When the allies were carving up the ottoman empire after ww1, why didn't they try to establish an independent kurdistan?

when the allies were carving up the ottoman empire after ww1, why didn't they try to establish an independent kurdistan?

Who the actual fuck cares about the fucking kurds?

>Turk roach detected

t. turk
apparently your greatest allies care :)

It wouldn't have looked aesthetic

You need a third ethnic group not given a homeland to destabilise the counties.
Look at India/Pakistan with the Sikhs.

Because the Kurds were semi-nomadic tribesman that lived in the fucking mountains. They literally having a saying that goes something like "the kurd has no friends but the mountains," and travelers through the Ottoman Empire generally regarded the Kurds as the most vile and backwards subject people of the empire, often describing them as little better than a nation of marauding bandits.

As a people, they've come a long way since the Ottoman Empire.

You almost may as well ask why the allies didn't try to set up an Assyrian nation in northern Iraq. The French, at least, tried to Balkanize Syria & Lebanon along ethno-religious lines.

t.urk

I'm a frog from a city kurds infest like RATS.

they are barely human, definitely lower than niggers

Why wasn't it fully balkanized? Alternatively, why isn't Lebanon part of Syria?

>Why wasn't it fully balkanized? Alternatively, why isn't Lebanon part of Syria?
Because lebanon was literally carved out by the french to create a christian majority territory in the middle east to serve as its client (because they believed, partly true, that the shared christianity of the maronites and themselves would bind them closer together and make them more inclined to seek french protection against muslim arabs and druze (in the 19th at least) hostile to them

If the nationless Kurd learned humility and humanity, doesn't that mean they are better off remaining that way?

the difference between the kurds and assyrians though is that there are around 4 million assyrians, versus nearly 40 million kurds (in syria, iraq, iran, and turkey).

what else was saying that they weren't worthy of independence, other than they were considered a 'backwards people'?

Well the fact that most of them are ethnic minorities within the area they live. I'm also skeptical of creating yet another nation by some sort of UN mandate or something. But then again thats better than what probably will happen, whatever that may be. Too bad we can build a huge wall around the shitty parts of the middle east and let them work it out until they can get along in the international community.

There are only 6 million Jews in Israel but the US has sent over 100 billion in aid there and supported it militarily, why can't we afford the Assyrian people that same favor?

Because Assyrians don't run highly influential conglomerates, silly question

>implying he isn't correct
Kurds deserve a state but he's right, why would the British and French give a single fuck about the Kurds? Why would you have fought the largest war that your nation has ever been in and then give away your spoils? Especially considering that both nations were in much worse positions of power than they were before the war.

Because Syrians began a war for independence in the 1930s, and the peace treaty did not include lebanon as part of the Syrian territory.

The best argument I can imagine for not creating a Kurdistan is that, inevitably, they will become an extension of Iran's proxy empire. As fellow Iranian peoples, they have a natural affinity, and their territory would be landlocked. Turkey, to the north, would be implicitly hostile, as would Syria & Iraq, unless Kurdistan aligned itself with Iran. Iraq is majority Shi'a, and it doesn't look like the Alawite body in Syria is going anywhere. With Kurds inside Iraq, and Syria to a lesser extent, there is a western-aligned element in those countries.... not to mention Erdogan won't go full Ali Pasha and cut off all ties with the West. Honestly, I'm not so bothered if that last bit happens. Not like the Russians will treat the Turks kindly.

>what else was saying that they weren't worthy of independence, other than they were considered a 'backwards people'?
They weren't a cohesive political unit like they are now, and there's no reason to assume that they would have aligned themselves with Western interests.

>the difference between the kurds and assyrians though is that there are around 4 million assyrians, versus nearly 40 million kurds (in syria, iraq, iran, and turkey).
Today, yes. The Assyrians are definitely a minority, and at best they'll get autonomous status within Iraq or Kurdistan for the Nineveh plateau. However, the Assyrians have been oppressed and targeted for cultural and religious conversion. Saddam Hussein, as an example, didn't care if they were Christian or Muslim; he just cared that they became Arabs and abandoned all vestiges of Assyrian culture. The kurds have also suffered, but the attempts at culling them haven't been as effective, probably due to their more rural population.

Why cant we do anyone else this favour?

There are five-and-a-half to six-and-a-half million Jews in America; America has, on the other hand, no more than 400,000 Assyrians out of the maximum estimated 4.4 million in the world. Having a domestic lobby does wonders for influencing foreign policy.

Although, it's quite possible that estimate is under representative due to cryptoconverts and possibly government misreporting. The number of copts in Egypt is apparently 50-100% greater than whatever the official government number is, and it's the government that's manipulating the data. Or, at least, that's what I recall from the interview with Cynthia Farahat by Gad Saad.

I don't trust anything that comes out of Gad Saad when it comes to the Middle East. He is a Zionist with an ideological agenda. I can believe that the Egyptian government says the number of Copts is actually lower than they actually are, but 50-100 greater? No piss off. I ain't buying what you're selling.

I didn't say it comes out of Gad Saad's mouth. I said it came out of Cynthia Farahat's mouth when she was talking to Saad. She's an Egyptian Copt, and she claimed the figure came from figures within the Mubarak regime. They take the census numbers and then reduce the number of copts.

I could be misremembering the scale of that reduction, it's been several months since they talked, but it was a significant cut.

Fuck you

it would be a good way to balkanize turkey and keep them at bay, although not like they were much of a threat in first place

The only reason the US wants to help Kurds is so they can use Kurdistan as a giant military base.

>implying
they already have israel for that

This. British intelligence are masters of this activity.

They did but it got invaded by the mentally handicapped fellow by the name Ataturk. Along with western Armenia and Smyrna.

>K*rd/wh*Te subhuman detected

There is literally only one small US base in Israel, a radio station.

Why didn't they establish an independent Assyria?
Why didn't they establish and independent Palestine?
Why didn't they establish an independent Thrace?
Why didn't they establish XXXX

There are like 90 pseudo nationalities in the region.

The country is by itself the military base.

Killing Palestinians and pushing them out for the people of the United States right?

ACTUAL ANSWER HERE
Northern Iraq's Kurdistan is oil-rich, it was better for it to remain part of Iraq as a british pupper state, bacause it was connected with harbor within one state. Thus, creating kurdistan only partially would make no sense and would only increase independence tensions in Iraq.
Tl;dr: eternal anglo strikes again

Kurds were the Ottoman lapdogs - in return for genociding Armenians, they got left alone for a while

kurdistan is a myth

kurdistan is an overplayed meme

kurds should be exterminated and their land given to assyrians

nobody on earth would complain

they feared the turkish warrior

Who cares about Palestine? Israel is a nuclear state and a threat for all middle eastern nations

why is he carrying a caduceus ???

pls explain the sikh thing too

Not that guy and as much as I hate Turks, he has a point. Kurds don't have any actual ethnic claims in claiming the swathes of territory they WANT to take from parts of Northern Iran, Iraq, Southwestern Turkey, and parts of Syria. They were and still are, primarily, a semi-nomadic people up till the 20th century.

For fuck's sake man, the Kurdish governor of Kirkuk on WAMU radio interview earlier last week admitted there are Arab Iraqi families living in the city for multiple generations but aren't and won't be allowed to vote in the coming referendum on separation.

...

This is an Ass-hole here. I might respond to this thread later but for now, here is some amusing trivia: in eastern Aramaic, "Kurdi" is a slang word meaning retard.

They couldn't beat the boss

The claim that it's 50% to 100% greater is nonsensical. If "altright" retards really did belive it when that Coptic woman said it, it wouldn't be surprising considering their retardation.

Copts aren't more than 20% of Egypt's population. The Egyptian govt claims it's from 5 to 10%. They may be off but not by over 50%. Like you have to be a complete retard to think that.

If you hear a claim that doesn't sound logical, then throw it out. Whatever name is attached to that claim is irrelevant.

>As fellow Iranian peoples,
Kurds are like the "black sheep" of the Iranian family. It's unlikely they'll be an Iranian proxy because they have secessionist feelings within Iran. It's not akin to secessionist feelings in Iraq or Turkey but it's still there. Iran wouldn't risk it. Heck, some Kurds get pissed when people use "Iranian" to describe them. They prefer the word "Iranic". Kurdish groups like PYD/YPG have much better relations with Saudi Arabia than Iran.

>there is a western-aligned element in those countries

The West influence in the Middle East will become drastically less important. Western action is solely lead by America, which has the last say. America is really the only country that can project power in those countries (Middle East is not Western Africa where France has an easier time projecting its power).

And since America is becoming energy independent, it will start caring a lot less about the Middle East. America's goal in the Middle East has been there to secure the oil routes and prevent a hegemony from taking the entire thing and possibly rising to be a Eurasian hegemony. With shale oil independence, the US will won't about the former. That leaves preventing a hegemony. There may still be diplomatic efforts but military may be out of the question because even if there is a hegemony taking most of the region, the US may not think it's worth taking it down if it prevents elements like ISIS from rising.

>Saddam Hussein, as an example, didn't care if they were Christian or Muslim; he just cared that they became Arabs and abandoned all vestiges of Assyrian culture.
That wasn't Saddam Hussein's policy. That was Baathist policy before him Saddam had neutral to positive relations with Assyrians. Saddam didn't enforce such Baathist policy but he also didn't try to make amends. Saddam did target Assyrian politicians when they would fall out of line.

Saddam was a populist dictator, when he got unpopular he rallied and mobilized his supporters by targeting minorities.
Like Trump is targeting transsexuals recently, to mobilize his supporters after disappointing them on healthcare and Syria.

Its not a long term policy or ideal, its just a little shake to remind your supporters that yeeeah, see guys, I am still for you, fuck the Other, we the best.

Kurdistan would be bordering Iran which is rich in natural resources (oiloiloiloil).