ForumGarden

I felt if the Syrian Kurds were to be wiped out they should have some record. I've barely heard of these people but I have heard Erdogan.

If this happens, Donald Trump wanted a wall named after him. I think what struck me was the casualness with which he consigned a people to death. America and Turkey's genocide of the Kurds.

I live in London. If there is a Kurd who makes it here I will give them and their family a place to sleep.

Clodhopper;1521881 wrote: I felt if the Syrian Kurds were to be wiped out they should have some record. I've barely heard of these people but I have heard Erdogan.

If this happens, Donald Trump wanted a wall named after him. I think what struck me was the casualness with which he consigned a people to death. America and Turkey's genocide of the Kurds.

I live in London. If there is a Kurd who makes it here I will give them and their family a place to sleep.


Some years ago we drove round central Turkey and it was deserted (by tourists). Apparently, fifteen hundred miles to the south east, the Turkish government were trying to suppress the Kurds and the PKK were fighting back and so people were afraid to go there.

The Kurds exist, they exist in Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq and they are persecuted wherever they live. Whilst we were fighting in Iraq they were useful allies. Whilst we were fighting in Syria they were useful allies but apart from that we'll supply the weapons used to kill them.

Saddam Hussain was a dictator but we sold him the chemical weapons he used to gas the Kurds.

Erdogan is an Islamic fundamentalist but Turkey gets the lions share of western arms - mostly to attack the Kurds.

Give them a break, give them a homeland and self rule - at the very least, don't give their enemies the weapons to kill them.

I never anticipated a day when I might defend the back-to-the-Middle-Ages intransigent nationalist dictator Erdogan but as Bryn says, he's only one in a line of Kurd-oppressors. The Iraqis and Iranians have been well to the fore in previous years.

Yes of course the Kurds ought to have their own state but nobody will give them the use of their own ancestral land on which to rebuild it. Their position is equivalent to that of the Palestinians. It doesn't help that America keeps on for decade after decade saying they can earn what they seek and then walking away after years of promises, having had the Kurdish armed assistance they were fishing for: foot-soldiers whose deaths wouldn't appear in American newspapers because they weren't American foot-soldiers. If anyone's forgotten, Operation Provide Comfort is one of the sorry tales of cynical betrayal in recent years.

The lesson for next time is beware the American Wolf when he smiles and invites you in for supper, he's just as carnivorous as your neighbour and twice as untrustworthy.

During my first trip to Europe, I was working in Brussels, and met several Kurds who were there trying to gain support within the EU to regain a home for their people.

It seems that there are a number of such peoples who where made homeless by the machinations of the "Western Civilizations" during the 20th Century.

LarsMac;1521887 wrote: made homeless by the machinations of the "Western Civilizations" during the 20th Century.


The word you're looking for is "French".

spot;1521889 wrote: The word you're looking for is "French".


Be fair, the Brits and the Yanks did their fair share of meddling too.

Bryn Mawr;1521890 wrote: Be fair, the Brits and the Yanks did their fair share of meddling too.


Under French advice. Peter O'Toole and Omar Sharif said so. Well, because David Lean told them to and Eric Ambler scripted their lines but even so, it was the French. I'm trying to recall who played the invidious froggy diplomat, I can picture him... he played the same role as the French Chief of Police in Casablanca. My mind's slipping cogs more and more these days. It'll come to me in an hour or two.





eta: I had to look, it was bothering me.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056172/ch ... _=tt_cl_t8

and, of course, he was a British diplomat, not French. It was that bit in Casablanca had melded in, that and sheer bias on my part.

Actually it was both the french and the british who drew lines on a map to create syria and iraq and tirkey (they lost in ww1 remember) with no regrad tom either trhe land or the people living there. Unfortunately the land the kurds claim as theor own is split amongst three states and happens to be oil rich. The female kurdish fighters in particular seem to have frightened isis.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/20/midd ... index.html

http://theconversation.com/kurdish-troo ... east-91364

The west has just dumped them at the tender mercies of the turks and syrians and iranians.

I'm really just calling attention to Trump's casual abandonment of these allies to Erdogan's tender mercies at a moment's notice. A whim.

It has implications for NATO while Trump is there at least.

Clodhopper;1521904 wrote: I'm really just calling attention to Trump's casual abandonment of these allies to Erdogan's tender mercies at a moment's notice. A whim.

It has implications for NATO while Trump is there at least.


I know that on my next trip abroad, I am going to try and pretend to be a Canadian.

It was bad enough being an American over there during the later W years.

If we Brexit I may be having to pretend I'm American as a lesser target for ridicule than being English.

Clodhopper;1521912 wrote: If we Brexit I may be having to pretend I'm American as a lesser target for ridicule than being English.


Sorry, Americans retain that dubious honor.

Clodhopper;1521912 wrote: If we Brexit I may be having to pretend I'm American as a lesser target for ridicule than being English.


In that case should it not have been called e-exit rather than brexit as it is possible both northern ireland and scotland will depart the the united kingdom. Not so much ridicule as sympathetic glances methinks.

"In that case should it not have been called e-exit rather than brexit as it is possible both northern ireland and scotland will depart the the united kingdom. Not so much ridicule as sympathetic glances methinks."



All options have serious down sides at this point. I'd cancel the whole thing as the least worst option and a people's vote as the next best, with the questions being 1) Do you want to leave the EU and 2) If the result of Question 1 is to Leave do you want a deal or no deal?

I think the bad consequences of staying are that if anyone riots it is the far right and their allies who will riot and I'm fine with that.

Another huge step nearer Brexit and the defeat of the unelected Fascist overlords .

Plus an election which will give Bojo a real working majority .

Life is rapidly improving , methinks .

Raphael;1526501 wrote: Another huge step nearer Brexit and the defeat of the unelected Fascist overlords .

Plus an election which will give Bojo a real working majority .

Life is rapidly improving , methinks .


I would prefer relegating the Westminster parliament to devolved Englishry on a par with the Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast assemblies, and leaving grown-up international sovereign decisions to the far more trustworthy Brussels establishment. What's more I find it difficult to understand why this is not the majority view in this country, but then I never attended football matches or daubed abuse on synagogues or mosques.

Fortunately with the demise of Germany as Deutsche brings them crashing down there will be little reason soon , apart from general tourism , to ever again visit Brussels or Strasbourg .

Many of my Russian and German friends and contacts ( I am half German ) have argued for at least the last 20 years that D Bank was toxic and would be used by Putin to bring the EU to its knees .

I had noticed how successive Chancellors and senior German politicians became D bank directors , invariably serving in Moscow for long periods after political retirement . And rumours of it being the top bank with Barclays and HSBC for money laundering and market manipulations have always existed and been latterly confirmed in an almost endless series of cases .

Putin , so the narrative goes , made DBank a future certain failure by encouraging them to take up trillions of toxic derivatives( post 2007/8 ) and to lend absurdly to countries/ banks like France, Greece and Italy in particular .

Now it might be pay up time .

And lastly Putin played his master card when he scammed Merkel into an exclusive Nord Sea oil pipe line which is the same as telegraphing future supply and/or price blackmail scenarios .

If Angela is not a communist then she jolly well deserves to be one of its most loved daughters .

This extremely useful and precise word, Genocide, is back in the news. I provide an example:

human rights groups and some lawmakers are arguing that hosting the Winter Olympics — a quadrennial spectacle that promotes itself as a symbol of global harmony — in Beijing provides an undeserved platform to a country accused of genocide by the U.S. government for its treatment of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province, and of cracking down on democracy advocates in Hong Kong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html (paywalled)

Do you think we could thrash out what it means, where it means it, what it can and can't apply to if it's to retain any meaning at all, and why it's in the news?

I observe, to begin with, that very believable figures indicate the populations of "Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province", and of "democracy advocates in Hong Kong", are increasing, not decreasing. Would anyone like to challenge that observation, in which case we can delve for citations, or can we take that as an underlying fact at this point.

We had a sideswipe at this six years ago at viewtopic.php?f=42&t=63498 when the subject of Armenia came up. I note also that the word Genocide appears to be primarily, in the 21st century, a propaganda tool of the U.S. Government (as in the above quote, "accused of genocide by the U.S. government"). What, in this instance, do these "human rights groups and some lawmakers" mean when they use the word, and are they deliberately being incendiary as opposed to rational?

spot wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 2:25 am This extremely useful and precise word, Genocide, is back in the news. I provide an example:

human rights groups and some lawmakers are arguing that hosting the Winter Olympics — a quadrennial spectacle that promotes itself as a symbol of global harmony — in Beijing provides an undeserved platform to a country accused of genocide by the U.S. government for its treatment of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province, and of cracking down on democracy advocates in Hong Kong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html (paywalled)

Do you think we could thrash out what it means, where it means it, what it can and can't apply to if it's to retain any meaning at all, and why it's in the news?

I observe, to begin with, that very believable figures indicate the populations of "Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province", and of "democracy advocates in Hong Kong", are increasing, not decreasing. Would anyone like to challenge that observation, in which case we can delve for citations, or can we take that as an underlying fact at this point.

We had a sideswipe at this six years ago at viewtopic.php?f=42&t=63498 when the subject of Armenia came up. I note also that the word Genocide appears to be primarily, in the 21st century, a propaganda tool of the U.S. Government (as in the above quote, "accused of genocide by the U.S. government"). What, in this instance, do these "human rights groups and some lawmakers" mean when they use the word, and are they deliberately being incendiary as opposed to rational?

OK, I’ll try- State (or state sponsored) targeting of one racial group for large scale murder. To be full genocide this should be as part of an attempt to wipe that racial group out of existence.

Bryn Mawr wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 6:48 pm

spot wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 2:25 am This extremely useful and precise word, Genocide, is back in the news. I provide an example:

human rights groups and some lawmakers are arguing that hosting the Winter Olympics — a quadrennial spectacle that promotes itself as a symbol of global harmony — in Beijing provides an undeserved platform to a country accused of genocide by the U.S. government for its treatment of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province, and of cracking down on democracy advocates in Hong Kong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html (paywalled)

Do you think we could thrash out what it means, where it means it, what it can and can't apply to if it's to retain any meaning at all, and why it's in the news?

I observe, to begin with, that very believable figures indicate the populations of "Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province", and of "democracy advocates in Hong Kong", are increasing, not decreasing. Would anyone like to challenge that observation, in which case we can delve for citations, or can we take that as an underlying fact at this point.

We had a sideswipe at this six years ago at viewtopic.php?f=42&t=63498 when the subject of Armenia came up. I note also that the word Genocide appears to be primarily, in the 21st century, a propaganda tool of the U.S. Government (as in the above quote, "accused of genocide by the U.S. government"). What, in this instance, do these "human rights groups and some lawmakers" mean when they use the word, and are they deliberately being incendiary as opposed to rational?

OK, I’ll try- State (or state sponsored) targeting of one racial group for large scale murder. To be full genocide this should be as part of an attempt to wipe that racial group out of existence.

So before we get to "racial group", could we at least deal with the inane aspect of "a country accused of genocide by the U.S. government for [...] cracking down on democracy advocates in Hong Kong", because that involves a total redefinition of what you've provided. Or what the Oxford Dictionary would offer, which is similar. Because in the case of "democracy advocates in Hong Kong" I think appropriate language might be a disregard of treaty obligations, or discrimination, or political clampdown, or even (arguably) appropriate response to civil unrest, but if it's going to be "genocide" we have to adopt a new dictionary definition of the word and I don't know why we would want to.

And do you really want to adopt this concept of "full genocide", implying that "partial genocide" or "slight genocide" are usable? I thought the entire point of genocide is that it's meant to be an absolute and uniquely unacceptable act by a State, whether it's by their official military or by sponsorship. I do, as it happens, think England / Britain / Australia engaged in genocide in its dealings with the Australian First Peoples and that England / Britain / America engaged in genocide in its dealings with the American First Peoples. I don't think the third of a million dead at Nanjing indicates an attempt at genocide on the part of Japan in 1937, so I don't think "oh what a lot of deaths" is an indicator of genocide. I think what's central to the definition is a pre-formed intention to displace and replace a population or culture. I think the Rohingya might serve to represent a boundary case which qualifies as genocide, and I do think citing instances will help in focusing the discussion.

As a precautionary note, there's the genocide which developed and happened under the Third Reich. When it applies specifically to European Jews it also goes under two additional names, Shoah and Holocaust - those words are used to discuss the genocide of European Jews. The names Shoah or Holocaust distinguish that genocide from other genocides, to single that one instance out as qualitatively worse, more evil, and unique. I'm quite sure the other word we're exploring, genocide, applies to many other events. Calling genocide an "absolute and uniquely unacceptable act by a State" isn't an attempt on my part to diminish the moral magnitude of the genocide named the Shoah or Holocaust.

And do you really want to adopt this concept of "full genocide", implying that "partial genocide" or "slight genocide" are usable?

You mistake my intent, probably because I didn’t phrase it well.

What I was trying to put over was the concept that I would accept usage (a) but to be accurate it should be restricted to usage (b). Not that either definition was equally correct and that genocide could be sub-divided.

Bryn Mawr wrote: ↑Sun Feb 07, 2021 10:10 am

And do you really want to adopt this concept of "full genocide", implying that "partial genocide" or "slight genocide" are usable?

You mistake my intent, probably because I didn’t phrase it well.

What I was trying to put over was the concept that I would accept usage (a) but to be accurate it should be restricted to usage (b). Not that either definition was equally correct and that genocide could be sub-divided.

I think we can build from there.

We could, for example, try to agree that if a population collapses through a combination of being discriminatorily killed, becoming lethally diseased, having the law say your evidence is inadmissible in court because of your race, having different rights to travel, residency, and to land and property ownership, then describing the result as genocide shouldn't depend on whether you can subsequently find self-incriminating contemporary documentation that the State planned the outcome. I note that in the case of the Third Reich, and British colonial rule over Australia, this proved problematic, and even the content of the Wannsee Conference Minutes was a matter of interpretation. All of those listed factors applied repeatedly to European Jews over a thousand year period, an example of dual occupancy within various countries, and the Aboriginal peoples of both America and Australia as an example of colonization.