Jump to content

Kurdish debate, response to Axes


Hot Meat Pie

Recommended Posts

No the Medes were a completely different group, I believe the Palestinians descend from the Babylonians. The Israelis were basically "given" land by the British which established Israel, by no means does that land belong to them.

Neither does Kuristan belong to Turkey unless you believe in right by conquest. The Kurds were there since before modern Turkey or even the Ottoman empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe in right by conquest, the Turks came to the region, conquered what they could, and to this day rightfully hold what remaining territory they have left. Unlike the Israelis nobody "handed over" land to the Turks, they fought for it, with blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe in right by conquest, the Turks came to the region, conquered what they could, and to this day rightfully hold what remaining territory they have left. Unlike the Israelis nobody "handed over" land to the Turks, they fought for it, with blood.

The Israeli's were initially allowed to immigrate, but the British quickly went back on their promise. Israel fought the 1948 war alone, and the 1967 war, against multiple countries and won. If you believe in the right of conquest, then what is the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel fought those wars "alone"? They had no support whatsoever from other countries?

The US and UK imposed an arms embargo on both sides in 1948, but the Arab armies had a lot of leftover WWII equipment they used. After a year of fighting Checoslovakia allowed some aid into Israel, while other states supported the Arabs. The war ended with the UK forcing Israel to stop its penetration into the Egyptian sini and sign a cease fire agreement. In 1967 the Israeli's fought alone too, while the Arabs were being supplied by the soviets. I do not believe in right of conquest, but as you do, then what is the difference?

Where do you get the nerve to cry about Palestinian rights but at the same time support ethnic cleansing and setltment in northern cyprus, and supporting continued Turkish control of the kurdish areas based on 'right of conquest'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US and UK imposed an arms embargo on both sides in 1948, but the Arab armies had a lot of leftover WWII equipment they used. After a year of fighting Checoslovakia allowed some aid into Israel, while other states supported the Arabs. The war ended with the UK forcing Israel to stop its penetration into the Egyptian sini and sign a cease fire agreement. In 1967 the Israeli's fought alone too, while the Arabs were being supplied by the soviets. I do not believe in right of conquest, but as you do, then what is the difference?

Where do you get the nerve to cry about Palestinian rights but at the same time support ethnic cleansing and setltment in northern cyprus, and supporting continued Turkish control of the kurdish areas based on 'right of conquest'?

I never said I supported ethnic cleansing of the Northern Cypriots, Turkey invaded it for its own security and it's been that way for 40 years. Is the Turkish presence their harming anyone right now?

I suggest you pay more attention to politics in Turkey, kurdish political parties won the last elections of kurdish populated areas they are in control. Why should Turkey give up its land? Let Iran or Iraq do it first, why you want Turkey to?

Why did the Israelis attack the Turkish ship and kill 9 civilians you first answer me that before talking about Kurdish rights, let's talk about basic human rights first what gives you the right to kill unarmed civilians on route to a humanitarian aid effort??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said I supported ethnic cleansing of the Northern Cypriots, Turkey invaded it for its own security and it's been that way for 40 years. Is the Turkish presence their harming anyone right now?

Tell that to the northern cypriot refugees seeking to return to their homes, now occupied by Turkish settlers. The Palestinians seem to have remembered what happened 70 years ago, and you seem to support their rights.

I suggest you pay more attention to politics in Turkey, kurdish political parties won the last elections of kurdish populated areas they are in control. Why should Turkey give up its land? Let Iran or Iraq do it first, why you want Turkey to?

For the same reason Israel should give up "its" land.

Why did the Israelis attack the Turkish ship and kill 9 civilians you first answer me that before talking about Kurdish rights, let's talk about basic human rights first what gives you the right to kill unarmed civilians on route to a humanitarian aid effort??

Israel = bad. Sure. Now lets get back to Turkey, unless you prefer to avoid the issue altogether, using Likud logic to defend Turkish actions and liberal logic to attack Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are talking about something that happened 41 years ago, most of those "refugees" either relocated to south Cyprus or Greece or are either dead by now or extremely old they don't even remember anything that happened or care to remember.

1948 and 1967 happened even earlier. Likud also uses justification that "most of the refugees are already dead". Try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon Con, AKP lover...two words for you:

LEYLA ZANA

to the others:

My experience with Turks is that they are in general a very friendly people. But unfortunately you have a very vocal and influential minority whose chauvinism is borderline fascist.

But I don't believe that this User Jon Con is a Turk but rather from the Balkans (see his mentioning of Serbs in the other thread), I would guess Sandzak or Bosnia. I know quite a few Bosnians who consider Turkey and Erdogan as some kind of "big daddy".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were plans to re unify the island but guess who opposed it?? The Greeks. They don't want peace with Turks so is it out fault huh? The Greek wish to live like this let them, turkey did it's part and offered reunification but Greek side refused.

Yeah, I wonder why they opposed it. It's an enigma /sarcasm. As you said, most of them were dead or are so old to not remember anyway, right? Well, how about their children and grand children. Are you seriously going to claim that what murdered your grandparents should to be forgotten and just be by gones and whatevers in the history?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I wonder why they opposed it. It's an enigma /sarcasm. As you said, most of them were dead or are so old to not remember anyway, right? Well, how about their children and grand children. Are you seriously going to claim that what murdered your grandparents should to be forgotten and just be by gones and whatevers in the history?

They had a chance to make up for past wrongs but they refused so continue on with the current situation in divided Cyprus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon Con, AKP lover...two words for you:

LEYLA ZANA

to the others:

My experience with Turks is that they are in general a very friendly people. But unfortunately you have a very vocal and influential minority whose chauvinism is borderline fascist.

But I don't believe that this User Jon Con is a Turk but rather from the Balkans (see his mentioning of Serbs in the other thread), I would guess Sandzak or Bosnia. I know quite a few Bosnians who consider Turkey and Erdogan as some kind of "big daddy".

You seem to dislike Erdogan you should be more grateful towards him, he really supported Arakan last year when the earthquake happened.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to dislike Erdogan you should be more grateful towards him, he really supported Arakan last year when the earthquake happened.

I don't dislilke Erdogan. He started good but got megalomanic. All his talk of a "renaissance of the Ottoman Empire" is quite chauvinistic. But I would agree that Turkey should have a leading role in Middle East. Though many Arabs actually don't want Turkey to play such a role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon Con,

I do believe in right by conquest, the Turks came to the region, conquered what they could, and to this day rightfully hold what remaining territory they have left. Unlike the Israelis nobody "handed over" land to the Turks, they fought for it, with blood. [emphasis added]

You mean the "sqwirt gun wars" of the late 19th century were really using blood as their ammunition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...