Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Russia bombed SDF targets today, after the SDF made a statement that they would not LET the SAA cross the euphrates river. I know Kurds haven't been well treated under Baathist regimes before, but they are pretty much allowing themselves to be exploited for imperialist and Zionist ambitions to weaken Syria, if that's the case, they should get ready to be bombed, you cannot impede the progress of the SAA. No wonder Turkey doesn't trust them. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-sdf/jets-strike-u-s-backed-forces-in-eastern-syria-idUSKCN1BR09K?il=0.

[Mod Note: Topic title changed.]

Edited by ShiaChat Mod
To add the Mod Note.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran, Iraq, Turkey, the three major Kurd population holders won't allow it to happen. Iran and Iraq because they won't let another Israel be planted next to their borders (recent statement of IRI FM), Turks won't allow it because if it happens, 1/3rd of Turkish territory could be claimed to be the future part of Kurdistan. Russians don't like it because of instability closer to its borders and also because they have already wasted enough resources on countering other stooges of the West in their immediate neighborhood.

Google Pepe Escobar or M.P. Bahadurkumar for excellent analysis of why Kurds are being used only to foment more chaos in the ME and would be abandoned as soon as it won't remain convenient for he West to play spoiler. Central theme, ISIS is out, AQ is sort of dead, on who else to milk Wahabi oil money and feed the war machine of the West, Kurds fit right in. 

Political sands are shifting fast in general in favor of the Shia / Resistance in ME which obviously didn't come cheap to Shia. Earlier this month, BNY came empty handed from Russian visit where he demanded Putin to keep Shia legions 60 miles off of the border of Israel. The chosen ones are not used to hear no until recently. Those who used to consider themselves unapproachable five years ago are being equalized in the world of politics as the influence of the West is waning rapidly. Syrian war has fundamentally shaken the world order that was established after the end of Cold War (see Asia Times op ed 9/15/2017). 

Bottom line - Kurdistan won't happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

How can one justify promoting a Palestinian State while advocating against a Kurdish State?

The British and the French have been blamed for almost 100 years for dividing up the Middle East along somewhat arbitrary lines after World War I and the fall of the Ottoman Empire.  But now, when an ethnic group whats to reverse this and regain control of their native land they are met with resistance by State's that have pointed their finger at Britain and France for years.  :confused:

All the Best,

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David66 said:

How can one justify promoting a Palestinian State while advocating against a Kurdish State?

 

Oh the irony, how can one justify denying a Palestinian state while promoting a Kurdish one, you should really ask the Israelis this. I don't agree with the two-state solution, I support a single-state with appropriate rights for everyone living in that land, that's what I advocate in Syria, Iraq, Iran or anywhere else in the world, division sows hatred and enmity, the two-state experiment (or the lack of one) in Israel/Palestine has shown that segregation only fosters antagonistic attitudes, which governments then exploit to keep people fearful and promote their own agendas.

2 hours ago, David66 said:

But now, when an ethnic group whats to reverse this and regain control of their native land they are met with resistance by State's that have pointed their finger at Britain and France for years

Breaking up states is an extension of Sykes-Picot btw, and only serves an imperialist agenda of weakening countries the imperial powers don't like. It is better to have united countries where all people can have their rights protected, breaking them up will create more instability and more war, not what the region needs right now.  

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

50 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Breaking up states is an extension of Sykes-Picot btw, and only serves an imperialist agenda of weakening countries the imperial powers don't like. It is better to have united countries where all people can have their rights protected, breaking them up will create more instability and more war, not what the region needs right now.  

Do you think this is possible in the Middle East?

All the Best,

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, David66 said:

Do you think this is possible in the Middle East?

 

Eventually. The alternative would be to split things up but then have disputes about territory, oil, resources, and be in perpetual conflict forever. With the right leadership and the right education systems implemented, its possible. These nations haven't been independent for very long, and they've constantly had foreign interference from different parties, if left alone and given time, I think it will happen eventually. Let's not forget that the European nations for a long time were not peaceful countries, they had brutal wars with one another, as did the US with its civil rights movement. People evolve, cultures evolve. The crazy Wahhabi interpretations though need to be done away with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2017 at 4:33 PM, Irfani313 said:

Iran, Iraq, Turkey, the three major Kurd population holders won't allow it to happen. Iran and Iraq because they won't let another Israel be planted next to their borders (recent statement of IRI FM), Turks won't allow it because if it happens, 1/3rd of Turkish territory could be claimed to be the future part of Kurdistan. Russians don't like it because of instability closer to its borders and also because they have already wasted enough resources on countering other stooges of the West in their immediate neighborhood.

Google Pepe Escobar or M.P. Bahadurkumar for excellent analysis of why Kurds are being used only to foment more chaos in the ME and would be abandoned as soon as it won't remain convenient for he West to play spoiler. Central theme, ISIS is out, AQ is sort of dead, on who else to milk Wahabi oil money and feed the war machine of the West, Kurds fit right in. 

Political sands are shifting fast in general in favor of the Shia / Resistance in ME which obviously didn't come cheap to Shia. Earlier this month, BNY came empty handed from Russian visit where he demanded Putin to keep Shia legions 60 miles off of the border of Israel. The chosen ones are not used to hear no until recently. Those who used to consider themselves unapproachable five years ago are being equalized in the world of politics as the influence of the West is waning rapidly. Syrian war has fundamentally shaken the world order that was established after the end of Cold War (see Asia Times op ed 9/15/2017). 

Bottom line - Kurdistan won't happen. 

What does "another Israel won't happen" mean? 

You should also see the news, the referendum is happening tommorrow. Iraq has threatened invasion, Turkey and Iran have. Yet none seem to be preparing for it, empty rhetoric I'd imagine. 

Edited by Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2017 at 11:35 PM, Mohamed1993 said:

 

Breaking up states is an extension of Sykes-Picot btw, and only serves an imperialist agenda of weakening countries the imperial powers don't like. It is better to have united countries where all people can have their rights protected, breaking them up will create more instability and more war, not what the region needs right now.  

That makes no logical sense whatsoever. The Sykes-Picot agreement essentially drew the borders of the Middle-east that exist today. How can it serve the "imperialist agenda" when it is inherently anti-imperialist?

Quote

Oh the irony, how can one justify denying a Palestinian state while promoting a Kurdish one, you should really ask the Israelis this. I don't agree with the two-state solution, I support a single-state with appropriate rights for everyone living in that land, that's what I advocate in Syria, Iraq, Iran or anywhere else in the world, division sows hatred and enmity, the two-state experiment (or the lack of one) in Israel/Palestine has shown that segregation only fosters antagonistic attitudes, which governments then exploit to keep people fearful and promote their own agendas.

It's actually typical double-standards that comes from Palestine independence supporters. They support Palestinian self-determination but not Kurdish self-determination. 

Edited by Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

That makes no logical sense whatsoever.

It does, breaking up states is part of imperialist agendas to weaken countries, they don't care about Kurds whatsoever, the fact that Kurds don't see this makes them incredibly naive. A region rife with more instability than it already has isn't what anyone need, and who do you think such instability benefits? If people thought more logically and less along the lines of mine and your homeland, we wouldn't allow neo-colonialists to divide us, unfortunately many don't seem to recognise this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

It's actually typical double-standards that comes from Palestine independence supporters. They support Palestinian self-determination but not Kurdish self-determination. 

Yeah and the Kurds keep waving the Israeli flag, where is their respect for Palestinian self-determination then? And, I don't support a two-state solution, so the argument is in vain. We call for democratic states everywhere, why must the Middle East be different? When the borders were drawn, an injustice was done, but now that it's done, you only sow more hatred, division and instability by further splitting up land. 

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mohamed1993,

First of please change the topic title, I've already reported it. It is racist and you should be ashamed of that.

Quote

It does, breaking up states is part of imperialist agendas to weaken countries,

There is literally no relationship bewteen this statement and Kurdistan. The main reason being is practically the entirety of the west and everyone else opposes the Kurdish referendum. That includes the USA. 

Furthermore, what relationship with imperialism does this have? 

Quote

they don't care about Kurds whatsoever,

Who is the "they" exactly?

Quote

A region rife with more instability than it already has isn't what anyone need, and who do you think such instability benefits?

In what way would it become more "instable"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mohamed1993 said:

Yeah and the Kurds keep waving the Israeli flag, where is their respect for Palestinian self-determination then? And, I don't support a two-state solution, so the argument is in vain. 

Can you show me a statistic of the number of Kurds waving israeli flags? If you are basing that off pictures, then it is entirely unscientific and anecdotal. Plus what does it matter what flag they wave?

If you don't support a two-state solution, you are once again contradicting yourself. You are denying the self-determination of Jews to wanting an independent state of their own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

@Mohamed1993,

First of please change the topic title, I've already reported it. It is racist and you should be ashamed of that.

There is literally no relationship bewteen this statement and Kurdistan. The main reason being is practically the entirety of the west and everyone else opposes the Kurdish referendum. That includes the USA. 

Furthermore, what relationship with imperialism does this have? 

Who is the "they" exactly?

In what way would it become more "instable"? 

You are literally preventing the army of a sovereign state from reclaiming its land, you will be attacked if you prevent this. Can you imagine black people in America forming a group and preventing the army from accessing its own land, what would the response be? 

It would create more instability because it would be a state surrounded by hostile neighbours and you can bet Israel will exploit this fully to weaken the countries it doesn't like. The main country that wants Kurdish separatism is Israel, and why? You think they care about Kurdish self-determination? No, they don't, they want to use Kurds as tools to fulfil their own agenda of dividing up states and weakening them. Israel relies on destabilising neighbours that are hostile towards its policies towards the Palestinians.

4 minutes ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

If you don't support a two-state solution, you are once again contradicting yourself. You are denying the self-determination of Jews to wanting an independent state of their own

Well so you do support Israel then after claiming its anecdotal that they wave Israeli flags? Because you believe in Jewish self-determination. I don't. We call for democratic states everywhere except in Israel/Palestine and Iraq/Kurdistan, why? Can't we all live together, instead of forming states based on identity? It's like saying black people in America should have their own state, Hispanics should have their own state. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

Plus what does it matter what flag they wave?

It matters because you point out my hypocrisy, isn't it hypocritical of the Kurds to wave the flag of a country that denies rights to millions of people? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mohamed1993

Quote

You are literally preventing the army of a sovereign state from reclaiming its land, you will be attacked if you prevent this

Who has given the Syrian state sovereignty to begin with? Also, when does a state legitmately lose sovereignty? 

Quote

Can you imagine black people in America forming a group and preventing the army from accessing its own land, what would the response be? 

In the instance of them being slaves and forcefully trying to free themselves through the use of arms, then yes I can. The Kurds in Syria have been historically and institutionally repressed. The Qamishli riots in 2004 is a prime example of this, read about it here: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/syria1109webwcover_0.pdf

Quote

In March 2004, Syria’s Kurds held large-scale demonstrations, some violent, in a number of
towns and villages throughout northern Syria, to protest their treatment by the Syrian
authorities—the first time they had held such massive demonstrations in the country. While
the protests occurred as an immediate response to the shooting by security forces of Kurdish
soccer fans engaged in a fight with Arab supporters of a rival team, they were driven by longsimmering
Kurdish grievances about discrimination against their community and repression
of their political and cultural rights. 

 

Quote

It would create more instability because it would be a state surrounded by hostile neighbours and you can bet Israel will exploit this fully to weaken the countries it doesn't like.

That isn't the fault of Kurds, that is the fault of the nation-states occupying what is Kurdistan. What relevance does this have to do with Israel? Once again...

 

Quote

 The main country that wants Kurdish separatism is Israel, and why? You think they care about Kurdish self-determination? No, they don't, they want to use Kurds as tools to fulfil their own agenda of dividing up states and weakening them. Israel relies on destabilising neighbours that are hostile towards its policies towards the Palestinians.

I never said they did and I am going to state again that is it entirely irrelevant to the discussion. The USA are against the referendum and yet the USA are allied to Israel. What is your point exactly? 

Quote

Well so you do support Israel then after claiming its anecdotal that they wave Israeli flags? Because you believe in Jewish self-determination. I don't. We call for democratic states everywhere except in Israel/Palestine and Iraq/Kurdistan, why? Can't we all live together, instead of forming states based on identity? It's like saying black people in America should have their own state, Hispanics should have their own state. 

Yet you support a Palestianian state... You realise that is an entirely contradictory position to have. You cannot claim to be anti-statist whilst attempt to defend the national integrity of states. 

Quote

It matters because you point out my hypocrisy, isn't it hypocritical of the Kurds to wave the flag of a country that denies rights to millions of people? 

You continue to generalise and refuse to provide evidence the majority of Kurds do this. What evidence do you have the majority of Kurds do do this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Mohamed1993 said:

Russia bombed SDF targets today, after the SDF made a statement that they would not LET the SAA cross the euphrates river. I know Kurds haven't been well treated under Baathist regimes before, but they are pretty much allowing themselves to be exploited for imperialist and Zionist ambitions to weaken Syria, if that's the case, they should get ready to be bombed, you cannot impede the progress of the SAA. No wonder Turkey doesn't trust them. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-sdf/jets-strike-u-s-backed-forces-in-eastern-syria-idUSKCN1BR09K?il=0.

What is problem if kurds want to live independently. Why should one force to subjugate others. 

Does it indirectly means the Iraqi are not good that made kurds to demand for separation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Irfani313 said:

Iran, Iraq, Turkey, the three major Kurd population holders won't allow it to happen. Iran and Iraq because they won't let another Israel be planted next to their borders (recent statement of IRI FM), Turks won't allow it because if it happens, 1/3rd of Turkish territory could be claimed to be the future part of Kurdistan. Russians don't like it because of instability closer to its borders and also because they have already wasted enough resources on countering other stooges of the West in their immediate neighborhood.

Google Pepe Escobar or M.P. Bahadurkumar for excellent analysis of why Kurds are being used only to foment more chaos in the ME and would be abandoned as soon as it won't remain convenient for he West to play spoiler. Central theme, ISIS is out, AQ is sort of dead, on who else to milk Wahabi oil money and feed the war machine of the West, Kurds fit right in. 

Political sands are shifting fast in general in favor of the Shia / Resistance in ME which obviously didn't come cheap to Shia. Earlier this month, BNY came empty handed from Russian visit where he demanded Putin to keep Shia legions 60 miles off of the border of Israel. The chosen ones are not used to hear no until recently. Those who used to consider themselves unapproachable five years ago are being equalized in the world of politics as the influence of the West is waning rapidly. Syrian war has fundamentally shaken the world order that was established after the end of Cold War (see Asia Times op ed 9/15/2017). 

Bottom line - Kurdistan won't happen. 

What is problem if kurds want to live independently. Why should one force to subjugate others. 

Does it indirectly means the Iraqi are not good that made kurds to demand for separation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

Yet you support a Palestianian state

I don't, I support a democratic state where Jews will have a vote too. Call it whatever you want.

18 minutes ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

Who has given the Syrian state sovereignty to begin with? Also, when does a state legitmately lose sovereignty? 

in that case, who gave any nation state sovereignty? People who've been oppressed through slavery and racism in the US can fight the state to undo all those years of discrimination? Would you be ok with this? I realize how injustices were done when nations were colonized and stuff but how do you maintain order and undo every injustice that was done? You want chaos everywhere, that's fine, I personally believe we have to deal with what we have now, learn to live together as equal citizens.

18 minutes ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

That isn't the fault of Kurds

Allowing yourself to be used by a state that denies rights to millions while wanting your own rights to be a free state is hypocritical. According to wikileaks the Kurds even cooperated with Israel frequently. An oppressed people cooperating with an oppressor leads to a lack of trust for their aspirations. https://wikileaks.org/berats-box/emailid/18426

18 minutes ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

The USA are against the referendum and yet the USA are allied to Israel. What is your point exactly? 

The above. Cooperating with oppressors while claiming to be oppressed makes me skeptical of how noble the claims of independence are. You may want independence but then if you use that independence to cooperate with an oppressor to weaken the oppressor's enemies then I find that difficult to support. Colonialism ruled through divide and conquer, more division will ensure more instability. 

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, islam25 said:

What is problem if kurds want to live independently. Why should one force to subjugate others. 

Will an independent Kurdistan be a sovereign state? Or will it be a state that cooperates with imperialist entities in the region to violate the sovereignty of that imperialist power's enemies. The Kurds have been repressed by Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria, but they have cooperated with Israel on numerous occasions which makes their intentions untrustworthy. You can guarantee that Israel will exploit the Kurds all the more to weaken their enemies in the case of an independent Kurdistan, will the Kurds refuse to cooperate?  Well history makes you wonder, and if they do work together, what does that leave? An unstable neighborhood, a state that allows itself to be exploited to serve imperialist agendas surrounded by enemies that oppose it because of its history of cooperation with an enemy. Who does this benefit? 

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • I posted but dc. So i forget what i explained. However, you should learn the manner/behavior of Imam Ahlul Bayt a.s. upon receiving bad word.
    • بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Despite the repeated use of the phrase “there is no proof or evidence for the existence of God,” I would imagine most atheists, and indeed most people, are unaware that there is in fact a technical difference between evidence and proof. Fittingly, the distinction between proof and evidence was initially taught to me in an introductory evolutionary biology course by an ardent atheist professor during my first year of university. My professor used this distinction to justify why she would not be receiving objections to evolution in her class. (Literally, she said that we were not allowed to question evolution or present counter evidence during the lecture, and that she would not entertain it during her office hours.) It was the most bizarre and dogmatic moment I had in my entire education, and I say this as someone who was blessed to study theology in a seminary environment for a year. Contrary to popular opinion, the seminaries are far less dogmatic when it comes to foundational beliefs, as they permit questioning the existence of God and raising objections to the proofs offered. She argued that evolution was based upon good evidence, but could never attain the status of complete certainty. It was a probabilistic argument, like virtually all of science, rather than a demonstration, as in the case of mathematical proofs (and, as we shall see, metaphysical arguments.) I still vividly remember the slide used to showcase an example of rational certainty – it was that of a triangle with some lines and an accompanying trigonometric proof. Because evolution (along with all empirical science) could never attain 100% rational certainty, she argued that it was always possible to be a skeptic, to raise objections about inductive inferences which are probabilistic at best, or to posit alternative explanations that could explain the data, no matter how improbable. Oh the irony. If scientific atheists only applied their standards consistently, they would either deny science or accept God. We will see why more clearly later on when we explore the evidence for the existence of God. But there is neither here nor there. For now, what I want to do is just go over some basic concepts in reason in order to set the table for the coming arguments...

      This article was originally published on themuslimtheist.com. Click here to continue reading.
    • بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم As we stated earlier, before we can answer the question “how can I know that God exists?” we must first ask the question “how do I know anything at all.” There are multiple ways that the intellect comes to know, and these modalities (or ways) of knowing are arranged hierarchically. I will go from the lowest form of knowledge to the highest – though this may seem unintuitive to the modern mind, which has been conditioned to see certainty as ordered in precisely the opposite direction. I will sort out these modern confusions as we proceed upon each level, inshaAllah. The lowest form of knowing, and the least certain is that of sense perception. “Huh? But I thought you had to see it to believe it?” you may ask. Ah, but you see sense perception deceives us all the time. We readily admit that. Sometimes we see things that aren’t really there, and sometimes what we see does not reflect reality. For instance, we perceive the earth as being flat, the sun as setting upon the horizon, the stars as being small, and if I were to put my finger in a glass of water it would appear to break due to the refraction of light. Your eyes deceive you Take a look at this clip around 12:30 where Dawkins himself says that if he were to see a direct sign of God – the heavens opening up and seeing the angels – he would still disbelieve in God. Instead, he would find it more probable that he were hallucinating, that David Blaine or some magician were playing a trick on him, or that aliens with some advanced technology could manipulate reality to make him think he were seeing what he were seeing. You can hear his own words here....

      This article was originally published on themuslimtheist.com. Click here to continue reading.
    • @Ali Hassan Hussain Mutah or marriage is not a solution to getting rid of masturbation addiction. Unfortunately many Muslims are uneducated in this sense and feel that it is a magical solution. As I said, masturbation is a behavioural addiction and it does not depend on you being married or not. Your brain is wired in a certain way (although you can fix it). There are numerous cases of Muslim/non-Muslim men who are addicted to masturbation even when they are married. Having a mindset that "marriage will solve my problem" is horrible. Guys who say this have no will power to get their addiction sorted. I feel sorry for girls who have to put up with those guys. Marriage is a way to keep you safe from masturbation to start with - so you don't develop an addiction. It can help you manage addiction but is not the ultimate solution. I'm just saying this to give you a very honest advice, one which very few people will give you.  Focus on building healthy habits. You need to have enough will power to say "no" when it comes to masturbation. Learn to hold yourself accountable. No matter how strong your desires are - it is possible to say no. Join an online community with other people who also have similar problems, to educate yourself on the potential consequences. In addition, you need to tell someone who you trust, be he a psychologist, stranger, friend or anyone. Keeping this addiction to yourself is part of the problem. Inshallah you can get rid of this addiction. Just man up and hold yourself accountable.   
    • No problem, but you have a history of being divisive yourself. I don't know what you think that you have a right to judge anybody else in this thread.  ^ This is what you really wanted to say, no point in beating around the bush and acting polite. P.S. I don't see any racism either, so I don't know what you are talking about. Another one of your pot-stirring posts as usual.
×