Jump to content
Mansur Bakhtiari

What is happening in Kurdistan???

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 10/17/2017 at 12:54 PM, Dhulfikar said:

Calm down, your nationalism is taking over your self. I'm talking about the issue of you wanting to apply the article 140 without knowing any conciseness of it.

Conciseness? ONCE AGAIN SILLY ARGUMENT... HOLY GOD.... BABA YOU CLAIM IT'S NOT CONCISE, SO IT NOT BEING "CONCISE" MEANS YOU GO TO WAR?.............

 AJEEEEEB WALLA AJEEEB. IN'TU SHUNU? IN'TU MU MUSLIMEEN? ESH'U MIN EL MAW'DU ALA AKRAD, IN'TU HI'CHI IT'SEER'UN....

Read this on article 140: 

Quote

Implementing Article 140 Voting One of the uncertainties in the process is who will be able to vote in the referendum. The language of Article 140 is imprecise, not defining the exact boundaries of where the referendum would be held or who within those boundaries would be eligible to vote.77 As of now, a voter registry has not been created and there is no consensus on the criteria for eligibility. Residency requirements will be problematic given the number of displaced persons that could potentially be on the registry: formerly-expelled Kurds who returned to their hometowns after the fall of the Ba’ath regime as well as newly-displaced Arab wafadeen who have been living in Kirkuk for decades. Furthermore, it may be difficult for authorities to distinguish between Arab Kirkuki IDPs and Arab Baghdadi IDPs who have arrived in the past few years or months. The latter group would, in any case, be precluded from a vote, as would Kurdish IDPs with no connection to Kirkuk. While disagreements over the voter eligibility may prove to be a time-consuming impediment, it is not likely to impact the end results of a referendum. Analysts have looked to the governorate’s outcome of the December 2005 election for guidance in forecasting results of a Kirkuk referendum. Based on those numbers, and current demographic estimates, it is widely thought that a vote held in either Kirkuk City or Kirkuk governorate would result in KRG control.78 Indeed, this explains why Kurds are so keen to move forward with the referendum, and why other communities remain opposed. As ICG Iraq analyst Joost Hiltermann stated in an interview on National Public Radio, “The Kurds want to have the referendum because they know that they will win it and that this will mean that they can incorporate Kirkuk into their Kurdish region. For the same reason, the other communities in Kirkuk adamantly oppose it and will boycott such a referendum - and will reject its results if it is held. And this can only lead to violence…”79

The Role of the UN Just two weeks prior to the 31 December 2007 referendum deadline, UN Special Representative to Iraq, Steffan de Mistura, proposed a six-month delay and expanded UNAMI (United Nation’s Assistance Mission for Iraq) assistance to carry out the referendum – a move which garnered relatively widespread approval in Iraq. UNAMI announced its future involvement in the implementation of Article 140 on its website, stating the following: In view of the technical and logistical difficulty of holding a referendum prior to 31 December 2007, as mandated in the Constitution, and given the corresponding need for a technical delay, it has been indicated to UNAMI that the next best step would be to initiate, in January 2008, and within six months, a process of facilitating the implementation of the Article with technical assistance of the United Nations (UNAMI/Baghdad) to the authorities involved, including the High Committee for Implementation of Article 140. This would enable all parties involved to contribute constructively to such a process.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/0303_iraq_ferris.pdf

Notice the basis of it being "imprecise" is simply related to where it should be held.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dialogue and regional demands become more difficult when disobedience translates in violent resistance against the government. Regional authorities in no way should attack the government unless there was significant oppression. One can reasonably argue that the current Kurdish government is an enemy of Iraq and anyone who promoted such movement should be judged by law. Changing the regional government and starting a proccess in which goals are proposed and achieved through dialogue and legality in the proper time will lead to better conditions to both Kurds and the rest of Iraqis.

Illegality, selfishness, greed and nationalism in a time where war and poverty have become part of the lives of iraqis aren't good ingredients to start a secession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bakir said:

Dialogue and regional demands become more difficult when disobedience translates in violent resistance against the government. Regional authorities in no way should attack the government unless there was significant oppression. One can reasonably argue that the current Kurdish government is an enemy of Iraq and anyone who promoted such movement should be judged by law. Changing the regional government and starting a proccess in which goals are proposed and achieved through dialogue and legality in the proper time will lead to better conditions to both Kurds and the rest of Iraqis.

Illegality, selfishness, greed and nationalism in a time where war and poverty have become part of the lives of iraqis aren't good ingredients to start a secession.

Not necessarily. It is only natural that secessionists will push their agenda when the state is at its most vulnerable.  The likelihood of them having their goals met when the state is even stronger is even weaker.  This is why a secession in Iraq is relatively more like to succeed than say Turkey or Iran which is even less likely so.

 

Share this post


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

Yes and the s....

Khalas brother, instead of going back and forth with numerical arguments, lets just cut straight to the case,

We both agree that israel has some interest in kurdistan becoming their own country.

Could you from your perspective tell me what those interests are?

Edited by IbnSina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an Arab Iraqi and the Iraqi Kurds are my brothers in religion, humanity and in the region. And I love my brother @Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī.

My main problem with the referendum is that the KRG at the time the referendum happened, it was controlling what right now is still officially regarded as federal areas. Also, Daesh still exists in both Syria and Iraq and although it is weakened, the region is still unstable and especially Iraq where the central government and the security forces still need strengthening, there is economic problems in all parts of Iraq including the Kurdish ruled regions, and there is political corruptness on a federal and local level, and in the KRG as well, and my brother @Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī knows well about the corrupt nature of some Kurdish politicians especially with regards to nepotism, tribalism and their clan.

Other than that, I believe the KRG should retreat back to 2003 borders, and once the situation is stable, then we must apply the Iraqi consitution to its fullest no matter what we like or want. Article 140 means there has to be a referendum in the disputed areas, and the problem right now is that it is hard to apply this referendum for the reasons stated above. But if Iraq is stable again, insha Allah, then we must apply our own constitution to its fullest.

As for an independent Kurdistan as a state, that is a topic for another day, and although I support self-determination for all peoples, I believe the marja'iyya is against the break up of Iraq. And if the marja'iyya is against something, I tend to put my political viewpoints aside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although an international law supports the right of self determination, it is worth less than nothing without the recognition of other countries, which won't happen unless there is real oppression (for fear of it happening in every territory in Europe - Scotland, Bavaria, Catalonia, etc.).

Unity is something you build, as well as break ups. This secession as was correctly said by Ibn Muneer started a century ago. There have been planning as well as errors from part of the government. But this is not solved by secession. And much less by the abuse of law (bringing women to gove birth in Kirkuk). This only creates a parallel reality full of injustice.

It is interesting, though, that a senior politician of the Iraqi government back in the day, when Americans invaded Iraq, said that in some years there will be a Civil War here. What we saw this week is, indeed, the start of a Civil War. Whether Kurds stay or leave, we all lost.

Edited by Bakir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, E.L King said:

I'm an Arab Iraqi and the Iraqi Kurds are my brothers in religion, humanity and in the region. And I love my brother @Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī.

 

Other than that, I believe the KRG should retreat back to 2003 borders, and once the situation is stable, then we must apply the Iraqi consitution to its fullest no matter what we like or want. Article 140 means there has to be a referendum in the disputed areas, and the problem right now is that it is hard to apply this referendum for the reasons stated above. But if Iraq is stable again, insha Allah, then we must apply our own constitution to its fullest.

 

You see I disagree with you but you are respectful and make sense unlike others...

1. It doesn't make sense that KRG should retreat back to 2003 lines, you see that would mean Khanaqin would go into Federal Iraqi hands. The issue with that is the population of Khanaqin is pretty much 100% Kurdish Feyli and back in 2007 voted to join the KRG. That would undermine that vote. 

2. Not to mention if Abadi is true to really wanting to implement article 140, why is Abadi saying the "referendum is in the past"? This to me alludes to the fact Abadi doesn't respect article 140 and will basically push onto the KRG proper, in which he already has. 

Share this post


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

You see I disagree with you but you are respectful and make sense unlike others...

1. It doesn't make sense that KRG should retreat back to 2003 lines, you see that would mean Khanaqin would go into Federal Iraqi hands. The issue with that is the population of Khanaqin is pretty much 100% Kurdish Feyli and back in 2007 voted to join the KRG. That would undermine that vote. 

2. Not to mention if Abadi is true to really wanting to implement article 140, why is Abadi saying the "referendum is in the past"? This to me alludes to the fact Abadi doesn't respect article 140 and will basically push onto the KRG proper, in which he already has. 

1- I personally don't know about Khanaqin, if I am honest with you I only heard about this place when it was on the news due to Iraqi forces rolling in. But if what you say about the vote in 2007 is true, then yes, Khanaqin should be under KRG control. But any other disputed area, that has not been voted on yet, should be returned to the federal government, until a referendum on the disputed areas happens.

2- What I believe Abadi meant was the referendum for independence not about Article 140. If he meant Article 140, then he is sadly neglecting the constitution which is above him and any other politician/official in the country. 

Edited by E.L King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2017 at 11:08 AM, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

The PKK in the city are still fighting and resisting. The PUK fled like cowards and KDP in Makhmur also fled. 

Too bad the PUK does not have the zeal of the ISIS...otherwise they would have destroyed the entire Kurdistan and areas beyond. </sarcasm>

As the saying goes along the lines of- those who do not know history are condemned to repeating it. The region's contemporary history is that of horror and chaos fuelled by mass stupidity i.e. nationalism...turning the region to utter waste and its people to cannon fodders for the interests of the ultimate puppet masters. 
100 years ago Arabs too were supposed to reach the skies once they were liberated from the Ottoman oppression just as Kurds are today. Why then it all ended up with ISIS or Nusra or Alqaida instead? Its because the creation of Arab states were not meant to propel Arabs to the heights of their ideals and dreams, but for the interests of colonial powers. Kurdish case likewise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, King said:

Not necessarily. It is only natural that secessionists will push their agenda when the state is at its most vulnerable.  The likelihood of them having their goals met when the state is even stronger is even weaker.  This is why a secession in Iraq is relatively more like to succeed than say Turkey or Iran which is even less likely so.

 

My thoughts, too, Not to mention that more peaceful means are often met with force/violence by a stronger state. The Catalans aren't having the best of times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On October 16, 2017 at 10:57 AM, King said:

Religion hardly ever trumps cultural/linguistic association and ties

Our Caucasian co-religionists sometimes went out after church to shoot up the villages.

" Sunday Shoots" were very popular, so...yeah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LeftCoastMom said:

My thoughts, too, Not to mention that more peaceful means are often met with force/violence by a stronger state. The Catalans aren't having the best of times.

Catalans are violating the law constantly. KRG are angels in comparison. The bad times you refer to have been the result of their incompetent government. Using the state money to promote an illegal referendum against the state, while using the regional TV and political speeches to support one option in the referendum: Yes. There is no freedom of ideology, but that's not what the rest of the world see.

Moreover, there are proved racist claims against Spaniards made by Catalans Govt Representatives (like the VP of the Govern). Also, official political campaign images saying that Catalans make money and produce for the rest of Spanish who live off of the Government. If it wasn't for Franco, they would have no economic infrastructure. But this is the real face of nationalism, selfishness and greed in its purest form, cautiously decorated with the word "freedom".

The Spanish police did commit errors, brutality was out of place and proved useless. Apart from that, that doesn't justify the secession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Hi @Bakir I was hoping you would answer.My purpose in bringing this up was not to examine the internal workings / philosophies of a movement. And almost all secessionist movements from a nation-state are considered " illegal". But to show that, peaceful or not, if you try to get out of the nation-state in which you find yourself ,your head is likely to be broken. So this " if they only do it peacefully and when the nation is stable it would be better "...I meet with skepticism. That's all. Whether or not your separation would work out well for  you...different question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2017 at 10:56 AM, IbnSina said:

I take it you also hope civilians die too because the first victims in war are civilians and many civilians have already died. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2017 at 3:47 PM, Wahdat said:

Too bad the PUK does not have the zeal of the ISIS...otherwise they would have destroyed the entire Kurdistan and areas beyond. </sarcasm>

As the saying goes along the lines of- those who do not know history are condemned to repeating it. The region's contemporary history is that of horror and chaos fuelled by mass stupidity i.e. nationalism...turning the region to utter waste and its people to cannon fodders for the interests of the ultimate puppet masters. 
100 years ago Arabs too were supposed to reach the skies once they were liberated from the Ottoman oppression just as Kurds are today. Why then it all ended up with ISIS or Nusra or Alqaida instead? Its because the creation of Arab states were not meant to propel Arabs to the heights of their ideals and dreams, but for the interests of colonial powers. Kurdish case likewise. 

Then your fundamental issue is with the concept of nation-states itself. It's not like Kurds have chosen to be nationalists, the minute the colonial powers drew up the borders; it divided Kurds. Infact I know for my personally, it literally divided my family in two bewteen Iraq and Iran. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2017 at 1:58 AM, Bakir said:

Dialogue and regional demands become more difficult when disobedience translates in violent resistance against the government. Regional authorities in no way should attack the government unless there was significant oppression. One can reasonably argue that the current Kurdish government is an enemy of Iraq and anyone who promoted such movement should be judged by law. Changing the regional government and starting a proccess in which goals are proposed and achieved through dialogue and legality in the proper time will lead to better conditions to both Kurds and the rest of Iraqis.

Illegality, selfishness, greed and nationalism in a time where war and poverty have become part of the lives of iraqis aren't good ingredients to start a secession.

Except it's the Iraqis invading the KRG, forget the disputed areas; they are invading 'KRG propert'. They have already entered the Erbil governornate:

image.png.74bc873a13f95d446afa9a6a2ac9d2de.png

Share this post


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

Except it's the Iraqis invading the KRG, forget the disputed areas; they are invading 'KRG propert'. They have already entered the Erbil governornate:

image.png.74bc873a13f95d446afa9a6a2ac9d2de.png

Ibadi says they are going to take back the 2003 borders. They don't see it as invading the KRG.

Edited by Dhulfikar

Share this post


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

Ibadi says they are going to take back the 2003 borders. They don't see it as invading the KRG.

Abadi*. 

Well they actually claimed pre-2014 borders but even with the 2003 borders, this is a direct infringment of that. Since they have pushed into the Erbil governornate, which is pre-2003 borders. The whole thing is a mess. 

Share this post


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

Abadi*. 

Well they actually claimed pre-2014 borders but even with the 2003 borders, this is a direct infringment of that. Since they have pushed into the Erbil governornate, which is pre-2003 borders. The whole thing is a mess. 

Does Iraq have it's own rights to claim the 2003 borders? If not then why?

Share this post


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

Then your fundamental issue is with the concept of nation-states itself. It's not like Kurds have chosen to be nationalists, the minute the colonial powers drew up the borders; it divided Kurds. Infact I know for my personally, it literally divided my family in two bewteen Iraq and Iran. 

My fundamental issue, I guess, is with the inability of folks in the region to look at things consequentially- everyone wants a facebook account, a little flag, an iphone, and certain other things (both real & perceived) to cater to their sense of self/desire...yet never take the consequences of such desires into account- sorta like crackheads chasing a high.
Not only Kurds, but the entire people of the region have been victimized & separated by borders- Turks, Persians, Pashtuns, Punjabis, Arabs, Baloch etc etc. The solution is not more borders but no borders...The current state of affairs is not conducive to a  no-borders reality- that should not mean that we have to work our problems in the region by creating more borders....no matter how sound the justification. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wahdat said:

My fundamental issue, I guess, is with the inability of folks in the region to look at things consequentially- everyone wants a facebook account, a little flag, an iphone, and certain other things (both real & perceived) to cater to their sense of self/desire...yet never take the consequences of such desires into account- sorta like crackheads chasing a high.
Not only Kurds, but the entire people of the region have been victimized & separated by borders- Turks, Persians, Pashtuns, Punjabis, Arabs, Baloch etc etc. The solution is not more borders but no borders...The current state of affairs is not conducive to a  no-borders reality- that should not mean that we have to work our problems in the region by creating more borders....no matter how sound the justification. 

 

Well when you have divided a people across four countries, it's really hard to sell the last part of your statement. The Kurdish people aren't nationalists out of racism or wanting to be nationalist but out of necessity. I cannot cross into my home country without iranian or iraqi papers. 

Plus I agree with your internationalist sentiment, however that assumes states like Iraq or Iran or Turkey are internationalist in nature of have internationalist goals. This is simply not the case, they are all nation-states who are out to maintain their self-interest. You must remember many Kurd sympathetic to the PKK have internationalist sentiments and share a confederalist outlook on things. 

Edited by Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī

Share this post


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

Does Iraq have it's own rights to claim the 2003 borders? If not then why?

It does but it is doing more than that as pointed out. Not to mention article 140 doesn't say take the disputed areas by force or even necessarily that the federal iraqi gov has the right to decide over those areas. 

Share this post


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

Well when you have divided a people across four countries, it's really hard to sell the last part of your statement. The Kurdish people aren't nationalists out of racism or wanting to be nationalist but out of necessity. I cannot cross into my home country without iranian or iraqi papers. 

Plus I agree with your internationalist sentiment, however that assumes states like Iraq or Iran or Turkey are internationalist in nature of have internationalist goals. This is simply not the case, they are all nation-states who are out to maintain their self-interest. You must remember many Kurd sympathetic to the PKK have internationalist sentiments and share a confederalist outlook on things. 

Reality is contextual- what we do determines the outcome.

In Afghanistan's northern border Turkmen, Uzbeks, and Tajiks are separated from their brethren by borders, and in South Pashtuns and Balouch. Pashtuns however have been the only people in Afg to have tried time and again to unify with their kinsmen across the border and the Pashtuns have caused more harm to themselves first, and then the region. Following the same pattern, this would be the fate of any people in the region that'd fall prey to similar sentimental desires including Kurds.
One way is to follow the Pashtun footsteps, another is to work towards a EU style region where borders dont separate but bring folks together.
I, having grown up in a politically anarchic culture in Afghanistan, consider myself more of an anarchist than an internationalist. And I fully agree with you that both Iran and Turkey are self interested entities/nation-states and I pray for their demise at the proper time. Iran belongs to all and not only Iranians, and so does Iraq, or Turkey.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • NO, IT IS HARAM. SENDING GIFT TO HER AND CONGRATULATING HER FOR HER FALLACIOUS MARRIAGE IS ALSO HARAM.
    • Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib(as)   I have avoided the discussion of “The God” and aspects and working, so we do not get distracted and dwell in the realm( of Evil, Mercy, Love, help, present/absent, why does he not act, or why he/ she is silent, why allow all this, that is going on ) that is out of our domain for this discussion at this point in time. If there is a need, I(Layman opinion) will say, The one who  created me, doesn't own me anything, beyond guidance. If anything exists it's the lack of follow through or rejection of the guidance. I.e. If the humans allow conditions to develop, and there is oppression. Where is God is not the question. Question, is Humanity has been guided at two levels ( inner and outer), rejection of both is the issue not why God does not take away this evil person that we elected or tolerated until he/she turned on us(we were fine up untill it was happening to others). We human need to do our job, instead of having entitlement mentality, and deflect it to it's your fault God., where are you and why you do not help. We have been helped. Intellect/Guidance( brief understanding, as a layman). Maybe not the best example but it will suffice, We would not expect the Mars rover to dwell in the realm of our working, instead it should be concerned with its prime directive, and we are to provide it guidance to accomplish its work. There are may misunderstanding, in  definition, version, understanding due to linguistic, terminology(old/new), cultural (East/West) and lack of Conceptual discussion at the basic fundamental level instead of technicalities and mechanic(which is subconsciously embedded in the way we have been groomed in schools and universities). A charged and contentious environment does not help in getting to any resolution. It's usually tit for tat, and pride get in the way in different threads a that were responding to targeted and side issue out of context. No one to the best of my knowledge and understanding denies we are limited creations in all  aspects. Your creation and Your surrounding creation(s) , are proof of something that  can not be denied. So, there is a Cause, the unlimited, infinitely powerful, Unknown/Unseen Source of all this. What you(non Muslims) call that source is not relevant - you can call it a system,  I call it God. So, there are no Atheists or Agnostic here. What an Atheist/ Agnostic may be, saying is that they do not believe in the God of Islam as “presented “or as understood or as described. That is a very different issue. But this issue, gets mixed up with other issues dealing with the mechanics in other threads which are on specific topics. Getting back to the Topic. We turn now to Stephen Hawking. He proposes M-theory, a variant of string theory, to explain the origins of the universe. The conclusion of his last book, The Grand Design, states:
      Stephen Hawking is a SME ( Subject Matter Expert) in his field of Study. If he gave his scientific theory and left it at that. I would not care nor it should be my concern, as there are many SMEs and have their theories in the Scientific world about may things.  His connecting it to and concluding that there is no need for god( his understanding of what god is to him). Is the issue, I am highlighting it not only because of what he said, because he or people like him are followed and the laypeople use these ideas to formulate their ideology. This is something, prevalent, using  fiction which they call ‘Science” as a tool to attack Divine Religion. This is where this talk and connection / implication that this is the god and of you can’t pray to or ask for help form gravity, or physical laws are not empathetic, and are cold  and have no concern for the humans ….This connection makes no sense. Comparing apples and oranges and mixing stuff that is confusing. This mentally is delusional and it stems out of misunderstanding of the concepts of pray, or help, mercy, etc..or implications that ignorant people believe in miracles and angels. Or we can’t carbon date the text, or evidence of such and such event. In short ignorant conclusions by apparently learned people in their field of study Trickle down effect, and the lay Atheists/Agnostics take these talking point and formulate an opinion and argument with it. Objectivity is also an issue, here. Double standards. Scientific theories are not subject to the same rigorous, and shredding mentality.   Its 5000, 2000, 1400 old stuff, we are Technically advanced. We forget that this advancement is in Technology,(only). The basic alphabet  in terms of Social behavior, is as old as the cave people.  Moving beyond, Mechanics, working, Techinacilities and this attitude of the best generation to exist, every preceding generation had the same attitude. and we will be looked at and our theories considers as old and outdated by the new generations.  Its a Point is time assessment.  What are the benefits of the revealed information- i.e Revealed to us through our struggle and study through discovery of us and whats around us.? Do we follow the Laws, derived from this new knowledge?  If not what are we rally arguing about. If a person can't even at least in Theory acknowledge the laws of Nature for our(Humanity)  Benefit. If you were to do that, you may rethink you position, because you may realize that you have been arguing against something that Natural laws actually prove.  This is what concerns me, at this point. Why can't the objective, learned and "technically" advanced people  see that and make this connection?  
    • The nature of the Existence is to exist. Thats all.
    • If the father doesn't approve of it, and didn't leave the door open for further contact, then that's it. They are not being disrespectful. Saying "no" should not forcibly come with an explanation, thus you can't demand it nor force them to listen to you. It is called freedom, and that is more sacred than anything you can tell them.
×