I reported that, but no action was taken.
Calling for ethnic cleansing of Kurds at the hands of Islamic fascists should be against the rules… right?
The commenter in question has clarified their intention in a private message, so the issue has been resolved as far as we’re concerned. I’m locking this thread because any respectful discussions seem to have ended.
I don’t pretend to be an expert on the various Syrian factions, but calling for US-backed Al Qaeda to take more territory seems like juvenile edgelord shit at best.
I’ve been through the comments now. I’ll refer to Rojava as the western region of Kurdistan and the Rojava Project (RP) as the political institution(s) seeking to carve out an autonomous polity in Rojava.
I did not read @[email protected] as apologising for imperialism or as criticising China. My interpretation of their argument was as follows:
- rejecting the RP outright was hypocritical if the rejection was based on working with the US; lots of countries, including China, have worked alongside the imperialists in the past (they are not criticising China or praising US actions in West Asia)
- the RP is/was an attempt to protect Kurds from their historic oppression, this time coming from militias based in Syria and the constant threat from Turkey
- the RP is not an ethnostate, although it is unwilling to back down on the protection of Kurds
- calling for the destruction of the RP without addressing how otherwise to protect Syrian Kurds is equivalent to calling for, at a minimum, the mass murder and further oppression of Kurds, especially now that they would not be facing Assad’s government but whatever ISIS-Zionist-HTS horror is about to happen
@[email protected] disagrees and sees the RP as:
- an opportunist attempt to wrestle land off Syria
- an attempt to create an ethnostate, out of land that should be governed by the Syrian central government
- (possibly) an extremist US proxy
- partly responsible for Syria’s collapse (perhaps for being a thorn in its side and denying essential resources)
There are issues with framing RP as a US proxy, given the nature of democratic confederalism. It’s not, or doesn’t seem to me to be, an entirely unified bloc. There are clearly elements of the RP willing to work with the US. Maybe there were some who weighed up the pros and cons and aligned despite the disadvantages, as self-preservation, as Multitotal suggests. Maybe there were some who were always compradors willing to support the US’ interests if it achieved interim RP goals, regardless of the effect to Syria, as GlueBear suggests. Things may be clearer in a few decades as records get released and the dust settles but it’ll be too late by then.
I’m not sure I’m qualified to say who is ultimately correct. GlueBear has certainly challenged my view of Rojava, so I’m going to have to do some research and self-crit before I’m able to conclude as to what the RP is. There’s a lot going on, here. The references to China aren’t helpful on either side, because it’s apples and oranges, although the question of (hypo)critical is a persuasive one. Comparing the successes of a massive, stable China run by communists with those of war-torn Rojava are unfair and it doesn’t seem to be what multitotal was asking for. A comparison with the Kurds in Turkey might be illuminating. One main question is whether the RP managed to protect the people of Rojava (more than if the RP hadn’t existed). This thread probably isn’t the place to try to work it all out.
As for GlueBear’s comments about wiping Rojava off the map, I take this to mean the RP rather than the Kurds in the region but it is hard to be sure without asking for clarity. Given the ‘temporarily-embarressed ethnostate’ I would suggest that GlueBear means the RP rather than the people of Rojava, being opposed to anyone oppressing any ethnicity.
It seems that GlueBear approaches the topic from the perspective of what Rojava has done for Syrian Arabs (and others and general stability in the region) while multitotal approaches it from the perspective of what Rojava has done for Kurds. Easy to see how the one will be distraught and the other hopeful. That’s a recipe for disagreement even if both share the approach of ‘what’s best for stability in the region and worst for US imperialists’. I’m fairly sure both would agree that Anglo-European meddling from before Sykes-Picot to today is a bastard and has a lot to answer for.
The arguments are rather muddied throughout the thread (not just between multi and Glue) with some speaking-past-one-anothoer and irrelevant argumentation. It doesn’t seem as though GlueBear wants the Kurds eradicated (at least, I highly doubt it on the face of what’s presented), which is the key thing. @[email protected] hit the nail on the head, I think.
That’s a very nice (and fair) summary, thank you.
One thing to add: Turkish-backed fighters accused of executing Kurdish soldiers in hospital
The ethnic cleansing is not a future possibility, but a reality that is happening right now.
Calling for ethnic cleansing of Kurds at the hands of Islamic fascists should be against the rules… right?
In the same way saying Israel should be wiped out is a call for genocide against Jewish people?
Rojava exists so that the US can steal Syrian oil and sell it to Israel below market.
the same way saying Israel should be wiped out is a call for genocide against Jewish people?
Not a good comparison, Kurds/people of Rojava are native/indigenous to northern Syria and Iraq.
You’re framing the issue wrong. Palestinians don’t want to genocide Israelis, while SNA/HTS/Tutkey do want to ethnically cleanse the Kurds, because much like Israel believes all Palestinians are Hamas, so Turkey thinks all Kurds are terrorists.
Here’s the thread for context everyone, and the specific comment.
They’re using some edgy language, and that debate got spicy, but their comment doesn’t seem like they’re calling for ethnic cleansing of kurds at the hands of islamic fascists. They’re being critical of Rojava as a US-funded military project.
Funny how multitotal didn’t actually link the thread directly, just quoted one comment without context. Almost like they’re trying to start drama or do wrecker shit by trying to turn the community against the mods.
“Link to what you’re criticizing” should be a rule for posts like this.
I get that people get hot about this one, and its not necessarily a bad thing to make a people’s court post about stuff like this. We always gotta be open to criticism.
I’m fine with people bringing up a discussion they think is unacceptable, but to do so without posting links to it is just pointless drama, or deliberate wrecker behaviour.
I didn’t want it to seem like I’m asking for people to go and jump on the discussion.
It’s interesting though that people are all like “context?” in response to this, but if someone had written “I hope China gets wiped off the map”, they’d be instantly banned for “imperialism” (rightfully so) and nobody would pause for two seconds to ask for context. Same thing with any of the other n things where the mere implication of a thought rather than anything written is worthy of a permanent ban.
But when someone says, in no uncertain terms, they wish Turkey and its militias ethnically cleanse the Kurds from northern Syria the response is “hm… what is the context of that statement?” LMAO
Just to be clear, genocide and similar crimes are never acceptable in any context.
The context that I was asking for is the context in which the words in the thread title/description were stated. This was not to make assumptions about the context in which advocating for genocide is okay. It was to avoid making incorrect assumptions and accepting your interpretation without evidence. It was not too see whether the context might suggest that genocide was acceptable. It was to determine whether anyone had advocated for the genocide of Kurds.
That’s fair. But let’s entertain a hypothetical…
If someone had posted “China should be wiped off the map” or “Russia should be wiped off the map”. Do you think we’d be having this discussion regarding motives and context?
Maybe I didn’t link it publicly so it wouldn’t seem like I am trying to start drama with the person. I didn’t ask for the person to get banned or their comment deleted, just asked about that rule going forward.
I don’t see genocide in their words. They also say HTS should be wiped off the map. Doesn’t mean they want to kill all Sunni Muslims in Syria. They just wish Rojava didn’t exist as an organization.
In fact OP is making the same argument that Israel makes when accusing its critics of antisemitism.
They also say HTS should be wiped off the map
As an afterthought edit. Because clearly they saw it as a way to push Turkey’s talking points onto this forum.
They just wish Rojava didn’t exist as an organization.
No, they’re not. They also referred to people of Rojava as “terrorists”. Only country who calls them that is Turkey.
Doesn’t mean they want to kill all Sunni Muslims in Syria.
Actually, SNA/HTS are sunni, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas are shia.
In fact OP is making the same argument that Israel makes when accusing its critics of antisemitism.
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
-
To equate the two is to say that Palestinians want to genocide/ethnically cleanse Israel, when that is not true. Meanwhile SNA is already running a terror campaign in the areas they control.
-
To equate the two is saying that just like the Kurds in northern Syria and Iraq, Israeli nationals/settlers are native/indigenous to Israel. This is also not true.
What is true though, is that Turkey has used the same rhetoric against PKK/SDF/YPG/Kurds as Israel uses against Palestinians. Turkey calls them terrorists and uses that to justify invading north Syria and killing civilians.
So the people of Rojava and the Kurds are more akin to the Palestinians and Turkey and the Turkish-backed forces are more akin to Israel.
Thank you for bringing that up, now my position is even more clear and justified.
-
I personally don’t think heated arguments or edgyness are good excuses for statements such as this one. I’m not well versed in Syrian or Middle-Eastern modern history myself, but I’m at least well aware that AANES as a state(-ish) entity was formed for the precise reason of combating genocidal forces in both ISIS and Turkey.
To advocate for the destruction of that in the current state of things can (and will, by the broader public) be read, not as ultra-leftism or idealistic anti-imperialism, but as cover for the very likely genocidal acts of the current victors of the war. Specially considering that a majority of the users here are from the Global North or otherwise very distant from the topics of discussion.
IMO we should hold ourselves to higher standards than that, or else we start looking like Reddit Trotskyists and raddle anarchists wishing death and destruction on any third world statelet because they don’t align with our own much broader geopolitical interests.
IMO we should hold ourselves to higher standards than that, or else we start looking like Reddit Trotskyists and raddle anarchists wishing death and destruction on any third world statelet because they don’t align with our own much broader geopolitical interests.
Exactly this.
Well, what about this ?
Forgive me if I don’t care about racist terrorists who are literally tearing my home piece by piece.
Calling people of Rojava “racist terrorists”. Do you think they are calling the land racist, or perhaps the pieces of paper that run their bureaucracy? No, they’re referring to the people of Rojava.
I’m going to be gleeful that terrorists are reaping what they’re sowing.
Expressing glee at the thought of people of Rojava (“racist terrorists”) are reaping.
Turkish-backed SNA didn’t wait to start an ethnic cleansing campaign: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/12/11/turkish-backed-fighters-accused-killing-soldiers-syria/
What right do you have to decide what states do or do not exist in west asia? You have some sort of fan boy obsession with rojava and the pretty women in uniforms (same thing idf does btw) and that’s fine, I don’t care. But rojava is carving out a piece of Syria for the imperialists. They also want an ethnostate for their ethnicity. When we say we want israel destroyed, we don’t mean jews. It’s the same thing here.
Also it seems to me that Multitotal did imperialist apología by denying the plunder of Syrian oil by the US through the Rojava territory in this thread with Graineater: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/6447386/5646506
And with me here:
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/6440034/5651783
He is very stubborn beyond belief that makes me question if it is in bad faith.
Yeah for sure. That’s why I stopped responding and deleting some of my harsher comments in the other thread. It was not constructive in the least.
Edit: also trump in a speech literally said “we are taking their oil”. Like come on man.
“the situation regarding Syria’s oil in DAANES and US involvement is a complicated one” = imperialism >:(
“Rojava should be wiped off the map” = edgy, fun language :)
What right do you have to decide what states do or do not exist in west asia?
Ironic, coming from the person saying DAANES shouldn’t exist. lmao
You can’t use your rhetorical tricks here, since you’re on the side of Turkey/SNA who are ethnically cleansing northern Syria and denying a people the right to existence.
I’m agnostic about whether action should be taken, but calling for a state (or pseudo-state) to “wiped off the map” is not a call for genocide or ethnic cleansing, and acting like it is reinforces the Israeli claim that Arabs are genocidal in their opposition to Israel
But in the context of Rojava it does. Because DAANES was specifically created to protect the Kurdish minority from ISIS repression.
What if someone said “China should be wiped off the map”? What would you infer from that sentence?
But in the context of Rojava it does. Because DAANES was specifically created to protect the Kurdish minority from ISIS repression.
You have to understand this is literally the exact same argument Israel uses if you sub in “Arabic hordes” for ISIS
What if someone said “China should be wiped off the map”? What would you infer from that sentence?
I mean this is the problem with hypotheticals isn’t it? I’d be pretty confused. I guess I’d assume they want to balkanize China, or maybe just bring and end to the PRC as an institution (maybe to be replaced by ROC)? Pretty far down that last though would be the assumption that they want an ethnic cleansing of Chinese people from China.
The ethnic cleansing is happening right now, as we speak: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/12/11/turkish-backed-fighters-accused-killing-soldiers-syria/
It’s not a hypothetical what-if, Rojava ia necessary to protect Kurds (and Shia muslims, and anyone else opposed to HTS/SNA/Turkey).
Removed by mod
I feel that they could do without the edgy language, but I certainly understand the sentiment considering rojava’s ties with the US military.
I understand the sentiment too, and I’m happy to debate the point. I do not deny that Rojava cooperated with the US, I’m saying they did it this survive, and not because they’re moustache-twirling villains who want to see the US rule the world.
Is there context?
tl;dr: China has done so much for the world, while rojava should be wiped off the map by HTS because it’s just a blight.
That is not a link. We still have no context.
I didn’t want to link so it doesn’t come across as I am asking people to go pile up on a person. I reported it this morning. I’ll send you a link in a PM if that’s ok.
But in what context can genocide/ethnic cleansing/repression of a people be OK?
We have no idea if x person said x, because you’re not linking anything.
Thx.
Which person are you talking about? Yourself? Because it sounds like you don’t want context lest people find out this isn’t at all what you’re claiming it is.
It is precisely what I claim it is. What does tl;dr mean? “too long; didn’t read” tl;dr is a summary of one’s points and arguments. Anything before a tl;dr isn’t necessary to understand the tl;dr by definition.
The person summarised their own words into a tl;dr, unprompted. How can you blame me for that?
You’re just looking for an excuse to defend calls for ethnic cleansing because you happen to agree with it.
You DARVO losers always follow the same pattern. You make HUGE assumptions about everyone else and put words in everyone else’s mouth while demanding everyone else praise you for it. You present your enemies as the worst people on earth and allow no discussion of the topic, trying to threaten or browbeat everyone else into obeying you. Fuck off with that shit, it has no place here.
You DARVO losers always follow the same pattern. You put words in everyone else’s mouth. You present…
You have zero self awareness, you assume I am a part of some group, then go on to assume what I supposedly do, only to then say that I am actually the one doing the assuming. That’s gaslighting.
Can you argue a point without implying that the person to whom you’re speaking is part of a conspiracy?
I don’t even know what DARVO is.
You present your enemies as the worst people on earth and allow no discussion of the topic
Zero self-awareness. This all started because someone said Rojava were the worst people on Earth, who should be wiped out, and then refused to discuss it.
Fuck off with that shit, it has no place here.
Stop your attempts at browbeating. Your whole comment literally applies to you, but you lack the self-awareness to see it.
Thanks for the summary. I think in cases like this, as uncomfortable as it can be, it’s important to have the full text so I wouldn’t worry about posting relevant links in this comm. I’ve seen the link now. I’ll have a think.
My first thoughts are: what do you and they mean by Rojava? If they mean to limit it to a particular set of relations that amount to a US proxy, that’s one thing (and quite a claim but possibly not a call for genocide). If they’re using Rojava more like you, as the Kurds in that part of the world, it’s quite another. Both readings seem possible, which is problematic.
If you need more context, this other interaction could help to understand more that discussion: -> https://lemmygrad.ml/post/6440034/5647622
Thanks.
My first thoughts are: what do you and they mean by Rojava?
The person I was talking about calls the people of Rojava “terrorists” and then says they’re gleeful about “what’s coming to them”. The only country that calls SDF/YPG/Rojava/Kurds terrorists is Turkey.
Forgive me if I don’t care about racist terrorists who are literally tearing my home piece by piece. They wanted assad gone for so long, well now they have it.
…
I’m going to be gleeful that terrorists are reaping what they’re sowing.
We have a person literally advocating for Turkey (a founding member NATO state) to ethnically cleanse Kurds from Rojava (because they are terrorists), but that’s alright, cause SDF took money from the US.
Rojava is not “tearing [Syria] piece by peace”, they are actually defending Syria’s integrity against Turkish invasion. Yet this person doesn’t see it that way, why is that so? Perhaps he thinks Turkey has the right to go in and ethnically cleanse Kurds.
