KOBANE: KURDISH LAST STAND...

[T-123456]

I had heard that Turkey wanted US's attention at Syria and help in training moderate opposition.
So is that not the true reason??

We support the moderate opposition,PKK is no moderate opposition and doesnt belong to Syria.
They fight for the Kurds.
The Kurds fight for own independence(deal made with Assad),they dont care about the rest of Syria.
And we dont care about PKK/YPG(Syrian PKK).
@levina ,teach its not all black and white,to complecated.
I know it seems like we dont care for the innocent women and children but our women and children were also innocent(killed by PKK rats).
Nobody heard of them or cared for their deaths.

ISIS is a bigger threat than PKK.

PKK wants an independent Kurdistan for its people while ISIS wants to conquer Turkey and make it part of its barbaric Islamic State.

Atleast PKK can be reasoned with by giving Kurds more rights and autonomy. ISIS cannot be reasoned with.

Let that be our concern when the time comes to deal with ISIS.

 

[Alienoz_TR]

ISIS is a bigger threat than PKK.

PKK wants an independent Kurdistan for its people while ISIS wants to conquer Turkey and make it part of its barbaric Islamic State.

Atleast PKK can be reasoned with by giving Kurds more rights and autonomy. ISIS cannot be reasoned with.

Repeat. PKK is bigger threat.

 

[Mercenary]

The problem is that with Turkey's inaction, it will only enable ISIS to cobble up more territory and grow even stronger and it will become impossible to dislodge from Syria and Turkey.

A large part of the middle east will become ungovern and a terrorist haven.

Turkey can kiss its chances of ever joining the EU goodbye as no way will Europe want to extend its borders to the frontiers of ISIS.

Turkey might score a win if ISIS terrorists inflict a defeat on PKK but in the long term having a crazy jihadist army on Turkish frontiers will be extremely damaging to Turkey.

 

[Alienoz_TR]

The problem is that with Turkey's inaction, it will only enable ISIS to cobble up more territory and grow even stronger and it will become impossible to dislodge from Syria and Turkey.

A large part of the middle east will become ungovern and a terrorist haven.

Turkey can kiss its chances of ever joining the EU goodbye as no way will Europe want to extend its borders to the frontiers of ISIS.

Turkey might score a win if ISIS terrorists inflict a defeat on PKK but in the long term having a crazy jihadist army on Turkish frontiers will be extremely damaging to Turkey.

Hell with EU. PKK is terrorist group which should be eradicated once for all.

We are currently in action against PKK, firefighting and aerial bombing going on.

 

[-SINAN-]

@Mercenary

You have some basic knowledge about Turkey but you don't know much about Turkey as you think.

P.S: I don't wanna argue, as your knowledge is very limited about Turkey.

 

[Mercenary]

@Mercenary

You have some basic knowledge about Turkey but you don't know much about Turkey as you think.

P.S: I don't wanna argue as you your knowledge is very limited about Turkey.

I am just looking out for Turkey's benefit.

Turkey is a strong and stable and democratic Muslim country which every Muslim country look to emulate.

I just don't agree with its decision not to combat ISIS terrorists. It reminds me of how Pakistan turned a blind eye to Jihadists within its country as they were fighting India but when they stopped fighting India, they turned their guns on Pakistan and Pakistan has been in a bloodbath ever since.

Dont want that type of scenario happening in Turkey.

 

[Belew_Kelew]

400 years. Arabs 900 years. 100 years now without a Caliph.

Sunnis: Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid, Ottoman.

Shias: Fatimid Caliphate

In terms of size:

1)Umayyad

2)Abbasid

3)Rashidun

4)Ottoman

5)Fatimid

List of largest empires - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@Ceylal

So when will the few million Berbers safe the likewise stateless Kurds? Can I expect to see you in Ayn Al Arab?

Actually from the end of the abbyasids dynasty they were in control till the end of the ottomans, for me the turkmens were the islamic gate protectors from late 900's ad when they held major military positions in islamic army. the ayyabids were turkmen apart from salahudin who was a kurd. the turkmen were the one who defeated the mongols when thousands of them battled the mongols in egypt both on top of their horse. according to history the mongols couldn't be defeated because of their startgey with the horse until they were reversed mongoled by the people who were as good as them on horses the turkmens. the crusaders hated fighting with the turkmens and many of them wished they were christians. The west colonising countries hated the turks because as they say they made them wait 500 years to colonise and tap into the islamic world.

 

[al-Hasani]

Mate, that's your opinion. The facts remain the same. Arabs controlled the Calipahte for 900 years (from the beginning and during 80% or so of all Islamic conquests of new lands) and Turks for 400 years. For the past 100 years there have been no Calipahte.

Most of the armies of the Ayyubids were Arabs as they controlled Arab land mostly. So that's only natural. They were Arabized rulers too and it was a Kurdish dynasty. They defeated the Arab Shia Fatimid "Caliphate" before reaching power.

Anyway those Caliphates/Empires were obviously not nationalist states of any kind. All kind of ethnicities took part in all sectors. Nobody has said anything else. The Ottoman Empire despite being the smallest of all Caliphates (by far) was inhabited by a majority of Arabs and they of course also formed large parts of the military and were part of all sectors of that dynasty. No ethnicity ever ruled a empire sole-handedly. Especially not when most controlled various lands inhabited by various different peoples.

Yeah no need to mention US and Saudi Air Force bombing IS in Kobane, oh so abandoned and alone indeed.

Stalingrad, LOL. It's called Ayn Al Arab mate. The only people that have been abandoned in Syria and Iraq are Arabs, Assyrians and Turkmen. I did not see a similar fuss when Al-Assad carpet bombed Homs or when ISIS captured Ar-Raqqah.

 

[Belew_Kelew]

Mate, that's your opinion. The facts remain the same. Arabs controlled the Calipahte for 900 years (from the beginning and during 80% or so of all Islamic conquests of new lands) and Turks for 400 years. For the past 100 years there have been no Calipahte.

Most of the armies of the Ayyubids were Arabs as they controlled Arab land mostly. So that's only natural. They were Arabized rulers too and it was a Kurdish dynasty. They defeated the Arab Shia Fatimid "Caliphate" before reaching power.

Anyway those Caliphates/Empires were obviously not nationalist states of any kind. All kind of ethnicities took part in all sectors. Nobody has said anything else. The Ottoman Empire despite being the smallest of all Caliphates (by far) was inhabited by a majority of Arabs and they of course also formed large parts of the military and were part of all sectors of that dynasty. No ethnicity ever ruled a empire sole-handedly. Especially not when most controlled various lands inhabited by various different peoples.



Stalingrad, LOL. It's called Ayn Al Arab mate. The only people that have been abandoned in Syria and Iraq are Arabs, Assyrians and Turkmen. I did not see a similar fuss when Al-Assad carpet bombed Homs or when ISIS captured Ar-Raqqah.

You just didn't say the ayyabids were arabs did you? read the ayabids rise it was created by the turkmens and apart from salahdin majority of the army officers and leaders were turkmen, the arabs were in the lower end of things. If it wasn't for the turkmens the mongols would've destroyed the arabs as the last stand was in egypt and guess what? 100% of the cavalry were turkmens and more than half of the infantry. Have a look at who led the army there and other officers and tell me how arabic their name is.

 

[al-Hasani]

You just didn't say the ayyabids were arabs did you? read the ayabids rise it was created by the turkmens and apart from salahdin majority of the army officers and leaders were turkmen, the arabs were in the lower end of things. If it wasn't for the turkmens the mongols would've destroyed the arabs as the last stand was in egypt and guess what? 100% of the cavalry were turkmens and more than half of the infantry. Have a look at who led the army there and other officers and tell me how arabic their name is.

You apparently don't read what I write. Ayyubids were a Kurdish dynasty. 90% of their lands they controlled were Arab. Most of their armies were Arabs. They spoke Arabic and were Arabized. Their capitals were in the Arab world. Their rulers married Arabs. This is why the Ayyubid family is based in the Arab world today. Turkish armies were part of that, yes, but you are exaggerating enormously. Also write historical nonsense.

What? Mongols only caused trouble in Iraq and parts of Syria. 2 out of 22 Arab countries (back then it was Arab-controled and obviously not like today with the same countries but I am talking about territory here) and about 5-10% of Arab territory. When Mongols were ravaging Baghdad Arabs ruled the entire Maghreb, Arabia, North Africa, Al-Andalus and controlled the main sea/trade routes and had trading ports and some dynasties that ruled Eastern Africa etc. In fact Arabs in those countries only recognized the Umayyad Dynasty as Caliphs who were based in Córdoba that was the "Baghdad" of the West.

The only thing that Turks back then dominated were the cavalry. But obviously it was by no means made up 100% of Turkmen. That's nonsense. Anyway that was all. Rest was Arab dominated. That's totally understandable when 90% of the population was composed of local Arabs. Clergy, scientists, administrators, infantry etc. Also we also know how they ended up in the Arab world initially. Eunuchs comes to mine. The dynasty was Kurdish paternally but the rulers intermarried Arabs mostly and spoke Arabic, ruled Arab lands, their capitals were in the Arab world and they were basically Arabized and more Arab than Kurd.

Modern-day Iraq and parts of Syria made and even today make up a small part of the Arab world. Yes, the Abbasid lost power in 1258 and the Caliph had to escape to Cairo where he ruled mostly nominally until Selim I styled himself as the Caliph almost 300 years later.

Yet Arab-controlled Arabia, the entire Maghreb, North Africa, Al-Andalus was still ruled by Arab dynasties and rulers. Similarily we controlled the major trade routes on the Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean and as far as South East Asia. After all it were Arab merchants, sailors and Sadah families that made South East Asia Muslim. Mostly Hijazi and Yemeni. Hence why Indonesia and all of South East Asia follows the Shafi'i fiqh today.

Al-Andalus was finally lost in 1492 after 800 years of Muslim rule.

Everything Arab-controlled west of Egypt for most of the time recognized the rulers of Al-Andalus de facto outside of the centuries were the Abbasid rule were at its highest.

 

[Belew_Kelew]

You apparently don't read what I write. Ayyubids were a Kurdish dynasty. 90% of their lands they controlled were Arab. Most of their armies were Arabs. They spoke Arabic and were Arabized. Their capitals were in the Arab world. Their rulers married Arabs. This is why the Ayyubid family is based in the Arab world today. Turkish armies were part of that, yes, but you are exaggerating enormously. Also write historical nonsense.

What? Mongols only caused trouble in Iraq and parts of Syria. 2 out of 22 Arab countries (back then it was Arab-controled and obviously not like today with the same countries but I am talking about territory here) and about 5-10% of Arab territory. When Mongols were ravaging Baghdad Arabs ruled the entire Maghreb, Arabia, North Africa, Al-Andalus and controlled the main sea/trade routes and had trading ports and some dynasties that ruled Eastern Africa etc. In fact Arabs in those countries only recognized the Umayyad Dynasty as Caliphs who were based in Córdoba that was the "Baghdad" of the West.

The only thing that Turks back then dominated were the cavalry. But obviously it was by no means made up 100% of Turkmen. That's nonsense. Anyway that was all. Rest was Arab dominated. That's totally understandable when 90% of the population was composed of local Arabs. Clergy, scientists, administrators, infantry etc. Also we also know how they ended up in the Arab world initially. Eunuchs comes to mine. The dynasty was Kurdish paternally but the rulers intermarried Arabs mostly and spoke Arabic, ruled Arab lands, their capitals were in the Arab world and they were basically Arabized and more Arab than Kurd.

Modern-day Iraq and parts of Syria made and even today make up a small part of the Arab world. Yes, the Abbasid lost power in 1258 and the Caliph had to escape to Cairo where he ruled mostly nominally until Selim I styled himself as the Caliph almost 300 years later.

Yet Arab-controlled Arabia, the entire Maghreb, North Africa, Al-Andalus was still ruled by Arab dynasties and rulers. Similarily we controlled the major trade routes on the Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean and as far as South East Asia. After all it were Arab merchants, sailors and Sadah families that made South East Asia Muslim. Mostly Hijazi and Yemeni. Hence why Indonesia and all of South East Asia follows the Shafi'i fiqh today.

Al-Andalus was finally lost in 1492 after 800 years of Muslim rule.

Everything Arab-controlled east of Egypt for most of the time recognized the rulers of Al-Andalus de facto outside of the centuries were the Abbasid rule were at its highest.

mate you got it all wrong. salahdin took power from nur al din al zengi who was a turkmen and zengid dynasty were turkmens and the whole ayyabids soldiers when salahdin took over were mainly turkmens. when salahdin died his son was overthrown by the mamluks in egypt who were turks and his kingdom was taken over by the mongols. so pardon me i will those few decades as disupted. keep in mind that salahdin main army and horsemens were all turkmen and his main generals were mostly turkmen, he didn't just take over and replaced a 200,000 army mainly turkmen with kurds he just kept leading them. salahdin started as a soldier in the zenjid army, why do you think there is turkmen in Iraq around kirkuk that is where the zengi dynasty rose. the turkmen in there are more or less descendents of them. it seems you have no idea of the seljuk turk history and i do thank god they were there to rise up otherwise you probarly wouldn't have existed now the danger especially from the mongols and other external power facing the ummah with the usual arab corruption almost devastated the whole region, it really really does remind me of how it is now the turks are the only one who seems to be without muppet strings or bribed or blackmailed.

You said "In fact Arabs in those countries only recognized the Umayyad Dynasty as Caliphs who were based in Córdoba that was the "Baghdad" of the West." That is why you are saying 900 caliphate years by arabs, Cordoba was irrelevant when it came to the islamic caliphates and the in the 12th century on wards the europeans were much more afraid of the seljuks than few arabs on the southern coast of spain especially when they tried many times to push into france and were defeated. Infact i will even go far and say the last arab victory in warfare happened 1200 years ago, after that defeat starting with the kazars unless the army had elements of non arabic components i can not remember any main battle won by 100% arabs since the 9th century.

 

[al-Hasani]

What? The Fatimids were Arab Shia rulers.

No, they were not. The Ayyubid Dynasty was Arab dominated on all fronts outside the mainly Turkmen cavalry. Clergy, the rich classes, infantry, the rulers were more Arab than Kurd, Arab culture ruled supreme, language, the capitals were Arab, the administrators, scientists, artists etc. This is well-known. Nor is that a surprise by any means when 90% of the population was Arab and 99% of the land was Arab. The dynasty was basically an Arab dynasty more than anything else.

LOL, what? Sejluqs (who were relatively short-lived) were not very relevant in the Arab world. They only controlled parts of Iraq and Oman for a short time period. Their stronghold was Iran. It seems to me that you are highly ignorant about that time period or the fact that Arabs controlled most of the Islamic world until the Ottomans reappeared after the Conquest of Constantinople.

Back then the Fatimids were the main power and the Abbasids.

Yeah, lets forget the entire Arab controlled Al-Andalus, entire Northern Africa, most of Eastern Africa, all of Arabia, half of Levant, the main sea/trade routes along the Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean etc.

You are writing nonsense this time around mate but I don't bother anymore as we are both off-topic and we won't agree.

Read up on the Ayyubids.

What I meant was that the Umayyads/other dynasties controlled most of the Western Arab world/dominated it for centuries while the Abbasids did that with the Eastern Arab world.
Obviously the Umayyads had a bigger clout in for instance Morocco than the Abbasids. Regardless of who ruled as a Caliph.

 

[manlion]

Kurdish fighters take back swathes of Kobane as US step up airstrikes | Daily Mail Online

Kurdish fighters have launched an unlikely comeback against Islamic State terrorists besieging the Syrian town of Kobane, amid claims the resistance forces have now reclaimed swathes of the city.

Images this morning showed Kurdish YPG soldiers triumphantly raising their flag above Tel Shair hill in the west of the city, where ISIS' own black jihadist flag had recently been flying.

Assisted by sustained U.S. and Arab airstrikes, the massively outgunned Kurdish troops have managed to do what looking impossible only a week ago - force ISIS to abandon strategic locations in the west of Kobane and pin them back elsewhere in the city.

 

[Ceylal]

The Kobane commanders

The ICONE Kurdish commander : NALIN AFRIN

her foe, ISIS commander: ABOU KHATTAB, AL KOURDI

 

[Ceylal]

It is not a surprise that us Semitic peoples (Arabs, Phoenicians, Carthaginians and Punics) civilized you illiterate Berbarians and gave you the name Berbarian. Similarly the Romans.

You are still showing you urine colored face..Imazighen language is a lot older than Arabic luanguage and a lot richer ya b'ghel...

During the war against France it were the Algerian Arabs that were the backbone of the resistance while you Berbarians were aiding the French. To this day you can find French flags flying high in your only Berbarian inhabited region of Algeria, tiny Kabylie.

They were no Arabs that joined the fight, because they no Arabs period...The only one living in north Mali, the Barabish embrassed the French rule and kept herding they camels, like they do to this day, and that is the only population that is really illiterate, like the rest of their ascendants, the Arabs..

Likewise your local Al-Qaeda branch is composed solely by Berbarians and your cousins from Mali.

right there! no Arabs were among them..All the ones that joined the groupe were killed..the half life of an alquaida wannabe was 6 months...today it is a lot less...even we have the GIA's father as a president.

In France and Benelux the Berbarians from Morocco and Algeria are famous for being criminals, drug addicts, social outcasts, lowly skilled, without education, engaged in prostitution and **** etc. while the Algerian and Moroccan Arabs are successful.

Great for them..Time for France and the Benelux to get a pay back...There are no Arabs Algerian or Moroccans...in france or in Morocco or Algeria..the only Arab in Morocco is the king family, the only alawi in the area..

Historical facts are historical facts my stateless Berbarian. I know it hurts being a conquered people on all fronts by us Arabs.

You are just stupid, idiot oblevious to facts thar arabs and especially Saudis are the bottom of the gunny sack...Just llook at you today...You still as helpless as when the British corraled and kept you wandering in the desert..You are not even secure that you have to ask for foreign powers to base themselves in your territory...Even the ruling family doesn't trust her own people that she has to have her own army to guard her from harm from the citizen she is governing....Only the Saudi Arabia, that the royals consider the country treasury as their own bank account, only in Saudi Arabia that women are subjected to rape if they work, only in Saudi Arabia, the infant son is the guarantor of his mother best behavior, only in Saudi Arabia where infant daughters, are raped and the daddy is slapped with a small fine, only Saudi Arabia has beheaded more people that ISIS in the last 6 months, Only the Saudis, the only the mollusc people, in the world that put up with a stone age ,degenerated, phobic,schizophrenic, bipolar monarchy.

Just return to your native Mali you stateless and enslaved Berbarian. Berbarians were enslaved all over the Arab world until not long ago.

this is an Arab of Mali, commonly called a barabish ( descendants of Arabs)

Algerian Touareg, a Berber of south Algeria teaching Tafinagh, a variation of Imazigh..

Imbecile, Mali is inhabitted by Barbiches, Arabs descendants...The only berbers are the Touaregs....keep with meth, you are doing a great job passing all the Sauds as the earthling idiots..

Don't forget that. Your people were cleaning our palaces, castles, houses and worked on our farms and did other unwanted jobs.

They may rotate your females tires or wash their dishes, but I doubt you will find an Algerian cleaning your palace...Too much meth, your are confusing us, with Pakistanis...Like I told you, we know our limitation...Our job in KSA is to rotate your female tires and wash their dishes...It's our god given gift and our Med legacy...

And one in your previous post, your were talking about the arabian horse and its resiliency? BS! That horse is a... living room horse...will brake like a bad bone china.