Safavid were originally kurds who later mixed with other groups, however religion was an important factor and has been so in almost all empires and dynasties of middle east.
Ayyubids were kurds who became arabized, but large part of their army were kurdish and turks.
Arab dynasties also intermarried with other people (especially abbasids).
In Iran they feel home since they are related to other ethnic groups in Iran. That makes the situation different.
I would not support executions against Kurds in case of having thrown chemical weapons on them, not recognizing them as Kurds, and destroying 30000 of their houses and systemically changing their demography in their regions. That will backlash. Even in Syria now the kurds are helping the arabs. They don't harm arabs as ISIS harmed kurds. They even work with FSA.
We don't know what they were with 100% certainty as we have different claim of what ethnicity they belonged to originally. They themselves claimed to be Hashemites and also intermarried with Arabs. By that logic I can say that they were Arab as they also followed much of Arabic culture, Islam etc.
For an empire/kingdom/sheikdom/imamate/emirate to be labelled as belonging to someone/something culture, practices, language, areas ruled, the ethnicity of the majority of the subjects etc. are crucial. In that case the Ayyubids were clearly an Arab empire. Especially as Salah ad-Din himself was born in Iraq, was fully Arabized and even of partial Arab descent and he even married Arabs and died on Arab land.
Safavids were an Iranian empire. Not an Kurdish, Arab or Azeri one.
Also nobody disputes that for instance the Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid Caliphates/Empires were Muslim Arab empires just like nobody disputes that Sassanids were an Iranian empire (regardless of ruling non-Iranian land, intermarrying with foreigners too etc.) or that the Akkadians, Babylonians or Assyrians were Semitic empires. Or that the British Empire was British.
But you missed that Kurds regard "Kurdistan" as their home. They don't regard Ahvaz, Zahedan, Bandar Abbas, Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, Mashhad or Rasht as their homeland.
Why are you talking about the Saddam Hussein regime? Various Iranian regimes, especially the current one, have hunted down and discriminated Kurds very much too. It happens to this day. At least Kurds in Iraq have autonomy and their language is official. Iraq is bette for Kurds today than Iran is.
Iranian Kurds and the Iranian state has been at war for decades and close to 30.000 have died if I am not wrong. The difference is that Iraq has been totally unstable since the 1980's and Syria since the civil war erupted while Iran has been ruled with an iron fist by the Mullah's and before the Shah. Once the Kurds try to stir trouble up other minorities will do the same and we all know it. Or at least the potential is there if their rights remain small and their culture oppressed. Similar to how minorities in the Arab world have reacted and can react. There is already an Baluch insurgency. Ironically two Iranian peoples in Iran are the most active separatists in Iran. Both stateless people too.
the occasional times i come to this thread, i read strange statements like this.
this thread must be closed.
Why is communism and socialism so popular in India? Please explain to me once and for all why you have a fetish for Arab Ba'ath regimes and in particular the Gaddafi regime? Outline the reasons why his vision, regime (not what they preached about but what they actually did) is so much better than anything else?
Why do you believe that Syrians want to be ruled by the Al-Assad regime and by outdated Ba'athism that is not fit for this era and time?
