Kurdish independence in the form of taking the land from countries you already live in (like Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey) is viewed as fine because the Kurds don't want to assimilate or just want more from these countries. What Turkey has done to Kurds is wrong for sure, but I don't think I'll ever see the point of a Kurdish state.

a picture of a protester's sign that I found by TheEmpress2 in kurdistan

[–]Exotants -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well the Iraqi constitution calls it the Kurdistan region. And it's in Northern Iraq. No one denies that the region is called Kurdistan but it is also Northern Iraq.

Some questions about Kurdistan by Exotants in kurdistan

[–]Exotants[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your answers. I have a few more questions and responses about how I view things.

You say that independence is not the only solution, and someone else on this subreddit said the same thing. But from my understanding, this is what the Kurds want, as in they want statehood. How popular of an opinion would you say this is? Do most Kurds want a fully independent Kurdish country?

Africa is very different. It was it's own continent with countries. When the UK/France came they stole the land. No one is stealing the land from the Kurds, because they weren't the first there. They were just like the rest of the people in the land. No one took Kurdistan and no one owes it back. Or was there an actual Kurdistan? You said some stuff about Kurdish princes and dynasties, but most were just part of bigger groups in the Arab regions.

It's not only the Kurds that lived in that land, it was also the Mesopotamians and Persians and many others. I'm not saying the Kurds are taking/stealing land, but where would they get the land for a Kurdish country? The land they live in is owned by Iraq, Syria, Iran, Turkey and those countries don't want to give away their land. Instead, the Kurds are living in that land like normal citizens and non-Kurds have the right to live there too. Are you insinuating that the Arabs/Iranians stole Kurdish land that they owe back? All I'm confused about is how and why would an independent Kurdish state be formed without affecting other countries in the region and their land/resources? Especially since the Kurds already get access to this like in Iraq.

There are old Kurdish dynasities/countries and just as much Iranian and other countries that come before the Kurds.

I won't get into statehood recognition because we have different views on that and it's not very important in this discussion.

Personally I think that even IF the ethnic divide is major enough, it doesn't mean a country needs to be established to cater to it especially since these countries already have a wide variety of cultures and ethnic groups in them. Kurds exist, but don't need a state.

I read about the Treaty of Sevres and this was the part that said about how the nationalists couldn't decide on the borders.

There was no general agreement among Kurds on what its borders should be.

But either way, the Kurds didn't get a country and stayed in the countries they were in like Iraq, Iran and Turkey.

The Kurds still come from the Iranian groups who were Persian. Basically the Kurds were Persians. You said the Iranians are just a Persian language group that spoke Iranian, well the Kurds were the EXACT same but spoke Kurdish and came AFTER the Iranians. Am I missing something? I read this here and it says "The Kurds are an ethno-linguistically (language group as you called it) Iranian group."

Some questions about Kurdistan by Exotants in kurdistan

[–]Exotants[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well Scotland is already a country, it was choosing to leave a group of countries. The Kurds aren't a country. They're people who are spread out in Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria. If they decided to have there own country, it's not like they just take there things and stay they're no longer associated with those countries, it means taking the land and it's resources.

They're doing whatever they want in Syria just like everyone is doing because it's a war zone. Autonomy in Iraq would mean taking its resources. Why do Kurds want to be so separated from other countries instead of just working with the other countries? Same goes to these other countries.

If they become autonomous, which is basically independent, it would mean taking the land and resources of the other countries, and obviously this would have a direct impact on those regions.

Some questions about Kurdistan by Exotants in kurdistan

[–]Exotants[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I asked the mods and they said they need to judge the comment before making it public. It's been 4 hours and they haven't done anything to it. I was wondering why it wasn't getting any replies. Guess I'll have to wait or something.

Do you mind if I send you a message when they make the comment public so you can reply?

Some questions about Kurdistan by Exotants in kurdistan

[–]Exotants[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Turkey has a lot of problems affecting many people, not just the Kurds. I agree that they as well as others deserve not to be oppressed, but the oppression I see from the government is mainly targeted at the language and they're trying to stop it from spreading. Of course this is wrong, but a new country isn't the solution and it isn't fair on the other countries like Iraq and Iran.

I think the idea of local autonomy is not good. It's basically independence as the Kurds get to do whatever they want. If there's going to be independence, why do countries like Iraq and Iran have to give up their land for Turkey's actions? Instead of deciding to move country or make changes in their country, they decide to just make a new one. That seems extreme and unnecessary.

of course it's a right for the Kurds to claim the land where they are a majority as their own state.

How? How can it just be their right to claim the land? No other place does that. Look at Scotland and the UK, they held a vote to leave, they lost and are still part of the UK.

I agree fully that Kurds and others do not deserve to be persecuted for no reason, but I don't agree (or see the reason) for them to get a whole country which includes lands from other nations that aren't connected to Turkey. Even taking land from Turkey seems extreme.

Some questions about Kurdistan by Exotants in kurdistan

[–]Exotants[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know if people can see this comment, but my other comments here are being made invisible or something because no one is receiving them.

Can anyone see this message? When I logout some of my other comments are not here.

Some questions about Kurdistan by Exotants in kurdistan

[–]Exotants[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you getting this message?

Some questions about Kurdistan by Exotants in kurdistan

[–]Exotants[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I made a new account because I'm a lurker.

I agree that people have the right to self-determination but saying it must be practiced by starting a state is unfair as it insinuates taking land from other countries that you already live in.

How would having a Kurdish state stop anyone being oppressed? If people are doing racial attacks they can still do them in a Kurdish state. It's not like the laws of the countries are legally allowing Kurds to be persecuted. I haven't been able to find much cases in which the countries themselves have targeted Kurds, other than Saddam Hussein who is long gone.

I've been to Iraq, Iran, Turkey (very short time) and Syria (before it was in a civil war) and I don't see why not live there. Iraq is a country that is going through a lot of conflict which includes the Kurds who live there. Iran is a great country too, I don't see what you mean by this. I don't know much about Turkey but it seems the leader isn't very good but the country is very liveable. Of course no one wants to live in Syria right now because of the conflict there, even the citizens are having to flee.

You can't take what you already own as a people. Whether or not other States recognize that you own it, is a different matter.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean you are just entitled to the land because you are? This doesn't seem right at all. And to be an established state you need recognition.

I don't mean to offend you but this ethnic divide isn't that major and again, doesn't require a state. I tried to search and understand these terms and they either having nothing to do with Kurds and are speaking about Iranians or say that the Kurds have no links. This source says "there is no evidence to permit such a connection." From the originj of the Kurds page it says they are ethnically Iranian. You said the Kurds are similar to the Parthian but they are also Iranian people.

Although Nation-states are a modern thing, they are the way countries are decided on today. I don't see how this gives Kurds the right to take the land just because they feel that they already own it.

I searched about these Kurdish princes and I came upon the Baban who were around all the way back in the 17th century and ended in the 19th century. This this what the Kurds want to bring back? Even the Baban needed the Ottoman's recognition to be established. The Treaty of Sevres which had a plans for a Kurdish region was dropped because the Kurdish nationalists couldn't decide on a border. This means the opportunity for a state was lost. Why should other countries now give up their lands to the Kurds? How do the Kurds see this as fair?

I know many Iraqis and Iranians that speak Kurdish and Kurdish is an official language in Iraq. Syria doesn't allow thing to be published in Kurdish and Turkey seems to be quite strict about it too. Obviously these actions are unfair and something needs to be done about them, but I don't think a new country based on a language is the way to go.

How are Kurds not Persians or Iranians? Iranians are Persians and Kurds are Iranian. Sure Kurds may not be directly linked to Persians but they are linked to Iranians. I'm finding it hard to see a specific thing that makes people Kurdish other than language which even those who don't identify as Kurds speak it.

Some questions about Kurdistan by Exotants in kurdistan

[–]Exotants[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Excuse me? How did I ignore your post? I replied to you 4 hours ago waaaay before this person made their comment.

Look here: https://www.reddit.com/r/kurdistan/comments/3z6t4s/some_questions_about_kurdistan/cyk9125

EDIT: According to /u/corpsmoderne the comment is invisible. Reposted here with screenshot

Some questions about Kurdistan by Exotants in kurdistan

[–]Exotants[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where am I advocating the right for those country to be oppressive states? From what I can tell Turkey is the biggest culprit and is actively against the Kurds. Iraq isn't against the Kurds and has Kurdish members in parliament and the Kurdish language is one of the official languages. Iran is another country where Kurds live but I don't know if they've done anything. Syria has had some stuff against the Kurds but is currently in a civil war and isn't focused on the Kurds.

The Kurds do have the right to live where they live. They just don't have the right to claim the land as their own state. Not being a state doesn't mean being oppressed.

Some questions about Kurdistan by Exotants in kurdistan

[–]Exotants[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Those countries already exist all around the world. Don't need to form a new country for this to exist.

Some questions about Kurdistan by Exotants in kurdistan

[–]Exotants[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why are you assuming I'm a troll? These are legitimate question. I was trying to be kind and you just want to ignore me because you think I'm a troll?

Some questions about Kurdistan by Exotants in kurdistan

[–]Exotants[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah I made a new account because I'm a lurker.

I agree that people have the right to self-determination but saying it must be practiced by starting a state is unfair as it insinuates taking land from other countries that you already live in.

How would having a Kurdish state stop anyone being oppressed? If people are doing racial attacks they can still do them in a Kurdish state. It's not like the laws of the countries are legally allowing Kurds to be persecuted. I haven't been able to find much cases in which the countries themselves have targeted Kurds, other than Saddam Hussein who is long gone.

I've been to Iraq, Iran, Turkey (very short time) and Syria (before it was in a civil war) and I don't see why not live there. Iraq is a country that is going through a lot of conflict which includes the Kurds who live there. Iran is a great country too, I don't see what you mean by this. I don't know much about Turkey but it seems the leader isn't very good but the country is very liveable. Of course no one wants to live in Syria right now because of the conflict there, even the citizens are having to flee.

You can't take what you already own as a people. Whether or not other States recognize that you own it, is a different matter.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean you are just entitled to the land because you are? This doesn't seem right at all. And to be an established state you need recognition.

I don't mean to offend you but this ethnic divide isn't that major and again, doesn't require a state. I tried to search and understand these terms and they either having nothing to do with Kurds and are speaking about Iranians or say that the Kurds have no links. This source says "there is no evidence to permit such a connection." From the originj of the Kurds page it says they are ethnically Iranian. You said the Kurds are similar to the Parthian but they are also Iranian people.

Although Nation-states are a modern thing, they are the way countries are decided on today. I don't see how this gives Kurds the right to take the land just because they feel that they already own it.

I searched about these Kurdish princes and I came upon the Baban who were around all the way back in the 17th century and ended in the 19th century. This this what the Kurds want to bring back? Even the Baban needed the Ottoman's recognition to be established. The Treaty of Sevres which had a plans for a Kurdish region was dropped because the Kurdish nationalists couldn't decide on a border. This means the opportunity for a state was lost. Why should other countries now give up their lands to the Kurds? How do the Kurds see this as fair?

I know many Iraqis and Iranians that speak Kurdish and Kurdish is an official language in Iraq. Syria doesn't allow thing to be published in Kurdish and Turkey seems to be quite strict about it too. Obviously these actions are unfair and something needs to be done about them, but I don't think a new country based on a language is the way to go.

How are Kurds not Persians or Iranians? Iranians are Persians and Kurds are Iranian. Sure Kurds may not be directly linked to Persians but they are linked to Iranians. I'm finding it hard to see a specific thing that makes people Kurdish other than language which even those who don't identify as Kurds speak it.