Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

2

supernice wrote (edited )

What's happening in the Kurdish region is the same that happened in the Kurdish region in Iraq in 1991. Namely, an opportunity for a people that have been oppressed to try and take their destiny into their own hands. I'm talking strictly about the "Arab Spring" aspect of this, nothing to do with the Kurds.

With the exception of the factions aligned with the US, in other words imperialist tools (SDF, etc.), I wouldn't say that the Kurds in Syria took the side of the "revolutionaries" or the Assad government. They saw an opportunity, after the proxy war began, to take matters into their own hands and secure their own destiny. I have my thoughts on that, but that is a separate issue is really what I'm saying, and it has nothing to do with the "revolution" or those who have been carrying it out. Whether you can call it a revolution or not is another matter, but is not relevant in this context.

And early on, portions of the 'revolutionaries' were just that, establishing local councils in opposition

This part I have yet to see any credible evidence of. When it started, I was hopeful that this was the case. But now many years after the fact, it appears that this was a myth. It seems to be the Arab version of colour revolutions. The "Arab Spring" , as they say.

2

ergdj5 wrote

What's happening in the Kurdish region is the same that happened in the Kurdish region in Iraq in 1991. 

That's... so ethonocentric it's not even funny. The Kurdish region of Iraq is the KRG, notable for cooperating in military campaigns against the KCK and banning them at times. Are you seriously comparing them based only on ethnicity?

With the exception of the factions aligned with the US, in other words imperialist tools (SDF, etc.)

Just like the Yugoslav partisans against the Nazis were imperialist tools for accepting US supplies and air support. What a joke. They need supplies to fight The Literal Islamic State, and the US offers them.

Your entire argument seems to be that Syrians have no agency or will but only can act when the US (ignoring Russia) tells them to, like they're western pawns rather than people themselves, even though the Assads have been propped up by Europeans for decades.

Despite that, clearly any revolt or dissent is only the work of Western powers, according to you. Can you not imagine people rising up without prompt by the US? How can one be an anarchist whilst discounting revolution as American puppets? Is this going to turn into apologia for killing protesters?

0

supernice wrote

Calm down. There's nothing ethnocentric about saying a group of people took an opportunity to free themselves, even if the same thing happened next door by the same ethnicity. The fact that they did has nothing to do with with ethnicity, but it has everything to do with the fact that they were being oppressed. If they were living comfortably, regardless of ethnicity, they would have seen no need to do this.

What a joke. They need supplies to fight The Literal Islamic State, and the US offers them.

And to fight the Turks, rightfully so. But look what happened? They were used, much like a tool, until they were no longer needed.

Your entire argument seems to be that Syrians have no agency

No, my argument is that the "rebels", not including the Kurds (excepting those I mentioned before), were and are a proxy army for external interests. And the Kurds who didn't fall for the trap of being used, saw an opportunity to rid themselves of oppression and like anyone in their right mind would, took it.

Is that simple enough for you?

2

ergdj5 wrote

excepting those I mentioned before

So, three militias? Most of the organizations in Syria are under the SDF banner now.

the Kurds who didn't fall for the trap of being used

Only sentences up, don't you say they were used?

0

supernice wrote

I'm sorry, I'm not following you. What do you mean? Also, I have no idea how many militias are under the SDF banner.

3

ergdj5 wrote

You have two conflicting views; that the Kurds have avoided being used and that the SDF is a tool of imperialism. The Kurdish groups, and many non-Kurdish ones, are all SDF, so you're going to have to give me a concrete answer, I don't think I get it.

0

supernice wrote (edited )

Ok, sorry I thought I was being clear but I guess not. I am not looking at the Kurds of Syria as one group. Although you have insulted me by accusing me of ethnocentrism, that's not me. The Kurds fighting in Syria, regardless of ethnicity, have varied interests and means.

Group 1: Kurds who are fighting for a better future, without taking sides (Assad or his enemies)

Group 2: Kurds who are fighting for a better future, but taking sides (Assad or his enemies)

That's probably as simply as I could put it without being too much of a reductionist, which OP claims I am. The reason I make the distinction in the first place is simply because those who are taking sides, one way or the other, are fooling themselves. Whichever major power they side with, will turn on them in the end, or simply abandon them, like we've already seen in Syria and in countless other historical situations. They are not looking at the long term. They are being used for a goal which is not their own and very likely conflicts with their own. If the goal was not in conflict, they would not be abandoned or turned on. But it is in conflict. NO ONE wants to lose control of that piece of land they are sitting on. They all covet it, and they all have designs on it. Whoever gets in their way will be marked as an enemy and fought. Including the Kurds.

I have no doubt that both groups want a similar result, i.e. control of their own destiny. It's the means they go about it that makes all the difference in the world. One method is something that I believe can succeed given the right circumstances, the other is one that I believe is doomed to failure because the parties they are engaging with to accomplish the end goal are much more powerful, and once you've assisted them (by being their tool) they will be far more powerful. The overall Kurdish situation in Syria can likely become far worse than it is now or has been in the past as a result of them taking sides instead of trying to make their own path while all potential opponents are in a weaker position.

EDIT: I said I am not looking at the Syrian Kurds as one group. Before I get more insults, let me clarify further yet. I am not looking at the Syrian Kurds as one fighting group.

1

ergdj5 wrote

The only active fighting groups in Rojava are SDF, though. There's a few independent militias, but they're all minor and linked closely to the SDF.

0

supernice wrote (edited )

If you are right, and it's 90-99% SDF, in my view they are being used by the US and it's cronies. That's not to say they have the same goals as the US and it's cronies. I'm sure they are not completely delusional and know very well what to expect from them, I just think it's a bad choice.

All I can hope for is that it doesn't end badly. If that makes me ethnocentric, or whatever else you may choose to call me, then what can I say other than you have the right to your own opinion? I didn't comment on this post to argue the merits of the Kurdish struggle. I didn't even comment on this post to say anything for or against the women listed in the article. I was simply expressing my opinion that what is happening in Syria should not be called a revolution.

It seems like differing opinions is something both you and /u/0w0 are unable to handle very well, though I'll admit, you far better than them. At least you had the decency to engage in dialogue with minimal insults. I'm still pissed that you called me ethnocentric, but I'll get over it :)

1

ergdj5 wrote (edited )

My ethnocentric call was pre-emptive, my bad. You have no idea how often I debate with people who think all Kurds are one, and that the KRG is the same as the KCK. I shouldn't have gotten there so fast.

I'm sure they are not completely delusional and know very well what to expect from them,

YPG officials have been shittalking the US a lot recently. I think it's gonna break off soon.

1

supernice wrote

I appreciate that. Kurds are most certainly not of one mind on things, like any other group in the world. It's naive to think that way.

I want the mess to end in Syria as badly as anyone else here does, I just don't want it to end the way things ended in Egypt. Just replacing one shit situation for another. People deserve better, no matter who they are.

1

0w0 wrote (edited )

Yeah a "myth" they all were violent Jihadists, right? and backed by the West, right? Like in the other Arab countries in the arab spring, right?

Edit: Fixing link

-3

supernice wrote

Oh my, you are still going on about this? You are more pathetic than I thought ......please, give it a rest. The more you link to things, the more you reveal that you are the same asshat that was going by /u/_0_0_.

Getting right back to your Wahabbi apologist act from last time you and I spoke pretty quickly aren't we? Maybe now is time to abandon this account a create a new one like you did previously since you've been found out? But please, be more clever this time with the username :)

3

Brick wrote

I don't understand why you're being so hostile but it's misplaced. They haven't said anything worthy of this reaction.

-1

supernice wrote

Perhaps it's because I don't appreciate being called a western lefty, a reductionist, or an orientalist. I have no real problem with those that choose the left label, I just don't do so myself.

Also perhaps because I suspect that this user is one and the same with u/_0_0_, who appears to be not-all-Wahabbis type. I make it a personal policy to not give any leeway to Wahabbis, or any other extremists for that matter.

4

Brick wrote

-1

supernice wrote

No problem. And maybe they're not the same user as /u/_0_0_ too, but calling me a western lefty, reductionist, or an orientalist is still going to get me to be hostile to them.

Does disagreeing with calling what's happened in Syria a revolution make me fair game for insults? I think I can have my own opinion without being insulted. If my opinion doesn't match theirs, we could simply have discussed it without the childish insults.

1

0w0 wrote (edited )

Nice scapegoating. I find very insuting that someone that is not from the MENA tell that all the people that participate in the uprisings in the MENA did it because external influence, in all content that I posted they named THEIR fight, including non violent protest and civil disobedience, a revolution. What westerns think is irrelevant to us. You call my content Wahhabi apology, because what? Becuase is in Arabic? Nobody talk about Wahhabism but you. And I don't need to excuse with a bigot that is not even willing to see what I'm posted and recur to ad hominems.

Edit: grammar.

1

0w0 wrote

And is especially insulting to the people that died protesting and fighting. Like some of the named in this article.

-4

supernice wrote

A few things for you:

What westerns think is irrelevant to us

  1. Who on Earth is "us"? You've said this a second time now. Are you the representative of all of Raddle, all of the Middle East & North Africa, or simply the entire world?

  2. You insulted me with your first response, so what do you expect from me in return? A kiss on the cheek perhaps?

  3. I've called you a Wahabbi apologist, not a Wahabbi. There's a distinction. I say this based on your responses to me when you where using the account /u/_0_0_. Make excuses for Wahabbis and I'll call you an apologist for them, simple as that. I deal with Wahabbis and those who enable them the same as I deal with Nazis and their enablers. Deal with it.

  4. You've repeated that I'm not from MENA, yet you have no idea who I am or where I'm from. This is yet another example of your ample stupidity and arrogance. Considering you say that you are from Brazil (if that is not a lie), then I suppose that makes you not from MENA as well. What's your point then?

  5. I don't think you know what "ad hominem" means, so please stick to your limited vocabulary as it will help you rather than make you look foolish. My post to this thread was about my objection to a singular word....not you or the subjects of the article. When you came at me with your infantile insults and assumptions, I hit back. My attacks on you have little to do with your position on the use of that word, rather your inability to be civil (maybe you are a Wahabbi after all?). I wouldn't call that ad hominem, I'd call it dealing with an idiot on the only level they can understand. My days of dealing with fools nicely and trying to get through their thick skulls ended many years ago friend, you'll get no pity from me.

  6. Are you so fucking infantile that you are still going on about this rather than moving on with your sad existence? For fucks sake, surely you have better options than to engage with me further on this? We are obviously beyond the point of any rational discussion, why do you persist?

Please, for the love of all that is beautiful in this world, do not think that I actually want an answer to the questions I've posed above. They are merely there for you to ponder. Just piss off so that we don't have to suffer any further exchanges with each other.

1

Brick wrote (edited )

Okay, you're out of fucking line. You're calling them stupid, limited vocabulary, idiot, fool, thick skull, infantile when you've been shown them saying they are "mentally disabled". Stop it you ableist asshole.

-2

supernice wrote (edited )

If the shoe fits. I said nothing about mentally disabled, those are your assumptions.

Edit: I misread the last part of your comment. I thought you were saying that i was calling them mentally disabled. My comments have nothing to do with their mental disability nonetheless. It's all about the way they've engaged me in this thread. Read into it what you will.

2

Tequila_Wolf wrote

My comments have nothing to do with their mental disability nonetheless

Presumably you know enough about these things to realise that what you've said not alright. If not, it might help if you imagine saying equivalent things with other forms of oppression you are more familiar with. Please cut it out immediately at the least.

I understand that they said some insulting things to you; that doesn't make this kind of behaviour acceptable.

0

supernice wrote

You're right. I missed the bit about their mental disability in the link Brick sent me, seemed to have nothing to do with what we were discussing when I scanned through it, so I moved on.

If someone is hostile to me, I respond back. The intention is not do belittle mentally disabled people in any way, it's only to return their insults in kind. But I doubt anyone is willing to believe that.

What's next? Am I banned? Not trying to be an ass, just honestly want to know.

3

Tequila_Wolf wrote

Use non-ableist insults next time. Nothing's next. We usually give people the opportunity to stop, as I just did, so presuming you have that's as far as this goes for me unless someone makes a case to take it further.

I'd personally appreciate it if you didn't engage them OwO in a hostile way going forward.

0

supernice wrote

No worries. I'll be more thoughtful in my approach going forward and haven't the slightest desire to engage this user any further.