I'm assuming he is trying to make a comparison to the stance people tend to take against radical Islam, so let us, for the sake of the arguement, assume his claim is true, and they all supported the instances of "terrorism" to which he objects.
Partly and the hypocritcal and double standard part. Its okay to use terrorists tactics as long as its the "good guys" and thier "friends" that are using them. Are terrorists not terrorists regardless who they attack or what thier motives are?
Yet even if the tactics of the Kurds had some similarities, there would remain critical differences.
Some similarites and critical differences? They use bombs, murder and assasination too. They have bombed cafes, schools, buses and assinated people. This is terror is it not? The same that Isreal and other nations have been hit by no? Or is it not terror because the kurds "are our friends"? Its only a few weeks ago they bombed a tourist resort for peaksake.
For starters, the Kurds have suffered abuse and oppression at the hands of the Islamic overlords.
And arabs in the occupied west bank, gaza and other places are not suffering under the Isreali jaugernaut? While I agree that the Kurds have "suffered" in someways under Turkeys and other nations control, but so have other minorities and even the other parts of the population. Is it liberate all the oppressed people but only those living in non friendly areas of the planet policy?
The only way this can stop is if they are no longer under the jurisdiction of those funadmentalist Islamic states which occupy Kurd land.
So Turkey is now a fundamentalist state? Syria is? I agree Iran is a fundementalist nation.. but Saddams Iraq? I think you need to look up the fundementalist part...
Additionally, the Kurds aren't working to destroy others or their lands, nor do they seek to obliterate other nations.
Tell that to the turks living in "kurdistan" part of Turkey, that have been hit by terror and assasination. And what is there to stop the Kurds preforming "ethnic cleansning" in the areas they control.. they after all are attemtping to do it in Iraq. Sure Saddam forced arabs to the north to "break up" the kurdish domination of the area, but that makes it okay 20 to 30 years later to start kicking them out? And what about the other minorities in the area who claim historical claims and are being forced out by the Kurds?
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, unlike the Jihadists, they have a legitimate claim to the land they covet.
Ahh the old historical claim bullshit and double standard. If we allow more "minorities" to gain land and statehood based on some ancient historical fact, then we cant pick and choose. In Northern Iraq, in the area under Kurdish control, and claimed by Kurds, there are far more miniorites (who are being oppressed by the kurds as we speak) who have even more ancient claim to the area. And if we look away from that, what about American Indians.. want to give the US back to them, because they have exactly the same historical right to the whole of the US as the kurds or Jews have to thier lands by you own standard. There are the Aztec peoples of Mexico who can claim the whole of Mexico City as thier own by your standard, the remaining Incas can claim half of South America and so on. Do you really want to go that way.. Isreal was a huge mistake, but do you really want to open old wounds like that again? Look at the problems this nation has cause.. imagine 5 or 10 similar situations all over the planet?
Compare that to radical Muslims, especially those attempting to create a "Palestinian" state on Israeli territory.
Again, there were far more arabs than jews when Isreal was formed, and the land like it or not was stolen by the UN to please a minority in the area. This is fact and can not be denied. Radical muslims have used and continue to use the palistine problem as a rallying cry and the US and Isreals and the palestinians leaderships unwillingness to seriously enter into talks has only give the radical elements of the arab world more power. The more violience and oppression, the more radicalised the population in the area gets... sad but true.
They have no historic claim, are hell bent on the destruction of Israel, frequently attack civilians, and have been given more in the way of freedoms and aids under Israeli law than they could have ever fathomed when part of Jordan or Egypt.
So now you are saying that Israeli Arabs are terrorists and not only those arabs in the occupied areas? There is no doubt that Isreali Arabs have had and have better conditions than thier brothers and sisters in other parts of the arab world and in the west bank but they still claim that they are discriminated against and frankly they are not the "problem". The problem has been and still is the arabs being bullied, beaten, murdered and denied a living on the west bank and in gaza. When people are denied water, food and work because of laws and rules imposed by occupiers, then they are oppressed.. but of course Isreal is our "friend" so that cant be true!
In otherwords, the Israelis have enhanced the conditions for the Muslims in their land, and said Muslims refuse to accept this, instead attempting to destroy Israel to create a country with no historic or legal validity.
Again you go by the doctrine that people have a right to land if they have hestorical ties to the area..a very very dangerous doctrine and do you really want to go there? But I agree they have enhanced th lives of muslims with in the 1948 borders, but outside they have not.
Conversely, the Kurds have been oppressed yet remained largely peaceful, hoping to one day reclaim the land which has always legitimately been their property, so that they could create an independent Kurdistan.
Read above, and they have been far from peacefull. They have however been oppressed thats for sure, but then again so have so many other minorities in some degree or another.
Its also funny that the US backs the Kurds so much, considering thier main political parties are socialists in some degree or another (with the worst part being hardcore commies) and up to a few years ago were at war with each other.
I am not against Kurds getting thier "own land" but one has look at the consequences of such an act and compare it to the alternative. And frankly is giving a few million kurds thier own country worth the risk of all out war because of this? I doubt very much that the muslims of middle and south Iraq will accept a kurdish state that has that amount of oil and that amount of arabs living among them. I doubt Iran will want such a nation as it will cause problems internaly, and the same goes for Turkey and Syria.
I am against the historical ties to an area is an automatic right to that area principle that many americans justify Isreal and now Kurdistan with.
