as a kurdish activist in the united states, i find your characterizations of kurds and kurdish politics disturbing and your remarks show that you fail to realize the complexities of the kurdish situation.
you claim that kurds have proven themselves to be "jihadis" and it appears that you base this claim on the behavior of certain kurdish tribal groups under the ottoman empire. you fail to realize that kurdish attachment to islam at that time was a completely different thing than it is today (and the whole idea of jihad was a completely different thing as well). many of today's kurds reject islam outright. i can't count the number of times i've been told this by kurds that i know, kurds that are here in the us, kurds in other parts of their diaspora and kurds in kurdistan itself. most kurds who still practice islam, especially in iraqi kurdistan and iranian kurdistan, believe that the practice of religion should be a personal matter and not enforced throughout society, meaning they are hardly a "pure" islamic people. the situation of the kurds in turkey is slightly different and much more polarized thanks to the machinations of the kemalist government. the situation of the kurds in syrian kurdistan is also different because they have been effectively cut off from most of the world and it has been very difficult for those of us working outside kurdistan, or even in other parts of kurdistan, to know what the kurds there think.
the article that began this thread refers to the kurds of iraq. the kurds of iraq reject an islamic form of government and the fact that they have been practicing at democracy since the uprising after the gulf war shows that they are serious about democracy. it's true that there have been problems between the two main iraqi kurdish political parties, but the situation for the kurds in iraqi kurdistan is critical now. reconciliation between the two main parties has begun, and we hope that before the 30 june deadline, there will be some form of unity between the two, resulting in one government for this part of kurdistan.
the kurds have no intention of slaughtering christians or anyone else living within the borders of kurdistan, in baghdad or in the south of iraq. they have no desire to rule over any part of iraq that is not kurdistan. the kurds have historically had much tolerance for others living among them. your constant quoting of one event, the armenian genocide, fails to consider the complex political factors of the time, the rise of nationalism, reform militarism, the role of european powers, etc., which contributed to the events of the armenian genocide.
here are a few links to help you with the complexities of this period of history:
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/92reid.html http://www.genocide1915.info/articles_view.asp?crypt=%86u%A1%85e http://www.teachgenocide.org/files/DocsMaps/Shades%20of%20Altruism%20in%20the%20Armenian%20Genocide.pdf http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/journal/vol9no3/suny.htm i wonder what your agenda is. you say, "if they convert (to christianity) that's great, but as long as they belong to the cult of [i]slam, they're our enemies." so does that mean that anyone who is not a christian is your enemy? what exactly is that all about?
you claim that the kurds in iraqi kurdistan are fair-weather friends who will turn on the us as soon as us help is no longer needed and you repeatedly harp on this theme. perhaps you can come up with some explanation for the american government's "fair-weather" treatment of the kurds. if your claims of future betrayal were true, why did the kurds open a northern front for the us after so many betrayals at the hands of the us government? the american people are totally ignorant of the kurds and their situation, but the government has used the kurds (or ignored the kurds) for decades. please explain to me how it is that the kurds, a people repeatedly betrayed by others, have remained cooperative with the us, especially in this current war, and why it is that they hope for a strong kurdish-american relationship in the future? don't tell me that such hope for mutual cooperation is something new, born of this war, because that would be completely untrue. the kurds have been hoping for and have been trying to work toward this relationship in one form or another for decades, beginning with mullah mustafa barzani's leadership.
you say, "the kurds (indo-europeans) have an ethnic hatred for semites (arabs). . . " i think this statement is a bit inconsistent. do you mean the kurds have an ethnic hatred for semites? you use the word "kurds," which is a term describing a people, and seem to make it parallel with "semites" which is a linguistic term. parenthetically, you use a linguistic term "indo-europeans" and compare it with a term describing a people, "arabs." maybe you could clear up this inconsistency for me. you see, i am living proof that kurds do not have an ethnic hatred for semites. i do know, however, that many kurds hate arabs because arabs forced islam on them and have been using islam to oppress the kurds. they also hate arabs because of the effects of arab nationalism on them such as what happened to them at halabja. oh, and if you think halabja was just a one time thing, then that means you haven't read the medical surveys showing the effects of the chemical "cocktails" on the survivors and their children. this is a truly horrible thing that will haunt the iraqi kurds for many generations. since i can't provide you with the surveys, i'll give you a link to an article that can shed some light on the continuing medical problems:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020325fa_FACT1 i know kurds in the us who suffer from the chemical attacks of al-anfal. i'm certain a that a percentage of those who were grateful to the american troops at ft. campbell also continue to suffer from al-anfal.