Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.