I have a solution, just like in Kosovo, let the Kurdish people decide,
Kurds are not Turks, they are an ancient ethnic group,
they were in the mountains before the Turks moved into what is now known as Turkey, Saladin was a Kurd
so plan a plebiscite under UN auspices, in each of southeastern provinces of Turkey, let the people decide, just like in Kosovo

3 questions for Turks;
1) what have Turks done in the past to the Kurds
2) why do the Kurds want independence
3) can a modern nation subjugate its minority groups & still claim to be democratic?

lets see if Turkey is ready for Western democracy, or its just a front

Kurdish conflict pits brother against brother
Years of strife between Turkey, militants leaves area mired in poverty
Reuters
updated 4:03 a.m. PT, Sat., Feb. 23, 2008
CIZRE, Turkey - Kamuran Yuruk has good reason to worry about the Turkish army offensive in northern Iraq -- one of his brothers is a Kurdish guerrilla and another is doing his Turkish military service in the region.
...
"I don't think there is a solution. The state will not accept the Kurdish demands and the PKK will not come down from the mountains," the 31-year-old said in a cramped, smoky teahouse in the border town of Cizre.
Further along the border, Turkish troops have advanced into Iraq in one of the largest cross-border offensive in a decade aimed at eliminating the threat from PKK rebels, who use northern Iraq as a base to stage attacks in Turkey.
The PKK fight for an independent state inspired Abdurrahman, 33, to join the rebels in the Iraqi mountains 19 years ago. His brother Kamuran considered joining him but his family pressured him to marry early and find work.
"This (conflict) is not just about identity or freedom, it is because of the pressure which the state exerts. People couldn't put up with it any more," Kamuran said.

from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23305722/

a plan of action for Kurds:

1) ask the PKK to declare a ceasefire, re-form as a pro-independence political party, just like the IRA did into Sein Fein & get involved in politics
2) send a delegation before the UN & EU asking for Independence
3) hold symposia on Kurdish history, ethnicity & literature
4) have news conferences & political rallies that showcase Turkish oppression against the Kurds
5) ask NATO for a no-fly zone (should tweak the Turks, since they're in NATO)
6) make sure that Kurds in Western countries protest in front of the Turkish embassies after every incursion, on anniversaries or pick a day of the week that you will hold up signs by news media
7) pick a day for Kurdish Independence & vote

It's pretty much independent now. I'd be in favor of independence for the Kurds, but Turkey wouldn't like it, since there are many ethnic Kurds in Turkey who might want to bite off a chunk of Turkey for themselves.

3) can a modern nation subjugate its minority groups & still claim to be democratic?

Well, since democracy usually means the power of the majority, then yes...

1) what have Turks done in the past to the Kurds

Fought and died to give them a homeland, and a place to live (since arguably every other surrounding nation doesn't want them). What have they done for us, except beg for our land? Oh, well, I suppose we can't thank them enough for the Kockiri, Agiri, and Dersim rebellions in highly-populated cities.

2) why do the Kurds want independence

They pretty much already have it. They've got their country ("Kurdistan"), their flag, their region (Eastern Turkey, Norther Iraq, Northern Syria, Northwestern Iran), and most importantly, sympathy from uneducated idiots worldwide. They just want it to be officially recognized. Seriously, if you go to areas like Diyarbakir, there's nothing but Kurdish people. By sheer numbers, most of Eastern Turkey is largely inhabited by Kurds. Besides, they've claimed independence before without even having it in the past. Remember the Republic of Ararat?

3) can a modern nation subjugate its minority groups & still claim to be democratic?

They are living in a place where Turks died to free themselves from foreign invaders. They have every opportunity to live amongst Turks, rather than fighting (as in Kurdish Workers Party) for a good chunk of the land.

Anyway, why the hell should the Kurds be given ~15% of modern day Turkey for their own system of government? They didn't help us in the War of Independence, when the U.K., Greece, Italy, France, Armenia, and Georgia all had their sights on Turkey. It was the Turkish Revolutionaries that fought for the land, and made it a Turkish homeland, rather than a European-controlled zone.

This is what the Kurds want:

http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/kurdistan/kurdistan.gifP

What does this map show? It's clearly not just Turkey's problem. The Kurds want regions from Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Turkey. It's just not going to happen. Also, this map is a little off - it should extend further south into Iraq, as they've made it clear they want Kirkuk. Anyway, Turks went to war to free their country, and to have a Republic controlled by Turks alone. Kurds are free to live in the country, and they're free not to speak Turkish or adapt to our culture. Fine. That's their decision. Make no mistake about it, though, we won't give up one inch of land to any people for any reason.

Fought and died to give them a homeland, and a place to live (since arguably every other surrounding nation doesn't want them). What have they done for us, except beg for our land?

They pretty much already have it. They've got their country ("Kurdistan"), their flag, their region (Eastern Turkey, Norther Iraq, Northern Syria, Northwestern Iran), and most importantly, sympathy from uneducated idiots worldwide. They just want it to be officially recognized. Seriously, if you go to areas like Diyarbakir, there's nothing but Kurdish people. By sheer numbers, most of Eastern Turkey is largely inhabited by Kurds. Besides, they've claimed independence before without even having it in the past. Remember the Republic of Ararat?



They are living in a place where Turks died to free themselves from foreign invaders. They have every opportunity to live amongst Turks, rather than fighting (as in Kurdish Workers Party) for a good chunk of the land.

Anyway, why the hell should the Kurds be given ~15% of modern day Turkey for their own system of government? They didn't help us in the War of Independence, when the U.K., Greece, Italy, France, Armenia, and Georgia all had their sights on Turkey. It was the Turkish Revolutionaries that fought for the land, and made it a Turkish homeland, rather than a European-controlled zone.

This is what the Kurds want:(this is a reference to a map of kurdistan, not replicated here)

What does this map show? It's clearly not just Turkey's problem. The Kurds want regions from Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Turkey. It's just not going to happen. Also, this map is a little off - it should extend further south into Iraq, as they've made it clear they want Kirkuk. Anyway, Turks went to war to free their country, and to have a Republic controlled by Turks alone. Kurds are free to live in the country, and they're free not to speak Turkish or adapt to our culture. Fine. That's their decision. Make no mistake about it, though, we won't give up one inch of land to any people for any reason.
thanks for making my points, these people have aspired for freedom, a nation of their own, but Turks, & others have denied it to them, even now. they are the largest national group without a nation to call their own, even Kosovo (population 90% Albanians), has Albania next door
also, if you look back in history, about those maps you posted, all those boundaries were drawn by European colonial powers, no historical or ethnic basis were used
so, are you saying that if the Turks, had fought & won more territory, lets say Greece, Kosovo & Macedonia, then it would have been OK to subjugate those minorities because Turks died for their homeland & a place to live?
so, under those circumstances, Kosovo should still be part of Serbia, who died to defend Kosovo from the Turks, Austrian Empire, Greeks, Bulgarians, Nazis, Croats & NATO?

It's pretty much independent now. I'd be in favor of independence for the Kurds, but Turkey wouldn't like it, since there are many ethnic Kurds in Turkey who might want to bite off a chunk of Turkey for themselves.

you know, we are talking about the Turkish-side Kurds, & not the Iraqi-side Kurds?
but now that you brought it up, yes, I think Kurds should have a Kurdistan, that incorporates all the historic Kurdish areas, like so:
http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/kurdistan/kurdistan.gifP

the Iraqi Kurds have used this American invasion, to pretty much set up an independent state, that's whats making the Turks so antsy,
I doubt they would have bothered Saddam Hussein much, if let's say, he poisoned gassed Kurds,
oh wait a minute, he did & the Turks did not protest, so much for human rights

thanks for making my points, these people have aspired for freedom, a nation of their own, but Turks, & others have denied it to them, even now. they are the largest national group without a nation to call their own

The Kurds didn't fight alongside the Turkish Revolutionaries for a similar cause. This is what the Europeans had in mind:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/TreatyOfSevres_%28corrected%29.PNG

This represents what the Treaty of Sevres had planned. The Kurds, as always, were quite happy with this, seeing as how it supposedly promised them independence. However, the nationalists didn't tolerate this, and they fought to protect the homeland they had been living on for centuries.

so, are you saying that if the Turks, had fought & won more territory, lets say Greece, Kosovo & Macedonia, then it would have been OK to subjugate those minorities because Turks died for their homeland & a place to live? so, under those circumstances, Kosovo should still be part of Serbia, who died to defend Kosovo from the Turks, Austrian Empire, Greeks, Bulgarians, Nazis, Croats & NATO?

Not only did that not happen, but it wouldn't be okay of it did. See, that's the thing: the Turkish WoI was only for the Turkish regions - the places where Turks lived. They didn't expand - in fact, they lost mostly all of their empire when everything was said and done. The Kurds weren't very active during the whole process, except for four or five strong rebellions against the Turkish authorities seeking independence. Bottom line is, they weren't fighting the Arabs and Europeans to protect the homeland. The Turks died to keep foreigners out of Turkey, so it shall always be their land. It can't get any simpler than this: the Kurds didn't fight and die to free the land, so they cannot have it. The Kurds, if they truly want independence, should go and seek it from Iraq/Iran, because they most certainly won't be getting it from Turkey.

The Kurds didn't fight alongside the Turkish Revolutionaries for a similar cause. could it be because they weren't Turkish?
The Kurds, as always, were quite happy with this, seeing as how it supposedly promised them independence. & you see that as bad?
However, the nationalists didn't tolerate this, and they fought to protect the homeland they had been living on for centuries. how could the Kurdish homeland, be also the Turkish homeland? & just who was their first, or does conquest seal the deal? if that's what you think, then I guess that you can't say anything about the Palestinians, seeing how the Jews conquered Palestine, right?
Not only did that not happen, but it wouldn't be okay of it did. See, that's the thing: the Turkish WoI was only for the Turkish regions - the places where Turks lived. actually, because Turks had been the imperial elite, they lived scattered around their former empire, should Turks have conquered Bulgaria, Greece, Armenia & Albania back?
They didn't expand - in fact, they lost mostly all of their empire when everything was said and done. happens to most empires, I guess you never heard of Babylonia, Assyria, MedoPersia, Egypt, Macedonia, Rome, Britain, or America?
The Kurds weren't very active during the whole process, except for four or five strong rebellions against the Turkish authorities seeking independence. 4 or 5 rebellions? what does that say to you? "we want independence", is what!
Bottom line is, they weren't fighting the Arabs and Europeans to protect the homeland. what makes you assume that the Kurds should have fought the Arabs or Europeans, but not the Turks? Turks are not Kurds, Kurds are not Turks
The Turks died to keep foreigners out of Turkey, so it shall always be their land. It can't get any simpler than this: the Kurds didn't fight and die to free the land, so they cannot have it.
Turks are foreigners, they migrated from the Central Asian Steppes in waves,
once they learned they there was booty to be had from these Arab, Persian & Byzantine empires.
The Kurds were already there, they didn't move in, the Turks did,
could you provide proof that Kurds are recent immigrants to the area, no?
or that the Turks predate entry into Asia Minor prior to the 8th Century AD with their Persian overlords? (which means that the Kurds greeted them as they passed by)
http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/classes/His311/Lecture%20One/Manzikert.htm
http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/fractured/centralAsia.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turko-Persian_tradition
The Kurds, if they truly want independence, should go and seek it from Iraq/Iran, because they most certainly won't be getting it from Turkey. why not? because the Turks are land-hungry thieves, that if they conquer &/or steal something, its theirs for all time?
if Turkey wants to join the EU, let them follow EU-standards, Serbia just did for Kosovo, even though they didn't like it
you know that you are saying the exact same things that Serbian nationalists are about Kosovo, that since it was the heart of Serbia, it must stay, is that how Turkey thinks about Kosovo?

you know, we are talking about the Turkish-side Kurds, & not the Iraqi-side Kurds?
but now that you brought it up, yes, I think Kurds should have a Kurdistan, that incorporates all the historic Kurdish areas, like so:
http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/kurdistan/kurdistan.gifP

the Iraqi Kurds have used this American invasion, to pretty much set up an independent state, that's whats making the Turks so antsy,
I doubt they would have bothered Saddam Hussein much, if let's say, he poisoned gassed Kurds,
oh wait a minute, he did & the Turks did not protest, so much for human rights

OR they could just accept an Iraqi nationality?

Here is my ridiculous fantasy solution for for the problems of 4 nations and the Kurds:

Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria become one nation with a new capital built at the current junction of the Iran, Iraq Turkey borders. The language of this new government shall be Kurdish. This location for the capital is in Kurdish land and Kurds can speak all four major languages of the region. The kurds would no longer be an oppressed minority.

In this new nation about 49% of the people would be Shia and 49% Suni and 2% other. About 30% would speak Arabic, 30% Turkish 30% Persian and 10% other.

Turks are foreigners, they migrated from the Central Asian Steppes in waves,
once they learned they there was booty to be had from these Arab, Persian & Byzantine empires.
The Kurds were already there, they didn't move in, the Turks did,
could you provide proof that Kurds are recent immigrants to the area, no?
or that the Turks predate entry into Asia Minor prior to the 8th Century AD with their Persian overlords? (which means that the Kurds greeted them as they passed
Linguistically the Turks are foreigners, having arrived there (???????) at what, 700 years ago. Genetically the Turks are majority descended from the people who predated the Turks in Turkey with a very large admixture of Turks. This info is from my memory of Y and MTDNA Haplogroup maps.

The Kurds, and all IndoEuropean speaking people whether in Europe, India, Iran, Afghanistan, or Kurdistan are foreigners linguistically and admixes genetically in those nations, just as the Turks are. The only difference is that the Turkish invasion was during the middle ages while the IndoEuropean invasion was in prehistory. Only the Indians sort of recorded the IndoEuropean invasion.

The only exception to the IndoEuropean peoples are foreigners in there own lands statement is those people who live in the original IndoEuropean homeland. We can only make educated guesses about where that was.

could it be because they weren't Turkish?

The Kurds aren't British either, but they had no problem welcoming them!

& you see that as bad?

It's bad when it costs the Turks their livelihood, which in turn leaves the country disassembled under different zones of influence.

how could the Kurdish homeland, be also the Turkish homeland? & just who was their first, or does conquest seal the deal? if that's what you think, then I guess that you can't say anything about the Palestinians, seeing how the Jews conquered Palestine, right?

We're not talking about who got to the land first, or who conquered it 700 years ago. I'm talking strictly about the Republic of Turkey, which was founded and fought for by Turks. Even though the Kurds didn't participate (instead they weakened Turkish forces through rebellions and foreign alliances), we still permitted them the ability to live with us. Also, the Jews never conquered Palestine, as you put it - they were given it on a silver platter. I'm talking about a country that was formed 80 years ago by the selfless efforts of millions of Turks, of all ages and gender.

actually, because Turks had been the imperial elite, they lived scattered around their former empire, should Turks have conquered Bulgaria, Greece, Armenia & Albania back?

No, because the most densely populated regions with Turkish individuals were in mainland (or modern day) Turkey. That's where the majority of the fighters and their families lived. The Turks had no interest in gaining new land - their sole aspiration was to defend what they had left.

happens to most empires, I guess you never heard of Babylonia, Assyria, MedoPersia, Egypt, Macedonia, Rome, Britain, or America?

Off topic.

4 or 5 rebellions? what does that say to you? "we want independence", is what!

And what does it say to you when Turkish forces crushed those rebellions instantly? We're not giving you independence!

what makes you assume that the Kurds should have fought the Arabs or Europeans, but not the Turks? Turks are not Kurds, Kurds are not Turks

Because they were living under the Turkish Empire for 630 years. What did the Arabs/Europeans ever do for them? The Kurds were of no interest to the Europeans, who simply wanted to divide Turkey and promised nearly every neighbouring ethnic group independence for participation in a similar cause.

Turks are foreigners, they migrated from the Central Asian Steppes in waves, once they learned they there was booty to be had from these Arab, Persian & Byzantine empires.

Ancient history. We're discussing the modern day Republic of Turkey, and how it was founded.

why not? because the Turks are land-hungry thieves, that if they conquer &/or steal something, its theirs for all time?

The land-hungry thieves were clearly the Europeans and Arabs, who were the ones invading Turkey. The Turkish nationalists crushed every single one of them, which formed Turkey as we know it. Nobody is taking any of it.

One other little detail, Turks, Kurds and Armenians were mixed in pre WW1 Eastern Trurkey, The Kurds participated in and benefited from the Armenian Genocide. Kurds and Turks are currently living in places where Armenian genocide victims were formerly living.

Here is my ridiculous fantasy solution for for the problems of 4 nations and the Kurds:

Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria become one nation with a new capital built at the current junction of the Iran, Iraq Turkey borders. The language of this new government shall be Kurdish. This location for the capital is in Kurdish land and Kurds can speak all four major languages of the region. The kurds would no longer be an oppressed minority.

In this new nation about 49% of the people would be Shia and 49% Suni and 2% other. About 30% would speak Arabic, 30% Turkish 30% Persian and 10% other.

Which means it wouldn't run as a nation, there would be no national identity, and if the people speak such varied languages, how the hell will it run?

Which means it wouldn't run as a nation, there would be no national identity, and if the people speak such varied languages, how the hell will it run?

It would run like Switzerland does. Or like the EU does. Or like Quebec does.

But you are right, the national identities issue is really do big of an issue which is why I called my own idea ridiculous.

The other big issue would be the oil sharing agreement, which could never be worked out but which would be the incentive for Syria and Turky to Join. And what would be in it for Iran? give up their dream of Shia utopia? The only thing Iran would gain is safety from the American Devils and the Iranian ethnic minorities would be happier living in a multi cultural state than in a Persian dominated state.

The idea is ridiculous but those Nations (with the possible exception of Iran) and the World would be better off if it became reality. I would really enjoy seeing the NeoCon dream of an American dominated Middle-East crushed because I know that this NeoCon dream is an impossible dream that will just create trouble for me and my fellow Americans.

As ridiculous as the Neocon world domination dream is, I have to admit that my Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey unification fantasy is even more ridiculous than the neocon fantasy.

Let's not talk about impossible dreams. Neither Turkey, nor Iran and Syria will let anybody (however powerful) divide their land, even an inch of it, and the people here in the region know who actually is beyond all these "give kurds independence activities". It is a well-known fact that PKK is openly financed and supported in Europe. This scenario was once forced into this region and resulted in unending blood and destruction called "Israel". We should think about how to root out the existing source of unrest, not about creating new ones.