Why is it ever time I see a map of """kurdistan""" it seems to be getting bigger...

Why is it ever time I see a map of """kurdistan""" it seems to be getting bigger? It's like any place where a Kurd has lived suddenly becomes "ancient kurdish land".

Anglo-American empire's propaganda to expand influence

Kurds are nomads. They don't deserve a state.

Borders vary, we don't have an exact measure.

Oy vey you denying the kurds the lands where their urine have landed?

>genocide the local population
>take their lands
I can see why they cooperate together.

...

>Kurds are nomads.

Le I watched one video on YouTube and think I'm an expert

Kill yourself. The Kurds have been on those lands for thousands of years and their traditions are older than the Arabs.

>muh corduene
Kurds have more origin stories than fucking african-americans.

We got one group claiming descent from the Medes and then we got another going on about the Gutian people of ancient Mesopotamia, or the Karduchi of Corduene, or the Parthians, or the Lullubis or fucking Atlantins so we can go full circle.
But the fact is that the word "Kurd" is first attested in the Sassanid period to describe iranian nomads that had not yet learned what civilization looked like and would live in mountains and harass the local villages.

All throughout history there are like 4 actual Kurds that achieved something in science/technology while Saladin is the most famous ruler (who did jack shit unlike his uncle and Nur ad-Din), which is impressive of a people that numbers close to 40 million today and has been living in Mesopotamia since 3000 BC (according to them).

This is the actual map of what Kurdistan would be.
It requires taking land from four states to create it.
Also it would be landlocked, since the only kurdish majority coastal city is isolated from other majority kurdish area.

But leave it a few more decades, and it will grow. People don't want to live with kurds, so they move away, and the place becomes kurd majority.
They are unintentionally colonizing by being savages.

>People don't want to live with kurds, so they move away, and the place becomes kurd majority.
see
People don't move away, they get slaughtered by them so Kurds can change the names of cities/provinces while revision their own historical narrative to fit with their "Kurdistan".
Turkroaches might have done a lot of shit bad but being blamed for the crimes that were mainly done by the Kurds so that they can be somekind of scapegoat for their landgrab even today in Syria/Iraq should not be one of them. Especially when the Ottomans even couldn't stomach some of the more gruesome authrocities done by Kurds against Armenians, so they would lynch those Kurds.

Armenians were forced to move by the Ottoman government.
They were an orthodox christian nation friendly to Russia, on the border of Russia, when the Ottoman kingdom was at war with Russia.
Sensibly, they were relocated. However, the bad condition of the state during the losing war, combined with incompetence and lack of care, resulted in a disaster. Many people died along the way, from the elements and from the cruelty of soldiers forcing them to march on.

This was done by the Ottoman state, not by any kurdish nation or movement.

No, there were two phases in which one systematic killings were carried out in the regions by the locals while the other was a death march into the desert of Syria which was purposely done without little to no food and water for them so they would either die on the way or when they reached the destination camps.

It was all systematic part of the Ottoman agenda as you said, but Kurds have no problem being part of it.
>The battalion left Aleppo on 3 February and reached Ras al-Ain in twelve hours ... some 12,000 Armenians were concentrated under the guardianship of some hundred Kurds ... These Kurds were called gendarmes, but in reality mere butchers; bands of them were publicly ordered to take parties of Armenians, of both sexes, to various destinations, but had secret instructions to destroy the males, children and old women ... One of these gendarmes confessed to killing 100 Armenian men himself ... the empty desert cisterns and caves were also filled with corpses ...[

Besides, they have been doing that shit way before that particular genocide even happened. Just look up the Hamidian massacre carried out by Kurdish tribes with the love of Ottoman Sultan.

Again, I don't wanna defend the Turkroaches but giving them soul blame is what allows the Kurds to draw maps like in the OP.

It wasn't systematic killing.
It was systematic relocating, done badly.
There was no food to feed the people, any people. It was a very long war, the first real long war, the first total war.
Turkish people were starving while still exporting what little grain they had so that germans don't die from hunger.

It was probably calculated that many armenians will die from the long march with little supplies, but it they weren't killed on purpose. They were killed due to the circumstances, no food in general, and having to move them where they won't rebel and join Russia.

In general I will always assume something had practical, pragmatic causes, and the cause here was having to relocate people, and not having the resources to do it properly, thus much damage was caused.
This isn't excusing it, its just removing the mysticism behind it. Why would you kill these people instead of forcing them to fight or work? It is objective loss.

Ethnically cleansing a population with the expectation that they would die in the process easily falls under the definition of genocide.

I was in fact a genocide, I am saying that the genocide was an unfortunate side effect of the greater goal, which is preventing a sizable population of Ottoman citizens defecting to Russia.

"unfortunate side effect", that's a bit much.

From that perspective generalplan Ost would have been an unfortunate side effect.

>trying to make Turks look atleast a bit better from Kurdish revisionism
>met with "there was no genocide" rhetoric
welp

Nice strawman. I didn't claim there was no genocide, I claim that the genocide wasn't the intention.
The intention was preventing rebellion, the solution was moving people, and a side effect of moving people when you lack resources is death of many of those people.

I am sure some in high command didn't care, and some cared, weather because of emotional and ethical concerns, or because of losing so many potential soldiers and workers.

Protip: states don't want to kill their tax cows, soldiers and factory and farm slaves.

>Protip: states don't want to kill their tax cows, soldiers and factory and farm slaves.
But a certain group of landgrabbers would have no problem with it.

If genocide was not the intention it is not genocide. Intention is a prerequisite, which was present.

In other words this argument goes in circles.

Either it was intentional, and therefore a genocide, or it was not.

>If genocide was not the intention it is not genocide.

I disagree. You may commit genocide without explicit intention, if you are aware that it will happen by your actions.
Video game logic example: you want to turn barren land into fertile farm by destroying a damn holding back the river. However you are aware that people will drown if you do it.
It isn't your intention to kill the people, and you regret killing the people, but the end goal justifies it in your mind. You wish they wouldn't have to die, but you kill them anyway.

Thats how I see the armenian genocide. They had to be moved, or they defect to Russia. Moving them would kill many of them, because supplies are low.
It is regrettable, but it has to be done from a strategic point of view.

On the micro level, I am sure that personal cruelty of people responsible also took a toll and there you have the hateful racism or such that you are looking for. Its micro, not macro. The macro is pragmatic and rational and calculating, the micro is emotional and passionate.

>but it they weren't killed on purpose

just like the jews:^)

The jews had their businesses and property confiscated to fund the government (practical), and were used as slave labor (practical).
When the war was lost, the evidence of slave labor had to be hidden to get a better peace deal, and the order was issued to do so (practical).

It is evil, and nobody should excuse it, but it wasn't done for cartoon reasons. It was done for practical reasons, and this sort of thing is why we have to pay attention to ethics and morality, so we don't end up destroying everything for the greater good.

Cenk pls