Kurdistan or Armenia???

[-Kurdish pride-]

Why are you surprised? Ever see a map of what the kurds claim as kurdistan?



On the site it also says, "Diyarbakir, in southeastern Turkey is widely accepted as the ancient capital of the Kurds." , but from what I have seen on maps and read elsewhere, it seems to me that "diarbakir" is one of Tigranes 4 cities that he named Tigranakert and like most other Armenian towns and cities, they are claiming them as theirs. I guess they still want what they were promised by the turks for killing Armenians. According to their map, even Ararat is in kurdistan.

Listen in those area's are tha majoraties Kurds but we Kurds don't bother if the Armenians would come and live there unlike the Turks who even forbid the word Kurdistan!
But Amed is a real Kurdish capital.
My brothers wait if Kurdistan gets independent from al those supression of Turkey,Iran and Syrie. We really don't bother if Armenians come and live there but you must know that we Kurds have been killed,deportated, assimilated and more for the last 80 years in Turkey there were also tens of etnocides!
They don't even accept if we celebrate the ancient Kurdish,Iranian,Afghanian etc. Newroz !

[imported_RUDO]

It isn't right time to discuss for sharing East lands.Because it isn't either ARmenians' or Kurds'.Now it is Turks'.So Kurds and Armenians shouldn't fight for East.(East of Turkey I mean)
Right?

[elendil]

It isn't right time to discuss for sharing East lands.Because it isn't either ARmenians' or Kurds'.Now it is Turks'.So Kurds and Armenians shouldn't fight for East.(East of Turkey I mean)
Right?

State of Turkey is the legitamate ruler of those lands. People dont have to fight for it since where they live belongs to them.It belongs to Kurds, Turks and Armenian who live on there.Simple as that.

[imported_RUDO]

State of Turkey is the legitamate ruler of those lands. People dont have to fight for it since where they live belongs to them.It belongs to Kurds, Turks and Armenian who live on there.Simple as that.

But State of Turkey made genocide to Armenians and now there aren't any Armenians there.And Kurds are tortured by army and racists.DOES THE RULER(TURKEY)RULE EAST WELL?

[imported_RUDO]

Or should East be ruled by other nations who will rule it well?

[elendil]

But State of Turkey made genocide to Armenians and now there aren't any Armenians there

There are Armenians those who live in small numbers in the east as to genocide issue well I dont think like you.

And Kurds are tortured by army and racists.DOES THE RULER(TURKEY)RULE EAST WELL?

Kurds may be tortured by racist people but army tortures only PKK members. Them being Kurds ofcourse is another issue.

DOES THE RULER(TURKEY)RULE EAST WELL?

No. However one must see today Turkey's parliament is formed of %20-30 Kurdish rooted Turkish people. They have the power in the goverment. Let them encourage investments, Let them make taxes lower in south-eastern Turkey. But Ofcourse, we Turks were very mistaken in dealing with Kurdish people of Turkey, that must be handed. Still it is up to us(Kurd, Turk etc..) to change it.

Or should East be ruled by other nations who will rule it well?

Not one inch of my country goes to another dynasty. People of my country be it Kurd, Turk or Armenian may rule Turkey. But my country's integrity is not
something I will negotiate, I am sorry.

[AzatHayrenik]

TURKEY: THE OCCUPIED NATION
Written by Milosz Matuschek

Newropeans Magazine, France
Feb 8 2006

EDITO - Turkey is a battlefield for forces fighting for secular
modernity on one side and those promoting religious traditionalism
on the other side. This struggle reveals an alarming gap between
state and society. The idea to fill this gap by an accession to the
EU would be a mistake.

While Gaul was ethnically divided in three parts (gallia est omnis
divisa in partes tres), as Julius Cesar states at the beginning of
his famous report about the war in Gaul "de bello gallico", modern
Turkey seems to be divided in three parts, as well - at least as far
as the attitude of its people is concerned. The first division can be
remarked between state and society, and society in itself is divided
in a modern Western part and a traditional Islamic part.

When discussing Turkey and its accession to the EU, we're normally
arguing in patterns such as geography, modernity, legal compatibility,
religion and if "the Turks" can be trusted. But who are "the Turks"
we are talking about? Is it the state? The society?

Or both of them? The raise of this question in the case of Turkey
is crucial, but notoriously neglected, as generally a state and its
nation show a sort of homogeneity. This, unfortunately, seems not to
be the case with Turkey and is one of the reasons, why an accession
in this condition could become a serious problem for Europe.

Since Ataturk installed modern Turkey as we know it today, the fight
against radical Islamic movements has not stopped. The guarantor for
the maintenance of the modern status quo has been the Turkish army,
which played for a long time not only a decisive role in Turkeys
decision-making process, but also interfered three times by removing
elected leaders with coups dī etat, or - as it was the case in 1997 -
forced the government of Erbakan to step down.

Though the army's influence has been reduced, the generals still remain
powerful and reclaim their role. Yet, the role of the Turkish army
is not reduced, because it makes Turkey look better in the eyes of
Western European people. Its role is mainly reduced, because the EU is
trying to take over they army's role as guardian for Turkeys internal
integrity. This, though being a kind of political acquisition, is
officially sold under the name of "necessity to continue the reform
process in Turkey". However, as the EU could apparently not interfere
against potential radical changes, the army is likely to react in
cases of urgency despite a membership, as two Majors of the Turkish
armed forces argue in this months issue of Foreign affairs.[1]

Superficially seen, Turkey is a military state. When looking deeper,
one can remark, that the role of the army is not the oppression of the
people, as it is the case in real military states, but to guarantee the
existence of the modern constitution and the secular institutions, even
- and this is one problem - against the democratically expressed will
of the people. This leads us to the decisive question: What are we told
about the inner coherence of a state, when it needs the interference of
the armed forces to prevent its people from voting for "wrong" leaders
? The history of Turkish modernity is a fight between the state and
its people: the people electing democratic leaders they want, often
from Islamic movements, and the army removing them. Isn't this the
real gap between Turkey and European Union Member states? By saying
that it is necessary to "accompany" the process of modernisation,
EU confesses, that Turkey indeed needs a keeper, who can not be left
off its eyes, without running the risk that the state collapses.

On one hand, Turkey is a splitted nation, torn apart by tradition
and religion on one side and modernity and laicism on the other side.

Turkey's problem on the long term is not the fulfilling of any
Copenhagen Criteria. Turkey's economy and especially the public
deficit do make astonishing progresses. Turkey's problem is the
coherence of its nation and no one else but the Turkish people
can solve this problem. The EU should stop playing accoucheur to a
nation's identity. The Commissions accession policy is far away from
just giving incentives to a willing state. The paradox of the Turkey
accession is, that the Turkish are tried to be made a modern nation
by accession instead of waiting till they are one. The EU tends to
generate a fictitious status, they can't guarantee for, instead of
demanding one, which the EU can rely on. The negative consequence
of this kind of policy could be, that when the Turkish one day will
have joined the EU, they won't be Europeans by conviction, but by
the simple fact, that they are member of the EU.

On the other hand, the deficit on homogeneity of the Turkish nation
is tried to be compensated by an exaggerated emphasis on collectivism
and national symbolism. The Pamuk trial and the incrimination of
about 50 other writers are exemplary for this phenomenon. How can
the raise of a historical question of public importance, like the
Armenian genocide, be legally qualified as an offence ? Actually,
how can a state be an object for an offence, implying a feel of honour
that could be aggrieved?

The most vivid demonstration of this dichotomy is the actual Prime
Minister Erdogan himself. "Which side are you on, Mr. Erdogan?" asked
the Turkish Times in 2002 by quoting younger Erdogan with the sentence
"democracy is not an aim but a means to an end". Still in 1998,
Erdogan was sentenced to four months in prison for challenging the
secular state.

Even if people may change their opinions over the years, and no one
should be qualified till the end of his life for things he said,
when he was young, doesn't it at least provoke misunderstanding, when
Erdogan is dreaming loudly of becoming President one day and one knows
already, that his wife and daughters, who hide their faces behind
headscarves, could never come visit him in the public Presidential
building? Recently, he has revealed his attitude by answering the
question, if he would abolish the paragraph 301 in the Turkish Penal
code, which punishes the insult of Turkish identity, by saying:
"yes, if it is necessary".

No one demands, that state and society should be identical, because
this would mean totalitarianism. But what is needed, is a minimum
of homogeneity. Of course, the Turkish could argue, that if one
asked French, German or British people, what they think about the
equalisation of men and women, or the allowance of torture in extreme
situations, one would probably get awkward answers as well. But this
is not the same dimension. Absurd opinions are the price we pay
willingly for the liberty of expression. A state must be a group
of people consenting on the same principles. European democracies
are stable concerning their self- determination and their national
identity, because they fought on their own for the principles they
share. Turkish modernity has not been eked out by the people on the
streets, but has been installed from above by a military leader,
who did not ask anyone if to do so.

Turkey's accession to the EU would be the third take-over of the
Turkish nation, after Ataturks imposition of modernity and the army's
maintenance of it. How far can interference from above go? Where
does support for reforms end, and where does interference begin? The
strongest indicator is probably the will of the people itself.

Democracy had not to be imposed on the Germans by the Allies after
World War II, but was already growing in the regions. The same with
the falling of the iron curtain: changes were supported, but not
imposed by foreign powers. Are Turkish people consenting on the same
principles as we do, when its army must interfere repeatedly to save
the state from people, who were elected by their majority ?

Allowedly, the whole situation for Turkey looks like a dilemma:
When not modernising itself, it is regarded as backward, and when
modernising, it smells like chumming up in order to receive something
in counterpart. How to solve this dilemma? Getting ready for an
accession means more than affixing labels. We should less watch on the
superficial formal shell or the accession lyricism of politicians and
more on convictions and deep change, even if it might take a long time
for the Turkish to overcome their interior division. However, this
accomplishment is indispensable for the Turkish and is in their own
interest, because, as we know from Abraham Lincoln, a house divided
can not stand. Neither with an European outbuilding.

Milosz Matuschek Munich (Germany)

[1] Ersel Aydinli, Nihat Ali Ozcan, and Dogan Akyaz, ~DThe Turkish
military's march toward Europe", Foreign Affairs, Volume 85 No. 1,
January/February 2006, p. 77 - 90.

--Boundary_(ID_vrZG4n4ZAfRj2nmjE6g4sQ)--

[1.5 million]

Kurds may be tortured by racist people but army tortures only PKK members. Them being Kurds ofcourse is another issue.

I supose complete and utter destruction of hundreds of Kurdish villages and brutalization by Turkish paramilitary "Village Guards" does not officially qualify as being torture...and you are also assuming that PKK members carry some identification of being such and that this is verified by Turkish soldiers prior to them cutting their heads of and such eh? And are you so sure that all of the 30,000+ Kurds killed by the Turks were in fact PKK members. I have my doubts.

[elendil]

I suppose complete and utter destruction of hundreds of Kurdish villages and brutalization by Turkish paramilitary "Village Guards" does not officially qualify as being torture...and you are also assuming that PKK members carry some identification of being such and that this is verified by Turkish soldiers prior to them cutting their heads of and such eh? And are you so sure that all of the 30,000+ Kurds killed by the Turks were in fact PKK members. I have my doubts.

1-) PKK militans carry AK-47 s, Druganovs which helps a great deal in terms of identification.
2-) Village guards were a necessity in terms of guerilla warfare. Sure they were brutal, as much as PKK.
3-) We razed the villages to deport Kurdish populated villages which were being used as jump-points when operating to Turkey from mountains of notheren Iraq.
4-) All 30.000 Kurds were PKK members? I guess not. But expect a few hundered people I am sure the rest were.