For the fourth day in a row, hundreds of Arabs took to the street in the southeastern Deir Ezzor countryside to protest against the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) said that the protests covered several towns, including al-Busayrah and Husin. According to the UK-based monitoring group, the protestors raised several signs saying “the people want to overthrow the dictatorship” and “they claim to be democratic, while they are racists.”
The protests were reportedly met with a violence reaction from the SDF’s security forces, which attempted to disturb them by force. This led to the injury of many civilians, according to the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA).
“Militants supported by the U.S. occupation force attacked the locals … With live fire, in a random way, which led to the injury of several civilians,” a local source told the SANA.
In the second day of the protests, three civilians were killed by the SDF’s security forces. The death of these civilians fueled the protests in southern Deir Ezzor, especially in the Middle Euphrates River Valley.
The protestors claim that they are moving against the “racists” behavior of the Kurdish-dominated SDF. However, they are yet to clarify the side they are supporting. Previous protests witnessed many chants against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Such chants are usually heard in protests organized by Turkish-backed groups.
(((Kurds))) and their Zionist masters need to leave Syria. Syria is for Arabs only.
Syria is for Syrians only.
And Syrians are Arabs whether Zionists and their European and American lapdogs like it or not.
not all arabs, within syria, are syrians.
All Europeans are European, and all those living in the Arab World, are Arabs. Syria is part of the Arab World and ruled by the Arab Baathist Party, the official name of the country is the Syrian ARAB Republic. Keep your (((Western))) ideology for yourself, this is an Arab matter.
you have not understand what I said and no it is not an arab matter but a matter of fact not all arabs that are in syria are syrians or friends of syrians, therefore………… Syria is for syrians but not all arabs as you puting it because then it is also syria to all the arab mercenaries they been send there and destroy the country and dont tell me again about my ideology and categorize it. keep the kind of stupidity you demonstrate with your answer to yourself.
Some Kurds have been living in this particular region for at least 1,800 years, even the Romans mentioned them in their literature, and modern day Syria has only existed since the end of the Ottoman Empire, just 200 years ago, and the Turks stole it from the Persians anyway, so the kurds have just as much right to be there as anyone else, and probably more right to since they’ve been there the longest. All the areas the Kurds live in now, whether it be Turkey, Syria, Iraq, or Iran, have all more or less lived in the same traditional areas they always have, it’s just the borders keep changing around them. For a thousand years they were Persian Kurds, then they became Ottoman Kurds, now they’re Turkish, Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian Kurds, but they’re still all Kurds, no matter which country now claims them and their territory.
Wrong: many ethnic Kurds migrated to Syria under French rule and later fleeing Turkish oppression (while Apo öcalan was enjoying the protection of Syria). But definitely the area they’re ruling now in Syria is many times the area where they form the majority of the population and probably at least 5 times more than the proportion of the population they form: 8%!
That’s officially correct, 250,000+ fled Turkey and moved to Syria, but you seem to discount the fact the Kurds have lived in nearly all the areas they do now, for thousands of years, they’ve always been here in these areas, long before countries like Turkey, Syria, Iraq even existed, they were there all during the Persian Empire and only ended up under the Ottomans when the Ottomans beat the Persians, then they were Ottoman Kurds for a couple of hundred years, and then when the Brits took over, they turned them into either Turkish Kurds, Syrian Kurds, Iraqi Kurds or Iranian Kurds, but it’s always been their Kurdish HOME lands, the Persians never moved them out and dispersed them, the Ottomans did to a small extent, but now for the last hundred years or so, the rest of the world seems to think they own the traditional Kurdish homelands and can tell the Kurds where they can or can’t live. The Zionist Israelis do exactly the same thing to the Palestinians now, they moved in 70 years ago and took over, even though the Palestinians were living there for 2000 years. If someone came in and beat my country up and then divided it up between a bunch of other countries I wouldn’t be too happy about it either, just like the Kurds weren’t happy about it 400 years ago, and still aren’t, and the Palestinians haven’t been happy about it for 70 years now either. History goes back thousands of years, you’re just going back a few hundred, that’s being too picky I think.
Kurds are just iranian and turkish gypsies. Its a made-up ethnicity and their language is mostly Iranian.
The Kurds and the Persians [Iranians] have lived in these locations for nearly 2000 years, possibly a lot longer, the Persians definitely did, they’ve been there for at least 2600 years, but the Turkic peoples only started migrating west about 1400 years ago, and they migrated from areas around the central steppes of north eastern Europe/ northern China/ south east Russia, where they were living. And that migration took them a 500 years to make it to anywhere close to modern day Turkey, the Ottomans only have a very short history in this part of the world, they are the blow ins, not the Kurds. The reason their language is made up of so many Persian words is the same reason so many other countries use Persian, they were a part of the Persian Empire. The early Ottomans also used Persian instead of their own language for many centuries. If you check out Turkish ethnicity you may get a shock too, apart from the original ethnic group, which were mostly caucasian but with high admixtures of mongoid ethnicity, have now also been heavily diluted by Arab, Latin, Greek, Semitic, and west European ethnicities, which would make them even more divers genetically than the Kurds are. The Kurds are indigenous to the area but the original Ottomans migrated from the east of the continent, so the Kurds were there first by at least a thousand years. Many internet sites have the history of both groups origins, so if you have some spare time, it might be an idea to some check some of them just to see what they have to say.
Might make sense to go back a generation or two, maybe even three or four, but definitely not 100s or 1000s of years. As you mention correctly, todays “Turks” are to a far extent genetically “Greeks”, “Arabs”, “Vikings”, “Slavs”: they just took up the language of the dominant culture. And definitely the same happened to the “Kurds”: they must be having a quite some “Turkish” and other blood. Another ex: “Serbians” and “Croatians” are both coming from fhe Caucasus region, according to some historical sources of the Persian empire. Should they claim that land? Maybe 50, 000yrs ago the “Kurds” occupied the land of the Neanderthals? If the Kurds suffer the same fate as the Palestinans, why to they support the Zionists? Btw: what’s the difference between “Arab” and “Semitic”?
It makes sense to mention who’s lived there the longest when they’re both claiming the right to occupy the same location and control it, and the Kurds have lived there in the same location for 70 or more generations, that’s got to account for something. The Zionists think they have the right to go back to Palestine and rename it Israel, 2000 years after the Romans helped destroy their country and booted half of them out, that’s something I’d dispute they have the right to do, but the Kurds can claim continuous occupation from day one until present day in greater Kurdistan, they’ve always been there. No from what I’ve been reading recently the Kurds aren’t as ethnically diverse as you’d think they would be, and nowhere near as diverse as the Turks are, we’ve become pretty mixed up since neolithic times, but some ethnic groups are less diverse than others, the Kurds are one of those groups. The only difference is a few haplogroups. I’d like to see the faces of some of the die hard racial puritans after they did a DNA test, the Arabs would have some Semitic lines, and vice versa with the Hebrews, but that’s basically true for all the different ethnic groups in the region. Language is probably the best way to differentiate, if they speak Hebrew they’re Semitic, no matter what their ethnicity is. Very little Viking or Slavic blood in the Kurdish population too I’d suspect. 40000 years ago all Europeans and east Asians moved into the lands the Neanderthals occupied, we better hope they never want it back.
Not bad, your arguments, but you’re still confusing ethnicity, genetics, and legality. And btw: Arabs speak a semitic language.
I think you left out the most important consideration, morality, that also has to be a part of the equation. I think modern genetics are telling us it’s more than just language they have in common. Cheers.
If you add up morality, then you’ll have to add up ethics and especially epistemology…. ;-)
I had to look that one up, good word. It is complicated, but a first in first served basis is the only answer I have to that, and I might also add this, during the 20th century many nations that now exist, only do so now because either they fought for and gained their own independence, or they were given it back by the colonizing power. And in the decisions to return sovereignty to those countries that didn’t have to fight for it, epistemology was probably a great consideration on the decision to return power to the subservient nation, especially in the cases where economic or strategic reasons weren’t the main motivating factor. All I can say is poor Kurds, no matter how stupid they’ve been recently concerning Syrian sovereignty. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree, cheers.
Epistemology in this context basically leads to the conclusion that “nationality” is an idea, a (social) construct. A nation is the will of a the inhabitants territory to form a community (in its perverted form it’s Fascism, an imposed national pseudo-identity). But group identity often survives only in oppostion to another group. So either you form a concept including all the inhabitants or you’re bound to exclude and oppress others, like it is happening in the YPG (SDF) controlled territory. “Syria” is at least a multiethnic construct, as opposed to an ethnically cleansed Kurdistan, the Zionist entity, and others, in the Balkan, and elsewhere. I’m not sure a Kurdistan construct would have any advantage to the existing Syria construct. I personally know very bad Kurds and very nice ones. And btw, the majority of poeples don’t have their own nation. In Papua-New Guinea their are roughly 140 poeples with different languages, they don’t understand eachother, and don’t have their own nation. And on and on. Thx for reading.
Good point, but we have to look at the citizenship rights of Syrian Kurds to understand why they feel so unincluded in the Syrian democratic system. Firstly the right of immigrants Kurds from Turkey and other areas to become Syrian citizens, that contention was finally addressed by Assad in 2011 resulting in 300,000 Kurds attaining Syrian citizenship [though not fully implemented], but it didn’t address the biggest problem, the lack of certain rights for Syrian Kurdish citizens, that all the other ethnic groups do have. All other Syrian nationals have certain privileges that the Kurdish population don’t have. This is what the Kurds can’t do that everyone else can. Use their own language in social, business, and academic institutions, they must use Arabic. Register their children at birth with Kurdish names, Use Kurdish names in business titles, Establish their own Kurdish identity coupled with any political aspirations, I know anywhere else around the world that last one would be contentious and sometimes illegal, but since all the other minority groups in Syria use ethnic identity as a basis for some of their political parties [not all but some], it seems to me that the Kurds should be allowed the same freedom too, despite the fact they pose a threat to Syria’s national integrity. Most Kurds do now have Syrian citizenship rights, but those rights are not equal rights, they’re still missing some fundamental rights that other Syrian citizens have. I know Assad agreed to all Kurdish demands to remove those inequalities affecting Kurdish citizenship rights [during Kurdish negotiations that occurred between January and December last year, 50 delegation in the first 6 months], and perhaps that should have enticed the Kurds to remain loyal to Syrian sovereignty, but I can never blame a group of people for wanting to retain their cultural identity. I appreciate the interesting dialogue, you make some interesting and valid points that I can’t argue with, but in the same breathe I can also say the Kurdish side also has many valid demands and contentions that I can’t argue with, so again I’ll say, when in doubt, just go for the side that’s been there the longest. Cheers.
Ok, maybe, yes and no. But then, to side with FUKUS: that must have a price. Not willing to pay it, they could apply for equal rights in FUKUS.