Nir Rossen article
While I'm at the topic of kirkuk I noticed this link Swara used (if u dont mind me borrowing). NyTimes article In the Balance by Nir Rosen. I've also used the puk link since NYtimes articles usually get archived after a week
I thought it was a good article, especialy the bits with kurdish general kak Rostum: "Kirkuk is part of Kurdistan. When we win, we'll make Kirkuk the safest and richest city in the Middle East"
Aah if onlly they'd let you, and not get sidelined by everyone else's political interest.
Nir also interview the Gray Wolves, a group so bad that the KKK could even think "Damn thats racist".
'We belong to the Turkish Gray Wolves because we believe that anything taken by force can only be taken back by force' one of the men told me. 'It is their rights that the Turkmens want back', I was told, though their politics came to a sudden stop when they were asked to explain what those rights were. 'The Turks have lived here for 4,000 years,' another of the men said, in a historical addition of about 3,000 years
Wondering where those people were when saddam was persecuting turkmens oh wait on his paylist of course, like all other newly found "we apparently care about our country" groups
And these people were allowed to live in kirkuk during his time when we weren't even allowed to go though this city to reach kurdistan (even though my mom was born there)
Anyway jeremy brown on michael totten's blog thinks it was a bad article because Nir simplifies it to the fact that kurds are just there for the oil.
I kinda thought that too in the beggining but I ignored it cos' thing is i usually filter those bits out and article was pretty good otherwise, and c'mon u dont expect these newsppapers or any MSM sources to like kurds anyway and they never did, did they.
I mean even the documentaries that do talk about refugees in kirkuk for example, look at the way its presented. They could show u bunch of people living in some make-shift home and the voiceover wold say something like "they will fight to take control of kirkuk from everyone else". Instead of saying why are these people still living like this or why haven't they been helped by anyone
Or they refer to the halbja and anfal as alleged incidents even though there are tons of videos and documents proving it happened, while they have no qualms about taking unverified stories from shady sources about kurds that directly put them in danger. Remember the israel story. No proof at all yet look at how it was splashed across the newspapers ended up false no apology, compare that with the story about the mass grave filled with infants and even unborne babies
But then again these people oversimplify everything don't they, I mean for example if they wanna show an unlikeable country in a good light, say a middle eastern or muslim country
what is the best used template they ALWAYS use.
Simple show a scene or a clip where there's an athan (prayer call) and another clip whre girls are in mini skirts (because that MUST mean that they are weaternized) or some misty club scene
So they're assuming the ppl watching (or reading) would think "Gee i thought this was an islamic fundamentallist state but then that mini-skirt came up and now i think its a democracy"
Even though most middle eastern countries you would find people who dress like that, even places like saudi the people who would want to would dress like that under the abaya. And yes ppl in the ME do go clubbing or the to the beach or any place veryone else in the world go to. If we're going to speak in that mentality iran used to be hot pants central in the 70s yet u never find anyone speaking kindly of them
So whats big deal, why do they despise showing people in other places exactly like them, i think probably cos' it takes away their joy of talking down to them. They're exactly like you, they just happen to live under repressive government don't take it out on them just stop complimenting how "modern thinking" their governments are for a change.
I thought it was a good article, especialy the bits with kurdish general kak Rostum: "Kirkuk is part of Kurdistan. When we win, we'll make Kirkuk the safest and richest city in the Middle East"
Aah if onlly they'd let you, and not get sidelined by everyone else's political interest.
Nir also interview the Gray Wolves, a group so bad that the KKK could even think "Damn thats racist".
'We belong to the Turkish Gray Wolves because we believe that anything taken by force can only be taken back by force' one of the men told me. 'It is their rights that the Turkmens want back', I was told, though their politics came to a sudden stop when they were asked to explain what those rights were. 'The Turks have lived here for 4,000 years,' another of the men said, in a historical addition of about 3,000 years
Wondering where those people were when saddam was persecuting turkmens oh wait on his paylist of course, like all other newly found "we apparently care about our country" groups
And these people were allowed to live in kirkuk during his time when we weren't even allowed to go though this city to reach kurdistan (even though my mom was born there)
Anyway jeremy brown on michael totten's blog thinks it was a bad article because Nir simplifies it to the fact that kurds are just there for the oil.
I kinda thought that too in the beggining but I ignored it cos' thing is i usually filter those bits out and article was pretty good otherwise, and c'mon u dont expect these newsppapers or any MSM sources to like kurds anyway and they never did, did they.
I mean even the documentaries that do talk about refugees in kirkuk for example, look at the way its presented. They could show u bunch of people living in some make-shift home and the voiceover wold say something like "they will fight to take control of kirkuk from everyone else". Instead of saying why are these people still living like this or why haven't they been helped by anyone
Or they refer to the halbja and anfal as alleged incidents even though there are tons of videos and documents proving it happened, while they have no qualms about taking unverified stories from shady sources about kurds that directly put them in danger. Remember the israel story. No proof at all yet look at how it was splashed across the newspapers ended up false no apology, compare that with the story about the mass grave filled with infants and even unborne babies
But then again these people oversimplify everything don't they, I mean for example if they wanna show an unlikeable country in a good light, say a middle eastern or muslim country
what is the best used template they ALWAYS use.
Simple show a scene or a clip where there's an athan (prayer call) and another clip whre girls are in mini skirts (because that MUST mean that they are weaternized) or some misty club scene
So they're assuming the ppl watching (or reading) would think "Gee i thought this was an islamic fundamentallist state but then that mini-skirt came up and now i think its a democracy"
Even though most middle eastern countries you would find people who dress like that, even places like saudi the people who would want to would dress like that under the abaya. And yes ppl in the ME do go clubbing or the to the beach or any place veryone else in the world go to. If we're going to speak in that mentality iran used to be hot pants central in the 70s yet u never find anyone speaking kindly of them
So whats big deal, why do they despise showing people in other places exactly like them, i think probably cos' it takes away their joy of talking down to them. They're exactly like you, they just happen to live under repressive government don't take it out on them just stop complimenting how "modern thinking" their governments are for a change.
posted by Dilnareen @ | Permalink 
