• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AmnestyUSA: Ethnic cleansing in Northern Iraq by KRG (Kurds) suppoeted by USA.

treehouse

treehouse

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2015
Messages
283
Reaction score
79
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The report, Banished and Dispossessed: Forced Displacement and Deliberate Destruction in Northern Iraq, is based on field investigation in 13 villages and towns and testimony gathered from more than 100 eyewitnesses and victims of forced displacement. It is corroborated by satellite imagery revealing evidence of widespread destruction carried out by Peshmerga forces, or in some cases Yezidi militias and Kurdish armed groups from Syria and Turkey operating in coordination with the Peshmerga.

“KRG forces appear to be spearheading a concerted campaign to forcibly displace Arab communities by destroying entire villages in areas they have recaptured from IS in northern Iraq. The forced displacement of civilians and the deliberate destruction of homes and property without military justification, may amount to war crimes,” said Donatella Rovera, Amnesty International’s Senior Crisis Response Advisor, who carried out the field research in northern Iraq.


“Tens of thousands of Arab civilians who were forced to flee their homes because of fighting are now struggling to survive in makeshift camps in desperate conditions. Many have lost their livelihoods and all their possessions and with their homes destroyed, they have nothing to return to. By barring the displaced from returning to their villages and destroying their homes KRG forces are further exacerbating their suffering,” said Rovera.
Click to expand...

Banished and Dispossessed: Forced Displacement and Deliberate Destruction in Northern Iraq | Amnesty International USA

This is totally what the Is wants, Kurds using The IS for gaining more lands by cleansing area of non-Kurds; the IS using Kurds to spread the hatred among Arabs.

At the same time USA claims to bring peace with this policy.
 
treehouse said:
Banished and Dispossessed: Forced Displacement and Deliberate Destruction in Northern Iraq | Amnesty International USA

This is totally what the Is wants, Kurds using The IS for gaining more lands by cleansing area of non-Kurds; the IS using Kurds to spread the hatred among Arabs.

At the same time USA claims to bring peace with this policy.
Click to expand...

I see what your reference says...but I don't see where ISIS is in any way supportive of the Kurds - if you'll remember, there's been several battles between ISIS and the Kurds. They are quite literally at war with each other.

I understand the old saying of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", but just because the Kurds may be doing something to the local Arabs (right or wrong - no attempt to judge here) does not mean that ISIS is in any way allied with the Kurds or supportive of what they're doing.

And it's Gordian knots like this that should show every American paying attention why it's not a good idea for America to get wrapped up in the local conflicts. Obama made precisely the right call by not getting us involved with ground troops against ISIS or in the meltdown of Syria. Just because there's a conflict going on in an important area of the world does not mean that sending in American troops is the right thing to do.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I see what your reference says...but I don't see where ISIS is in any way supportive of the Kurds - if you'll remember, there's been several battles between ISIS and the Kurds. They are quite literally at war with each other.

I understand the old saying of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", but just because the Kurds may be doing something to the local Arabs (right or wrong - no attempt to judge here) does not mean that ISIS is in any way allied with the Kurds or supportive of what they're doing.

And it's Gordian knots like this that should show every American paying attention why it's not a good idea for America to get wrapped up in the local conflicts. Obama made precisely the right call by not getting us involved with ground troops against ISIS or in the meltdown of Syria. Just because there's a conflict going on in an important area of the world does not mean that sending in American troops is the right thing to do.
Click to expand...


Without judging the war crimes of Kurds, or judging USA support for the same Kurds; saying The IS is the only trouble maker in the region is like saying Mr.Maliki's policy of discriminating Sunni Arabs with support of USA does not have anything to do with the born of The IS.

Obama did hand over Iraq to Iran in a silver plate, now does it again in Syria, today Iran starts to challenge with Arab States, so how do you explain that?

Obama is worse than Bush, in time the bigger problems will be waiting for the new president of USA, thanks to Obama.
 
Meh, at this point I no longer care. If Kurds lived in Kurdish majority areas, shiites in shia majority areas and sunnis in sunni majority areas, people would be blowing each other up and beheading opposing clerics already a lot less. Diversity, even within Islam itself, doesn't work.
 
Natan said:
Meh, at this point I no longer care. If Kurds lived in Kurdish majority areas, shiites in shia majority areas and sunnis in sunni majority areas, people would be blowing each other up and beheading opposing clerics already a lot less. Diversity, even within Islam itself, doesn't work.
Click to expand...

A segregated middle east run by brutal dictators is more secure and stable. Sad but true.
 
treehouse said:
At the same time USA claims to bring peace with this policy.
Click to expand...
By the way, about the "supported by the USA" in the thread title: the US supports the Kurds as little as possible and only when it suits them if ISIS becomes too much of a problem. The US is frequently stabbing the Kurds in the back and supports Turkey over the Kurds. Every. Single. Time.

It's also against rules in the breaking news forum I believe to use thread titles different from / not supported by the source article. I suggest you stay out of trouble.
 
Last edited:
Natan said:
By the way, about the "supported by the USA" in the thread title: the US supports the Kurds as little as possible and only when it suits them if ISIS becomes too much of a problem. The US is frequenly stabbing the Kurds in the back and supports Turkey over the Kurds. Every. Single. Time.

It's against rules in the breaking news forum I believe to use thread titles different from / not supported by the source article. I suggest you stay out of trouble.
Click to expand...

Turkey should have been kicked out of NATO a long time ago.
 
Natan said:
By the way, about the "supported by the USA" in the thread title: the US supports the Kurds as little as possible and only when it suits them if ISIS becomes too much of a problem. The US is frequently stabbing the Kurds in the back and supports Turkey over the Kurds. Every. Single. Time.

It's also against rules in the breaking news forum I believe to use thread titles different from / not supported by the source article. I suggest you stay out of trouble.
Click to expand...


KRG delegation asks US for economic, military, humanitarian support
Click to expand...

January 14, 2016 - Kurdistan Regional Government Representation in the United States

Claiming and proving are two different things.

btw, Why did you not answer the question in quote?

P.s; sorry, you changed the sentence in quote, time waster.
 
Last edited:
treehouse said:
Banished and Dispossessed: Forced Displacement and Deliberate Destruction in Northern Iraq | Amnesty International USA

This is totally what the Is wants, Kurds using The IS for gaining more lands by cleansing area of non-Kurds; the IS using Kurds to spread the hatred among Arabs.

At the same time USA claims to bring peace with this policy.
Click to expand...

If it helps the Kurdish people, the USA should do whatever it takes to help them secure a safe, stable and independent state.
 
Renae said:
the USA should do whatever it takes to help them secure a safe, stable and independent state.
Click to expand...
Hasn't happened, isn't happening and won't happen. Ever.

Like most (all?) countries in the word, the US does not encourage self determination, separatism or secession. A civil war was even fought over that. Quite hypocrite considering the separation of Britain.
 
Last edited:
Samhain said:
A segregated middle east run by brutal dictators is more secure and stable. Sad but true.
Click to expand...

A "segregated middle east run by brutal dictators" is what brought us the salafi philosophies of Muhammad Iqbal, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, and Sayyid Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood, Wahhabism, the Taliban, Islamist pan-nationalism, and global Islamic terrorism.

The problem with bottling people up, subjugating, and brutalizing them is that the hate and anger that foments is going to squirt out somewhere, and the puppet dictators we prop up aren't going to fall on their swords.

So they point their fingers, and prop up religious ideologies that point their fingers, at the White Satan who is ultimately (though not directly) responsible for the brutal dictatorialism.

Then we get people rolled off passenger liners in to the sea, planes blown up in the sky or crashed in to buildings, sociopaths with visions of reestablishing the caliphate, and all the rest.

And there's nothing we can really do about that because, as we should well know, war on metaphors just doesn't work.
 
Last edited:
treehouse said:
At the same time USA claims to bring peace with this policy.
Click to expand...

I must have missed it. I haven't heard the federal government claim to bring peace to anything lately.
 
soot said:
A "segregated middle east run by brutal dictators" is what brought us the salafi philosophies of Muhammad Iqbal, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, and Sayyid Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood, Wahhabism, the Taliban, Islamist pan-nationalism, and global Islamic terrorism.

The problem with bottling people up, subjugating, and brutalizing them is that the hate and anger that foments is going to squirt out somewhere, and the puppet dictators we prop up aren't going to fall on their swords.

So they point their fingers, and prop up religious ideologies that point their fingers, at the White Satan who is ultimately (though not directly) responsible for the brutal dictatorialism.

Then we get people rolled off passenger liners in to the sea, planes blown up in the sky or crashed in to buildings, sociopaths with visions of reestablishing the caliphate, and all the rest.

And there's nothing we can really do about that because, as we should well know, war on metaphors just doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Actually, what brought all these things is the culture that produces them, and those cultures are based upon various interpretations of Islam.

These cultures are horrifically inbred, extremely rigid in outlook, superstitious, lacking in introspection and very primitive in social structure. Given the cultures involved, unless an authoritarian leader is in place to keep all the fighting in check brought about by all their inbreeding, then this sort of savagery WILL take place. There is no real possibility for any sort of functioning democracy since the people are too backward to embrace it much less understand it.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Turkey should have been kicked out of NATO a long time ago.
Click to expand...

Really? I thuoght their shooting down the Russian jet to be absolutely ****ing hilarious.

And Putin's ***** ass response? I almost died of laughter. I love this ****.
 
Gardener said:
Actually, what brought all these things is the culture that produces them, and those cultures are based upon various interpretations of Islam.
Click to expand...

You're putting the cart before the horse.

The "various interpretations of Islam" that are proving to be problematic are a consequence of the things I mentioned.

There are ignorant, dirt poor, interbred, socially primitive people all over the world.

They don't become terrorists.

There are Muslims all over the world.

They don't become terrorists.

Terrorism became a problem where a very specific Islamic ideology, which was a response to a very specific set of circumstances (brutal dictatorships and monarchies propped up and supported by Western governments), took root among populations such as you mention.

There is no real possibility for any sort of functioning democracy since the people are too backward to embrace it much less understand it.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting a functioning democracy.

There are lots of different forms of government between enlightened liberal democracy and brutal dictatorialism.
 
Renae said:
If it helps the Kurdish people, the USA should do whatever it takes to help them secure a safe, stable and independent state.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because we have quite the track record at creating safe, stable, independent states. :roll:
 
treehouse said:
Without judging the war crimes of Kurds, or judging USA support for the same Kurds; saying The IS is the only trouble maker in the region is like saying Mr.Maliki's policy of discriminating Sunni Arabs with support of USA does not have anything to do with the born of The IS.
Click to expand...

If you'll recall, the Kurds sided with us in the first Gulf War and we left them in the lurch...and they suffered horribly for it. They have feet of clay like everyone else, but they've also been the ones who worked best with us. Also, if you'll check, they've got religious tolerance in their culture to a degree not normally found in much of the region.

Obama did hand over Iraq to Iran in a silver plate, now does it again in Syria, today Iran starts to challenge with Arab States, so how do you explain that?
Click to expand...

'Scuse me? Obama didn't invade Iraq. Obama wasn't the one who took down the stable buffer between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Obama wasn't the one who made the agreement with the new Iraqi government concerning when our troops would be required to leave. The answer to all those is Bush 43.

When the time to leave in accordance with Bush's agreement was approaching, the Obama administration DID try to convince the Iraqi government to allow our troops to stay...and the Iraqi government refused...

...which means that in order for our troops to stay, we would have had to FORCE the Iraqis to accept our troops' presence. Gee, what could possibly go wrong with that?

And that means that you have to answer this question: do you think Obama should have violated Bush's agreement with the Iraqi government and forced the Iraqis to accept our troop presence against their will? Do you really think that?

Obama is worse than Bush, in time the bigger problems will be waiting for the new president of USA, thanks to Obama.
Click to expand...

Y'know, I spent twenty years in the Navy and stood thousands of watches...and there's a tradition that one is supposed to leave one's watchstation in better condition than it was when he assumed the watch. How well off was America's security and economy when Bush 43 took the watch? How was it when he turned it over to Obama? And how's America's security and economy now, compared to how it was when he assumed the watch in January 2009? The numbers speak for themselves. You can claim otherwise all you want, until the cows come home, but the numbers speak for themselves...and as time goes on, President Obama is going to be seen as one of our top five presidents ever (the other four being Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan). Of course you'll hate it and shout to the rooftops how wrong it is...but that's not because of any objective examination of numbers and events, but only your partisan spite. It's as I've said many, many times: if Obama'd had an (R) behind his name, y'all would be shouting to the rooftops to have his face added to Mount Rushmore...but because he's on the other side, well, THAT means he never has and never will do anything good or right, ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom