Iraqi Kurdistan Independence: Drivers and Regional Implications

JohninMK wrote:This wasn't how independence was supposed to turn out!

Look at those border crossings changing hands.

The peoples that want the independence know far better than you how difficult is the way. Is you who seems to understand not what this means.

The fight for the independence is hard, but the people is ready for it. In the Kurdistan, in Catalonia and in other countries like my own Basque Country. Making silly jokes about it only generates hate. The decission of the Kurds is firm and will not change, do not forget it. They have been fighting and dying for decades with the goal of the independence, do not forget it.

If they have not a chance they will return to fight again.

The Kurds have been fighting in Raqqa (territory of Arabs) in order to help in the defeat of ISIS. The Kurds have not been fighting to keep Kirkuk (territory of Kurds) in order to keep a peaceful opportunity open. They still trust in that opportunity. If they find not a way they will return to fight strongly. For sure.

eehnie wrote:

JohninMK wrote:This wasn't how independence was supposed to turn out!

Look at those border crossings changing hands.

The peoples that want the independence know far better than you how difficult is the way. Is you who seems to understand not what this means.

The fight for the independence is hard, but the people is ready for it. In the Kurdistan, in Catalonia and in other countries like my own Basque Country. Making silly jokes about it only generates hate. The decission of the Kurds is firm and will not change, do not forget it. They have been fighting and dying for decades with the goal of the independence, do not forget it.

If they have not a chance they will return to fight again.

The Kurds have been fighting in Raqqa (territory of Arabs) in order to help in the defeat of ISIS. The Kurds have not been fighting to keep Kirkuk (territory of Kurds) in order to keep a peaceful opportunity open. They still trust in that opportunity. If they find not a way they will return to fight strongly. For sure.

Iraqi kurdistan did not fight ISIS in Iraq. ISIS in Iraq was defeated by Shia Arabs. In fact ISIS's predecessor was founded by kurds in Kurdistan (Mullah Krekar in 2002) and Kurdistan collaborated with ISIS from 2013 - 2015 at the very latest.

Unlike basque country, Kurdistan's historical territory is MUCH SMALLER than the current "kurdish" region. Kurds moved into the areas where they now live during the 20th century, taking advantage of their IRAQI citizenship to change the demographics of valley cities including DOhuk, Kirkuk and Erbil which are HISTORICALLY NOT KURDISH.

Kurds committed ethnic cleansing against the native semitic christians (assyrians) and others in the areas to kurdify them since WW1.


So when you talk about a topic... Try to understand the topic IN DEPTH.

PS. Iraq gave them the right to take independence already in 1970. But the Kurds refused. Because they wanted to expand territory.

The Kurds native lands are the "zagros mountains". today's Kurdish region is 60% outside of the Zagros mountain... and the Kurds aren't happy with THAT level of expansionism... they want to expand even more into DIyala, Ninawa and even Wasit provinces.

Kurdish TV stations publish "fantasy maps" of Kurdistan extending from the mediterrenean sea to the persian gulf. Like I said... the kurdistan proejct is NOT a fight for self determination in their historical homeland... but a fight to destroy and conquer Iraq / Iran / Turkey and Syria by the zagros mountain tribes. The "map" they define as their land is 90% more than the historical kurdish areas of the zagros mountains.

Kurds have tried to destroy the native semitic heritage of the areas they conquered and have made efforts to rename Erbil to "hawler"... and even europeans latched onto this bizzare renaming scheme and claiming that "erbil" is an arabised name and "hawler" is the True name of the city (hint. its been called Arbil since Assyrian periods!).

sheytanelkebir wrote:

eehnie wrote:

JohninMK wrote:This wasn't how independence was supposed to turn out!

Look at those border crossings changing hands.

The peoples that want the independence know far better than you how difficult is the way. Is you who seems to understand not what this means.

The fight for the independence is hard, but the people is ready for it. In the Kurdistan, in Catalonia and in other countries like my own Basque Country. Making silly jokes about it only generates hate. The decission of the Kurds is firm and will not change, do not forget it. They have been fighting and dying for decades with the goal of the independence, do not forget it.

If they have not a chance they will return to fight again.

The Kurds have been fighting in Raqqa (territory of Arabs) in order to help in the defeat of ISIS. The Kurds have not been fighting to keep Kirkuk (territory of Kurds) in order to keep a peaceful opportunity open. They still trust in that opportunity. If they find not a way they will return to fight strongly. For sure.

Iraqi kurdistan did not fight ISIS in Iraq. ISIS in Iraq was defeated by Shia Arabs. In fact ISIS's predecessor was founded by kurds in Kurdistan (Mullah Krekar in 2002) and Kurdistan collaborated with ISIS from 2013 - 2015 at the very latest.

Unlike basque country, Kurdistan's historical territory is MUCH SMALLER than the current "kurdish" region. Kurds moved into the areas where they now live during the 20th century, taking advantage of their IRAQI citizenship to change the demographics of valley cities including DOhuk, Kirkuk and Erbil which are HISTORICALLY NOT KURDISH.

Kurds committed ethnic cleansing against the native semitic christians (assyrians) and others in the areas to kurdify them since WW1.


So when you talk about a topic... Try to understand the topic IN DEPTH.

PS. Iraq gave them the right to take independence already in 1970. But the Kurds refused. Because they wanted to expand territory.

The Kurds native lands are the "zagros mountains". today's Kurdish region is 60% outside of the Zagros mountain... and the Kurds aren't happy with THAT level of expansionism... they want to expand even more into DIyala, Ninawa and even Wasit provinces.

Kurdish TV stations publish "fantasy maps" of Kurdistan extending from the mediterrenean sea to the persian gulf. Like I said... the kurdistan proejct is NOT a fight for self determination in their historical homeland... but a fight to destroy and conquer Iraq / Iran / Turkey and Syria by the zagros mountain tribes. The "map" they define as their land is 90% more than the historical kurdish areas of the zagros mountains.

Kurds have tried to destroy the native semitic heritage of the areas they conquered and have made efforts to rename Erbil to "hawler"... and even europeans latched onto this bizzare renaming scheme and claiming that "erbil" is an arabised name and "hawler" is the True name of the city (hint. its been called Arbil since Assyrian periods!).

Then what you mean, the Kurds have to return to the Zagros region (Iran)? Or the Kurds have to live under other peoples domination because they moved historically?

But are these theories over past migrations (most if not all with some violent component) only to be applied to the Kurds? or must be other peoples affected too?

Because we know as example the white migrations that are in the origin of the current US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and the ethnic cleansing done in these territories. How would affect your theory to these cases?

Also it would be interesting to explain the right to self determination of the Indoeuropen peoples in Europe, or the case of the Altaic (including Turks) or Semitic migrations. How would affect your theory to the countries related?

In adition to this, you said some fairly false things. The Kurds fighted to the ISIS in Iraq, and also in Syria, with Iraqi Kurds involved in both cases. Also is false to say that the Kurds collaborated with the ISIS. Even the critizized Barzani is far from the ISIS or Al-Qaeda (Mullah Krekar) ideological background. Do not forget that Barzani's father (to who he succeed as political leader) was exiled in the Sovied Union approximately between 1947 and 1958.

eehnie wrote:

Then what you mean, the Kurds have to return to the Zagros region (Iran)? Or the Kurds have to live under other peoples domination because they moved historically?

no. parts of the zagros are in Iraq.

But are these theories over past migrations (most if not all with some violent component) only to be applied to the Kurds? or must be other peoples affected too?

but kurds are the only ones trying to make an ethno-state out of areas they RECENTLY migrated to.

Because we know as example the white migrations that are in the origin of the current US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and the ethnic cleansing done in these territories. How would affect your theory to these cases?

yes. there are 480 million europeans outside Europe and only 35 million non-europeans in Europe. but Europe is being "swarmed".

Also it would be interesting to explain the right to self determination of the Indoeuropen peoples in Europe, or the case of the Altaic (including Turks) or Semitic migrations. How would affect your theory to the countries related?

I don't know what you're talking about.

In adition to this, you said some fairly false things.

no i didn't

The Kurds fighted to the ISIS in Iraq,

NO. Iraq liberated all the following cities from ISIS without kurds:
-jurf al sakhr
-baghdad-belt region
-Fallujah
-Ramadi
-Heet
-Tikrit
-Baiji
-Diyala
-Hamrin
-Shirqat
-Qayara
-Mosul
-Tel Afar
-Al Qaim
-Rutbah
-Tel kef
-Hawija

and a whole host of others.

meanwhile KRG took from ISIS:
-Shingal

and also in Syria, with Iraqi Kurds involved in both cases.

there are iraqi arabs fighting in syria too. but I don't include them because that's irrelevant for IRAQI affairs.

Also is false to say that the Kurds collaborated with the ISIS.

KRG hosted from 2013 - 2016 the leaders of the sunni arab tribes that were the collaborators of isis
ISIS trade and oil flowed through KRG territory.
in 2014 KRG and ISIS had a "ribentropp molotov" agreement against Iraq when they both expanded their territory IN PARALLEL against Iraq.

Even the critizized Barzani is far from the ISIS or Al-Qaeda (Mullah Krekar) ideological background. Do not forget that Barzani's father (to who he succeed as political leader) was exiled in the Sovied Union approximately between 1947 and 1958.

eh? Barzani collaborated with Saddam against other kurds. he participated in the mass murder of kurds by saddam's regime.
He collaborates with Israel since the 1960s which is in a state of war with Iraq (he is an iraqi citizen, this makes him a traitor).
Barzani hosted the head of the "sunni arab tribes" which were the foot soldiers of ISIS in 2014 and... as I mentioned earlier the Sunni-Kurdish ribetropp-molotov in 2014 meant that Barzani loyalists in the Iraqi army (including commander of the 3rd division in Mosul) took his forces and withdrew to kurdistan handing over the units weapons to kurdistan.
The kurdish chief of staff that the barzanis insisted on having in the iraqi armed forces (babaker zebari) was a 5th columnist in the iraqi armed forces in 2014 (and was kicked out by haider abadi afterwards and has a warrant for his arrest now).

Barzani's KRG has always been against Iraq ... and since his 5th columnists have been kicked out of the iraqi armed forces... we see a sudden quantum leap in their performance without traitors and 5th columnists (but still the same tanks and soldiers).

So, the expert in migrations do not know about the Indoeuropean, Altaic or Semitic migrations, neither about the political origin of the Barzani family, and neither about the areas that the Iraqi Kurds liberated from ISIS with the help of Iran. Even you failed to apply your theory to other cases of recent migrations that you obviously know. It seems so poor.

I will not be who defends Barzani, neither who says who must be the President of the Kurds. But there is a population that voted clearly for an independent state.

Today makes not sense for Iraq to focus in a territory without Shia Arab population, and less to follow the worst of the Turkish and Sunni Arab violence against the Kurds, or the worst of the Israeli violence against the Palestinians. It would only help to a Sunni Kurd-Sunni Arab friendship against the Shia rulers of Syria, Iraq and Iran.

It would be fairly more interesting for the Shia Arabs to separate definitely the interests of the Sunni Kurds and the Sunni Arabs, and nothing better for it than an independent Kurdistan.

Also it would be fairly more logical for the Shia Arabs to think in other Shia Arab populations with problems. And Im sure they are doing.

eehnie wrote:So, the expert in migrations do not know about the Indoeuropean, Altaic or Semitic migrations,

I do know, but I fail to see its relevance in this discussion.

neither about the political origin of the Barzani family,

eh? their political origin is villagers from barzan (in the zagros mountain!) who were part of the "mahabad republic" supported by stalin.

and neither about the areas that the Iraqi Kurds liberated from ISIS with the help of Iran.

go on then. you tell me.

Even you failed to apply your theory to other cases of recent migrations that you obviously know. It seems so poor.

I don't understand what you're talking about? Do you mean the migration of Iraqi citizens from one Iraqi city to another? There's nothing wrong or illegal about that.

I will not be who defends Barzani, neither who says who must be the President of the Kurds. But there is a population that voted clearly for an independent state.

Like I said. Iraq GAVE THEM independence in 1970. and to this day they refuse to exercise it. No one wants to stop them taking independence. We just want to get rid of them for the past 47 years!!!!

But they can't "take" lands where they settled in the last century, taking advantage of their status as Iraqi citizens... to then deny the same rights to OTHER non-kurdish Iraqi citizens from living in areas which are NOT part of the zagros mountains. They can ban anyone from going to the zagros mountains for all I care... But they DO NOT have the right to stop Iraqis and the Iraqi military from going to IRAQI regions. WHICH HAVE BEEN SEMITIC IRAQI REGIONS FOR 6000 YEARS. Not 60 years.

Today makes not sense for Iraq to focus in a territory without Shia Arab population, and less to follow the worst of the Turkish and Sunni Arab violence against the Kurds, or the worst of the Israeli violence against the Palestinians. It would only help to a Sunni Kurd-Sunni Arab friendship against the Shia rulers of Syria, Iraq and Iran.

It would be fairly more interesting for the Shia Arabs to separate definitely the interests of the Sunni Kurds and the Sunni Arabs, and nothing better for it than an independent Kurdistan.

Also it would be fairly more logical for the Shia Arabs to think in other Shia Arab populations with problems. And Im sure they are doing.

Iraq managed to survive this devastating "tripartate" plan... It'll be ok.

One thing I do agree with you is that we should unilaterally eject the Kurdish region from Iraq and close the border with them. They should have 0 representation in Baghdad in the Iraqi government as long as they have their own parliament. They have to choose. Either or.

eehnie wrote:So, the expert in migrations do not know about the Indoeuropean, Altaic or Semitic migrations, neither about the political origin of the Barzani family, and neither about the areas that the Iraqi Kurds liberated from ISIS with the help of Iran. Even you failed to apply your theory to other cases of recent migrations that you obviously know. It seems so poor.

I will not be who defends Barzani, neither who says who must be the President of the Kurds. But there is a population that voted clearly for an independent state.

Today makes not sense for Iraq to focus in a territory without Shia Arab population, and less to follow the worst of the Turkish and Sunni Arab violence against the Kurds, or the worst of the Israeli violence against the Palestinians. It would only help to a Sunni Kurd-Sunni Arab friendship against the Shia rulers of Syria, Iraq and Iran.

It would be fairly more interesting for the Shia Arabs to separate definitely the interests of the Sunni Kurds and the Sunni Arabs, and nothing better for it than an independent Kurdistan.

Also it would be fairly more logical for the Shia Arabs to think in other Shia Arab populations with problems. And Im sure they are doing.

Kirkuk and Mosul cities have nothing to do with Kurdistan. I'm all for the Kurds getting a country, but they need to keep it real and stick to the mountains. Also Kurds need to apologize and pay reparations for the Armenian and Assyrian Genocides. When that was happening only Arabs provided shelter to Armenians and other Christians, Turks and Kurds killed them mercilessly.

First the map:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/ISIS_%28Grey%29_Territory_Change_2014-2016.gif

The next point would be the migrations. Obviously who is creating an argument to be applied only to the Kurds has not interest in other similar cases. Even as we can say here, have not interest in the Altaic and Semitic migrations in the same area. All the Azeri (called Turkmen) population (Altaic) of the area comes also from migration. Can the exper explain us the origin of the Altaic populations? where they come from? Also it has been Semitic migrations to the area, migrations in some cases very recent and of important size, like the Sunni Arab ethnic cleansing of the time of Saddam Hussein.

About the Kurd presence in Kirkuk there are historical data that are against what we are reading here. As example the UK census of 1921, only a few years after the end of the Ottoman dominatioSn of the city, and the integration of the city in the UK empire, says that at the time Kirkuk had:

75000 Kurds
35000 Turkomans
10000 Arabs
1400 Jews
600 Chaldeans

which means:

61.48% Kurds
28.69% Turkomans
8.20% Arabs
1.15% Jews
0.49% Chaldeans

It is known, well known the origin of the Turkmen population of the city. And logically, declined after the end of the Ottoman domination (like the French population declined in Algeria, or the British population declined in Ireland or Kenya).

Iraqi Kurdistan PM Barzani visit to Iran, met Rouhani, SNSC سفر منطقه کردستان عراق به ایران

yavar wrote:Iraqi Kurdistan PM Barzani visit to Iran, met Rouhani, SNSC سفر منطقه کردستان عراق به ایران

Kissing the ring. One of the worse pieces of shit around. Well you gotta figure that he's a known quantity and his "skills" have shown much so it's a rather preferable variable to deal with.

Putin briefly talks with Iraqi Kurdistan PM Barzani

The Rudaw media group reported earlier about the meeting, citing Kurdistan Regional Government spokesman Safeen Dizayee

MOSCOW, May 9. /TASS/. Russian President Vladimir Putin briefly talked with Iraqi Kurdistan Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani who is staying in Moscow, acting Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed to TASS on Wednesday.

"This was a brief talk," the Russian presidential spokesman said.

The Rudaw media group reported earlier on Wednesday about the meeting, citing Kurdistan Regional Government spokesman Safeen Dizayee. The spokesman characterized the meeting as progressive.

Reuters news agency reported on Tuesday, citing an official of the Kurdish autonomy’s government, that Barzani arrived in Moscow at the invitation of oil company Rosneft chief Igor Sechin.

Rosneft and the Iraqi Kurdistan government earlier agreed on the start of geological surveying at five oil blocks in the region, and also signed a long-term contract for the delivery of oil to the Russian company in 2017-2019.


More:
http://tass.com/politics/1003536