Iraqi kurdistan threatens intervention in Syria

[Turinbaar]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23650894


Mr Barzani gave no details of what form any intervention might take.

Massoud Barzani has pledged to defend the kurdish region of north eastern Syria against Islamism. If they intervene, it will also be a major thorn in the sides of both Assad and Turkey.

At the same time, relations between the KDP and PKK (the PYD's ally) have been tense, so there may be resentments and conflict.

Would you support intervention against islamism or is Iraqi kurdistan overreaching?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

In general I support the struggle for Kurdish independence and autonomy, and therefore anything which assists this end is generally a positive thing. So I say yes

[khad]

Kurds are masters of delusion and wildly overestimate their own military capabilities.

I've seen various statements they've made about this, and judging from videos I've seen of their forces, the most they can hope for is not getting completely exterminated.

Nusra/FSA have armor and don't have to rely on calling up 60 year old men.

[Ann Egg]

I don't follow. Asshead's best armed, well-trained and experienced opponents are the Islamists. And Asshead supports Kurdish autonomy. So if the Iraqi Kurds join the party and start kicking the Islamists' asses and reinforcing Kurdish autonomy, is not Asshead killing two birds with one stone here?

I don't support the intervention. I can't bring myself to support Statists, regardless of their flag or allegiance.

[Tim Cornelis]

Kurds are masters of delusion and wildly overestimate their own military capabilities.

I've seen various statements they've made about this, and judging from videos I've seen of their forces, the most they can hope for is not getting completely exterminated.

Nusra/FSA have armor and don't have to rely on calling up 60 year old men.

The 60 year old men were (former) Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga, but this is certainly not the norm in the YPG, which consists of young men and women. I doubt the FSA/JAN/ISIS are much better armed than the YPG. Both seem to be armed with AK-47s, Toyota pick up trucks, and RPGs.

The YPG is presently in possession of six tanks.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fIiIrH0RuhY/UgN1TDSvd2I/AAAAAAAACwc/yuG-quQ4mxo/s1600/ypgtankspkk.jpg

nRzUkRerJAg

If you're referring to the Iraqi Kurds, the contemporary Peshmerga are a US-trained modern army with 250,000 members. The YPG has been holding off the Islamists for months now. If it comes to an intervention of the Peshmerga they will be wiped out.


I don't follow. Asshead's best armed, well-trained and experienced opponents are the Islamists. And Asshead supports Kurdish autonomy. So if the Iraqi Kurds join the party and start kicking the Islamists' asses and reinforcing Kurdish autonomy, is not Asshead killing two birds with one stone here?

I don't support the intervention. I can't bring myself to support Statists, regardless of their flag or allegiance.

Why would Assad support Kurdish autonomy? If he did, you don't think he would have undertaken even a step to realise this as the most powerful man in Syria? Assad has consistently repressed Kurdish activity, the language was banned in public institutions, he killed and tortured Kurdish activists and cracked down on protests.

[khad]

In 2008 the Turkish Army launched a punitive campaign into Northern Iraqi Kurdistan, killing hundreds of Kurds, only 10 of which were admitted as losses by Kurdish authorities. They also claimed 100+ Turkish troops killed, and only something like 25 were confirmed afterwards.

250,000 Peshmerga? How many of those are paper soldiers? I'd estimate as high as 90%. If the Kurds had such a huge body of armed men, they by all rights should have dominated post-invasion Iraq. That's in addition to 100k US occupation forces vs what, 10000 Insurgents/Islamic State fighters? Those "250,000" can't even stop the Kurds from being bombed and murdered in their own Iraqi territory by ISIS, so what makes you think they're going to be an effective interventionist force?

When Kurdish military claims start conforming to any semblance of reality, maybe then I'll start taking seriously claims of their capabilities. When they can count a single operational victory that isn't just holding territory/preventing total genocide (they seem to get partially genocided and mass murdered with alarming regularity), then maybe they might begin to have a point.

Until then, this is how the Kurds have been defending themselves:
http://guardianlv.com/2013/08/450-kurds-including-120-children-killed-in-syria-precipitates-international-concern-video/

[Sheepy]

Six tanks are okay, but it doesn't match the Syrian Army's 6,000+. Some support from their hevals in Iraqi Kurdistan really would be a blessing. This really is the next step for the Kurds, so they really can't afford to falter.

[Tim Cornelis]

In 2008 the Turkish Army launched a punitive campaign into Northern Iraqi Kurdistan, killing hundreds of Kurds, only 10 of which were admitted as losses by Kurdish authorities. They also claimed 100+ Turkish troops killed, and only something like 25 were confirmed afterwards.

In which the Peshmerga was not involved, so you can't directly draw conclusions regarding the capabilities of the Peshmerga from it. Though one might suggest that this shows the Peshmerga is no match for the Turkish army and therefore did not respond. However, the Turkish army is a high quality army, far above the ISIS/JAN/FSA in Syria. (Incidentally, a few thousand PKK combatants couldn't be beaten by the massive Turkish army, that suggests "the Kurds" are capable of putting up a decent fight surely).


250,000 Peshmerga? How many of those are paper soldiers? I'd estimate as high as 90%. If the Kurds had such a huge body of armed men, they by all rights should have dominated post-invasion Iraq.

To an extent they do. They have far reaching autonomy, a massive standing army, and if I remember correctly, rights to virtually all oil. What else is there to "dominate"? Besides, the Iraqi Army has twice that number of troops.


That's in addition to 100k US occupation forces vs what, 10000 Insurgents/Islamic State fighters? Those "250,000" can't even stop the Kurds from being bombed and murdered in their own Iraqi territory by ISIS, so what makes you think they're going to be an effective interventionist force?

Because the situation in both countries is utterly incomparable, irregular warfare vs. conventional warfare. In Iraq the Islamists attack by means of car bombs and ambushes (of checkpoints), which can only be prevented through military intelligence gathering. In Syria, on the contrary, there is a clear front and intervention would mean clearing out villages captured/occupied by Islamists. In this regard the Peshmerga would have an advantage on every level:


More troops
Well/better trained troops
Better weaponry
An abundance of arms and ammunition
Etc.



When Kurdish military claims start conforming to any semblance of reality, maybe then I'll start taking seriously claims of their capabilities. When they can count a single operational victory that isn't just holding territory/preventing total genocide (they seem to get partially genocided and mass murdered with alarming regularity), then maybe they might begin to have a point.

Until then, this is how the Kurds have been defending themselves:
http://guardianlv.com/2013/08/450-kurds-including-120-children-killed-in-syria-precipitates-international-concern-video/

The Peshmerga and YPG are two different armed groups. The YPG consists of many whom wield arms for the first time.

[khad]

In which the Peshmerga was not involved, so you can't directly draw conclusions regarding the capabilities of the Peshmerga from it. Though one might suggest that this shows the Peshmerga is no match for the Turkish army and therefore did not respond. However, the Turkish army is a high quality army, far above the ISIS/JAN/FSA in Syria. (Incidentally, a few thousand PKK combatants couldn't be beaten by the massive Turkish army, that suggests "the Kurds" are capable of putting up a decent fight surely).
And where is the PKK in Turkey now? That's right, they negotiated a withdrawal because they realized that their position is untenable.

To an extent they do. They have far reaching autonomy, a massive standing army, and if I remember correctly, rights to virtually all oil. What else is there to "dominate"? Besides, the Iraqi Army has twice that number of troops.The United States reported the strength of the Iraqi Armed forces as 210,000 in 2012. 250,00 according to the Iraqi government.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/11/us-iraq-withdrawal-military-idUSTRE7BA0GS20111211

So let's get this straight. The Peshmerga (on paper) is the size of the Iraqi army, and the Kurds control the heart of Iraq's oilfields, but they still don't even dominate what they want to claim as Kurdistan. Almost half of the territory they claim as Iraqi Kurdistan is controlled by the central government. With all that money and manpower, what's to stop them?

Kurdish controlled areas in red, black are parts of Kurdish claimed territory in the central government's hands.
http://i.imgur.com/kDFEd7J.png


Because the situation in both countries is utterly incomparable, irregular warfare vs. conventional warfare. In Iraq the Islamists attack by means of car bombs and ambushes (of checkpoints), which can only be prevented through military intelligence gathering. In Syria, on the contrary, there is a clear front and intervention would mean clearing out villages captured/occupied by Islamists. In this regard the Peshmerga would have an advantage on every level:


More troops
Well/better trained troops
Better weaponry
An abundance of arms and ammunition
Etc.

Syria is not irregular warfare? VBIED attacks have been one of the most effective weapons the FSA has employed in their insurgency. The Syrian army has to painstakingly clear neighborhoods over weeks and months because of small detachments of insurgents trying to infiltrate goverment-held areas. You read about the demolition of tunnels and such just about every day.

You sound like George Dubya. Intervening is so simple; all you gotta do is fight a few battles and clear out some terrorists and put it on the 6 o'clock news. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, amirite?

Holding is the hard part of counterinsurgency warfare.


The Peshmerga and YPG are two different armed groups. The YPG consists of many whom wield arms for the first time.So where was this mighty Peshmerga in 2008 to respond to this brutal violation of Kurdish sovereignty by the Turks? All they could do was offer token threats of "people's resistance" even as their prime minister was crying about the Turkish invasion as an existential threat to the Kurdish nation. You can contrast this to the 3000 Hezbollah who fought an Israeli invasion to a standstill in 2006.

As I said, I'll believe it when I see it, because their entire history has done little more than convince me that they are all bark and no bite.

[Red Commissar]

So where was this mighty Peshmerga in 2008 to respond to this brutal violation of Kurdish sovereignty by the Turks? All they could do was offer token threats of "people's resistance" even as their prime minister was crying about the Turkish invasion as an existential threat to the Kurdish nation. You can contrast this to the 3000 Hezbollah who fought an Israeli invasion to a standstill in 2006.

As I said, I'll believe it when I see it, because their entire history has done little more than convince me that they are all bark and no bite.

I don't think this had so much to do with a weakness of their forces as it did from a realization that if they did this it would have likely messed up their ties to certain western countries. For what it's worth the Turkish army did not advance beyond the zone that allowed it to invade in the first place (from an old piece of Saddam-era legislation), even though nothing really should have stopped them from going further. Had Turkey tried to move beyond the almost empty areas of the Qandil range into the more populated areas, I think the outcome would've been much different and it is for this reason Turkey didn't do that.

What you are also leaving out here is that Hezbollah, unlike the PKK, has political power in the area it was defending - to the extent of representatives in parliament and now the executive. The PKK does not have any political clout in the Kurdistan Regional Government- and in fact it has had several disputes with the PUK and KDP that dominate it back in the 90s. The PKK couldn't mobilize the kind of resistance Hezbollah could, and the KDP or PUK couldn't be moved to actually do something about it if the Turks didn't go beyond the border areas near the Qandil range. This is also ignoring the substantial economic interests Turkey has in the KRG and its relatively warm relations with the two dominant political players there- much to the anger of the PKK. To say the Kurds could've been like Hezbollah in Lebanon is taking a very loose reading of the situation that relies on cherrypicking information.

It's not fair to say that they are all "bark and no bite" when considering how much shit a lot of these groups have gone through to fight for their objectives, regardless of the shittiness of their political fronts. When it comes to Kurds in Iraq and Turkey especially they've been a persistent problem for the past decades with periods of persistent warfare and attacks, and recovering even when they were completely destroyed. These being 80s-90s, intermittently afterwards for the Kurds in Turkey. 60s-75, 80s, and early 90s for Iraqi Kurds. On top of this, wildly oscillating foreign positions, swinging from pro-Soviet to pro-American and back when the situation benefited them.

Yes, they don't control all their claimed regions - but at the same time the central government hasn't really been successful in bringing them in, and has had difficulty doing so historically. Iraq in its different states has not been too successful with attempts at force beyond mass killing, so this has largely fallen onto trying to buy off local leaders and play them against one another, which paid dividends in the 70s as it does for Iraq now in the disputed zones.

What is problematic about Kurdish groups is inter-party disputes. The Iraqi Kurds pretty much did this for the whole period of their activity and the different groups from each region often fought against one another and continue to do so, which is largely the main reason why they haven't been able to achieve much of anything in Iraq.

Even in this particular situation, we should note the reaction of the PYD's leader to the offer from the KRG President- basically one of "no just send us supplies". This highlights a problem between the two- the KRG and especially its KDP member was long trying to position certain Syrian Kurdish parties it was friendly with as the representative of Kurds there, and it was opposed in this by the PYD, which is for all intents and purposes a PKK front (which in turn has had conflicts with the KDP). Even after the pro-KRG and PYD parties made up and created the YPG between themselves, it is still dominated by the PYD and the movement adjusted as such. The PYD's response to this shows that they are aware that the Iraqi Kurds are now hoping to extend more control over them as they encounter difficulties and as such are trying to rebuff them essentially. Their leadership has likewise been making trips to both Turkey, the pro-FSA in the immediate region, and to Iran, the pro-government force in the region, to try and hedge bets.

To drive this home, look at the response to this from two different Kurdish press. The first, a largely pro-KRG group, has this particular announcement front and center, while the second, pro-PKK, makes no mention of this announcement.

http://rudaw.net/english
http://en.firatajans.com/

What has been interesting to see is how the KRG's position towards the Syrian situation has developed overtime. They had originally come out in support of the Syrian protests and you can see this in their media (though both the KDP and PUK were supported by Syria in the 70s and 80s). About July their media seems to have started becoming a lot more critical of the FSA, now covering conflicts between Islamist militia and YPG that previously only pro-PKK media had been talking about. Within the past few weeks it has become more or less hostile to the FSA in the media, it is rare to see anything remotely positive or encouraging sympathy about the FSA on Kurdish press any more, party-tied or independent, and they largely view them with the same cynicism that they do with the government.

I think this change is probably a response by Iraqi Kurdish leaders concerned with their image especially ahead of an election for their government, and maybe an acknowledgement that there is nothing left to salvage in the Syrian opposition. They also know that while they have continued to ignore this, their population, both old and young, have become sympathetic to the YPG and not so much to the pronouncements of the pro-KRG Syrian Kurds- because unlike the pro-KRG outfits, the PYD actually was doing something tangible.

[Tim Cornelis]

And where is the PKK in Turkey now? That's right, they negotiated a withdrawal because they realized that their position is untenable.

Actually it's part of a re-orientation of strategy that developed since 2005 with the forming of the Koma Civaken Kurdistan, which centres around urban and rural popular assemblies -- moving away from the "people's war" type strategy.


The United States reported the strength of the Iraqi Armed forces as 210,000 in 2012. 250,00 according to the Iraqi government.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/11/us-iraq-withdrawal-military-idUSTRE7BA0GS20111211

So let's get this straight. The Peshmerga (on paper) is the size of the Iraqi army, and the Kurds control the heart of Iraq's oilfields, but they still don't even dominate what they want to claim as Kurdistan. Almost half of the territory they claim as Iraqi Kurdistan is controlled by the Central Government. With all that money and manpower, what's to stop them?

I'm sorry, but are you really this dumb? You think because an army is the same size as another army that therefore the one army has every reason in the world to start a war, a war that will no doubt be bloody, lengthy, and with no guarantee of victory, risking everything they have? Come on. It's like asking, why China would not just attack India, after all: similar sized military, disputed territory. Or Pakistan attack India, or Thailand, Cambodia, or China, Japan, etc. Come on. I'm sure you can figure out that the immense costs and risks of war generally outweigh the potential gains in victory.


Syria is not irregular warfare? VBIED attacks have been one of the most effective weapons the FSA has employed in their insurgency. The Syrian army has to painstakingly clear neighborhoods over weeks and months because of small detachments of insurgents trying to infiltrate goverment-held areas. You read about the demolition of tunnels and such just about every day.

The primary modus operandi, to me, seems the use of conventional armed power, and as of 2013 a primarily role for snipers in such places as Aleppo. If we look at the ISIS/JAN attacks on Kurdish/YPG-held areas we see that car bombs have been used once, against a prominent politician. It's conventional warfare.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NNZUqc62l0E/UgNncbciXtI/AAAAAAAACwM/5Ss-vo0DDPs/s1600/mappositionskobani.jpg


You sound like George Dubya. Intervening is so simple; all you gotta do is fight a few battles and clear out some terrorists and put it on the 6 o'clock news. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, amirite?

I never said it would take a few battles or that'd be simple, I said it would involve clearing them out, which is true. I didn't say they will necessarily succeed (although in all probability they would) or that it will be swift.


Holding is the hard part of counterinsurgency warfare.

So where was this mighty Peshmerga in 2008 to respond to this brutal violation of Kurdish sovereignty by the Turks? All they could do was offer token threats of "people's resistance" even as their prime minister was crying about the Turkish invasion as a existential threat to the Kurdish nation. You can contrast this to the 3000 Hezbollah who fought an Israeli invasion to a standstill in 2006.

As I said, I'll believe it when I see it, because their entire history has done little more than convince me that they are all bark and no bite.

You don't think there is a qualitative difference between fighting a fully equipped NATO-army and rag-tag militias of Islamists with almost exclusively small arms? Come on. The Peshmerga may be no match for Turkey's military might, but simply look at their size and equipment (tanks, humvees, armored vehicles, mortar, artillery).

[The Douche]

The Peshmerga are not a modern army. Rolling around with pt76s and t55s, small arms consisting of AKMs and even still using 47s? They're also relatively untested by combat, with the most experienced, and the best trained Kurdish units having been folded into the Iraqi defense forces (I don't remember it was IA or ING), as I recall.

[khad]

It's not fair to say that they are all "bark and no bite" when considering how much shit a lot of these groups have gone through to fight for their objectives, regardless of the shittiness of their political fronts. When it comes to Kurds in Iraq and Turkey especially they've been a persistent problem for the past decades with periods of persistent warfare and attacks, and recovering even when they were completely destroyed. These being 80s-90s, intermittently afterwards for the Kurds in Turkey. 60s-75, 80s, and early 90s for Iraqi Kurds. On top of this, wildly oscillating foreign positions, swinging from pro-Soviet to pro-American and back when the situation benefited them.

So, their greatest claim to fame is that Saddam didn't kill ALL of them.

You bet that instills a fuck ton of confidence right there.


I'm sorry, but are you really this dumb? You think because an army is the same size as another army that therefore the one army has every reason in the world to start a war, a war that will no doubt be bloody, lengthy, and with no guarantee of victory, risking everything they have? Come on. It's like asking, why China would not just attack India, after all: similar sized military, disputed territory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_conflicts_1979-1990
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971

Your point fails. Border conflicts almost always occur with up-and-coming nations seeking to avenge historical wrongs, usually when one side perceives its strength sufficient to achieve victory. That the Kurds, with their 200,000 supersoldiers, haven't done jack shit is very telling of their actual position more than any empty threat made by that opportunist Barzani.

Can you point me towards one major conflict in Modern Iraqi history which the Kurds can count as a victory?


The Peshmerga are not a modern army. Rolling around with pt76s and t55s, small arms consisting of AKMs and even still using 47s? They're also relatively untested by combat, with the most experienced, and the best trained Kurdish units having been folded into the Iraqi defense forces (I don't remember it was IA or ING), as I recall.
Well, have fun trying to convey these facts to the Kurdish propaganda minister over there.

[The Douche]

Also, if the Peshmerga are such an effective force, what major engagements did they participate in, in OIF? Weren't their operations limited to Kurdistan, except those units that got folded into the Iraqi forces?

[piet11111]

Those small arms kill you just as dead as modern small arms.
Personally i would rather get shot with an M-4 then the AKM ( that is the same as the ak-47 only the M stands for modernized)

But that is besides the point.

Simple fact is that those T-55's are barely more then propaganda material unless they have the full military capabilities that any modern army has they wont be able to fight and win in conventional warfare.
So by default they would have to fight in a urban guerrilla war rendering any enemy advantage in armor air or plain infantry numbers moot.

[khad]

5j6TPNe8QY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5j6TPNe8QY

YPG "tanks"

First tank has no lights or turret power, broken/missing stabilizer. It is towing tank two which is missing the rear right road wheel and obviously is not usable without a major repair. Tank three, a T-55, has engine problems as the injectors look shot to hell, while tank four is a seemingly functional T-55, but we know how long those last, etc etc

[The Douche]

Those small arms kill you just as dead as modern small arms.
Personally i would rather get shot with an M-4 then the AKM ( that is the same as the ak-47 only the M stands for modernized)

But that is besides the point.

Simple fact is that those T-55's are barely more then propaganda material unless they have the full military capabilities that any modern army has they wont be able to fight and win in conventional warfare.
So by default they would have to fight in a urban guerrilla war rendering any enemy advantage in armor air or plain infantry numbers moot.

Look, I'm not gonna have an argument with you about modern militaries. I don't know what qualifications you think you have to talk about these things, but given your comment about how you would rather be shot by one thing and not the other, I'll just sit here quietly as the guy who is an actual combat veteran.

[Turinbaar]

khad seems to think that the Kurds are simply weak and genocide-prone as a people (perhaps an ethnic slur, but lets continue). I would point out that the determining factor in his examples is foreign support. Where would The Party of God have been in a fight with the IDF without its friends in Iran and Syria? Where would Assad be right now without his friends in lebanon, Russia and Iran? Where would al qaeda be right now without Saudi Arabia, and years of shelter and support given to them by Assad's government during the Iraq war. How would kurdish history look if foreign support had not been constantly revoked from them right at the last second by the US? Vulgar hacks don't very often consider asking these sorts of questions.

As for Turkey's intervention in 2008, the KDP likely felt it politically in their interest to abandon their rivals the PKK to the turks. This way they could make idle noises about existentialism, while watching their rivals suffer. I doubt that the Kurds would have been so passive had the Turks occupied Ebril.

I submit that the conditions there will be determined by much more complex material factors involving foreign intervention than the "delusion" of any particular race.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

In general I support the struggle for Kurdish independence and autonomy, and therefore anything which assists this end is generally a positive thing. So I say yes

That said, should communists not raise the slogan of driving all foreign troops out of Syria? It seems as if no one actually asked the Syrian Kurds, let alone the Syrian Kurdish proletariat, anything - an outfit supported by American imperialism, holding a good portion of the partitioned Iraq as a parastate, has decided that they represent the Syrian Kurdish population. That sounds rather suspicious to me. If they are concerned about these people, why not send them arms and supplies, so they can defend themselves?

[Turinbaar]

If they are concerned about these people, why not send them arms and supplies, so they can defend themselves?

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/07/201272393251722498.html

They've been training Syrian Kurds across the border for about a year now. Presumably they don't send them back to fight empty handed.

[khad]

khad seems to think that the Kurds are simply weak and genocide-prone as a people (perhaps an ethnic slur, but lets continue). I would point out that the determining factor in his examples is foreign support. Where would The Party of God have been in a fight with the IDF without its friends in Iran and Syria? Where would Assad be right now without his friends in lebanon, Russia and Iran? Where would al qaeda be right now without Saudi Arabia, and ten years of shelter and support given to them by Assad's government during the Iraq war. How would kurdish history look if foreign support had not been constantly revoked from them right at the last second by the US? Vulgar hacks don't very often consider asking these sorts of questions.

As for Turkey's intervention in 2008, the KDP likely felt it politically in their interest to abandon their rivals the PKK to the turks. This way they could make idol noises about existentialism, while watching their rivals suffer. I doubt that the Kurds would have been so passive had the Turks occupied Ebril.

I submit that the conditions there will be determined by much more complex material factors involving foreign intervention than the "delusion" of any particular race.
200,000 Kurdish supersoldiers waiting to drop out of the sky with all the armor and money America and Exxon Mobil can throw at them. (And yet they still can't control Iraqi Kurdistan)

That's what this thread amounts to. Please, real life is depressing enough without you adding YOUR delusions to it.

Did you know that Iraqi Shia have been heading to Syria to fight for their holy sites on an individual, voluntary basis? Thousands of them fighting for the Syrian government, despite Mahdi Army chief Sadr's formal support for the FSA. If the Kurds weren't such toothless bluffers, you would have heard about similar things from the very beginning. Which is why I am more than a bit inclined to chalk this up as the latest round of Barzani's hot air.

I'll believe it when I see it.

[khad]

Well, well, well. Don't say I didn't tell you so.

Looks like Barzani's elite Peshmerga supersoldiers are occupied policing a minor influx of refugees.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/27/uk-syria-crisis-iraq-idUKBRE97Q08U20130827


Iraqi Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani said earlier this month his well-armed region was ready to defend Kurds living in north-eastern Syria (http://uk.reuters.com/places/syria?lc=int_mb_1001) if they were being threatened by rebel militants who have captured swathes of land in the north.

But his chief of staff said it did not mean that Iraqi Kurdistan was considering sending troops across the border, a move which would drag the region deeper into a conflict that has increasingly split it down ethnic and sectarian lines.

Western powers were weighing up options on Tuesday for a possible military strike against Syria (http://uk.reuters.com/places/syria?lc=int_mb_1001) following a suspected chemical weapons attack on a Damascus suburb last week that killed hundreds of civilians.

"Our policy is not to intervene militarily," Fuad Hussein told Reuters in the regional capital of Arbil. "I think the Kurds in Syria, they have got their own people to defend (them)," he said.
To top it off the generalissimo of 200,000 elite Kurdish supersoldiers has declared that there have been no mass killings of Kurds in Syria, despite not actually being able to visit some of the sites where alleged massacres took place:

http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/03092013

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region –A Kurdish fact-finding mission says in its report that it found no evidence to back media claims of Kurdish massacres by jihadi groups, which are mixed up in Syria’s messy civil war.

According to a report by the nine-member committee, most witnesses said they had seen between 17-25 bodies, after clashes erupted this summer between the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and jihadi fighters of the Jabhat al-Nusrah and Islamic State of Iraq.

The report has not been officially released, but an advance copy was obtained by Rudaw. It says that only a few people reported seeing as many as 80 bodies after the clashes.

Team members interviewed at least 50 people, including men, women in children, from Tel-Haran and Tel-Hasil, two locations where the PYD had claimed the killings had happened.

The report said that the committee could not actually visit the two areas due to war and security risks, but still managed to interview people from both places from other locations.

The findings also noted that the team had failed to visit the town of Amude, where the PYD’s armed wing, People’s Defense Units (YPG) in July opened fire at fellow Kurdish protesters and killed seven.Well, no shit SURVIVORS who FLED the shooting wouldn't have seen all the dead people in one place.

These latest statements have PYD supporters wondering if there's a conspiracy afoot, where Barzani with his Turkish intelligence ties is planning to finish off their political rivals across the border:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Massoud-Barzani-Hasn-t-Fou-by-Hamma-Mirwaisi-Al-Qaeda_Arab_Attack_Blood-130905-636.html

In the article linked below that appeared in the Rudaw publication (there are reports by Kurdish media that this publication in the Barzani area of Iraq is owned by the Turkish MIT [National Intelligence Organization] and used against both the Syrian PYD [the Kurdish Democratic Union Party] and the PKK [the Kurdistan Workers Party in Turkey]), Barzani's committee claims not to have found any evidence of the massacre of Kurds by Islamic jihadist terrorist organizations in Syria.

Massoud Barzani, President of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region, has trained hundreds of Syrian Kurds to support Jabhat al-Nusrah, the Islamic State of Iraq, and al-Shām, and has been ready to send in his own fighters from the Kurdish Barzani tribe to help eliminate the YPG forces. When it turned out that the Islamic terrorist jihadi fighters and Kurds trained by Barzani failed to wipe out the YPG forces, they launched a cowardly and vengeful attack that, according to international reports and the foreign minister of Russia, killed 450 civilian Kurds, including 100 children.

[Red Commissar]

I don't really see how that article proves anything in particular. It's basically saying "well the site that reported that is owned by Turkish secret intelligence", ergo everything it says is false, then goes on to point out corruption among the Barzani family- btw, it reeks of anti-semitism in that one part that goes "offended the ancient Jewish mentality" when referring to the Barzani family in the case of a murdered journalist- so I don't see how it really proves anything. This seems to rely more on bizarre leaps of logic then actually providing anything to show why that is the case.

What I find hilarious too with the website has existed since 2004-5, and it is only now when they report something that another group didn't like, that they are accused of being stooges for foreign intelligence. I mean make up your mind- first they accuse these particular group of pro-west parties of being just that, then Israeli, then Iranian, then Turkish, and briefly Arab. It seems only a few months ago that the opposition there had accused them of being Iranian plants because of their frequent visits to Tehran. Then the same thing with Turkey due to that nation's economic domination of the region. I'm not sure how, especially when it comes to Syria, that being simultaneously on both sides of the fence here makes sense.

The ruling groups in Iraqi Kurdistan- both the KDP and PUK- are corrupt which can be seen with the way the economy has developed in their corner of Kurdistan, but to say they've thrown in with Nusra and others? That's a bit of a stretch considering that Islamist parties have often been in conflict with the KDP and PUK, to the point that they allege that those parties directed mobs to burn down their offices, censor and revoke licenses of religious clerics tied to their parties, break up pro-FSA and MB protests, etc. Many of them haven't forgiven them for what they did to Ansar al-Islam, offering them up on a platter for the Americans to use as part of their flimsy "Saddam is an al Qaeda ally" line.

The problem with this scenario is much the same as we are getting fed with the case of alleged chemical weapons use. We are told by some media that the Syrian government has used it, then given some grainy video and pretty unconvincing evidence. The PYD showed much the same and even the recent rush of refugees is more because they built a pontoon bridge over the Khabur River- people leave because their corner of Syria has had its infrastructure broken and unable to provide for people. There is violence, murders, and all around hate- but on a scale of a genocide? That is the problem here. I can not see the argument that a group which has problem with islamist parties on its own turf (both of the MB and salafist flavors) would decide to support those groups completely. They are not Saudi Arabia and have the luxury of being able to support it in one case and not in the other. It's not implausible that the PYD is participating its own media circus here and is prone to exaggerations like any other political outfit in the world.

As I said before, this is a political feud among Kurdish groups over who has the right to direct the whole nationalist movement, and this is common among these national liberation groups. What ideological positions they take are irrelevant- they are often pursuing the narrow interests of their leadership cloaked in appeals to nationalism and justice. There's a discussion to be had with how this petty nationalist feuding hurts their people in the long run, but that's not the time for it.

What's also annoying here is this repeated trend that if they are in this one camp, that they are instantly supporting Islamists. I would have thought that this long of observing wars that a civil war with ethnic, religious, political, social, and economic dimensions make it difficult to attribute a war solely for "wahabbis vs secularists" causes. This is a false dichotomy that can not even be applied in this particular case- what we see here is posturing and personality feuds in a nationalist camp. I mean it's not like as if the KDP and PKK have had hostilities before right?

I mean yeah if you want to dumb this down into "oh those pesky Islamists!" for what ever axe-grinding you're obsessing over, be my guest, but it doesn't serve anything constructive here. We all know that wahabbis, salafists, w/e are reactionary fucktards but obsessing over them and tying it back to something they have no real place in makes no sense.

[khad]

I said it was a conspiracy theory sourced to PYD supporters. I don't need to tell you my opinion on the credibility of these Kurdish parties is again.

The guy talks about the Barzani clan's Jewish mentality, ffs.

Sometimes I wonder if this site is filled with nothing but idiots, but I stop wondering when I read this thread and see people actually believing Barzani's threats to invade.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't follow. Asshead's best armed, well-trained and experienced opponents are the Islamists. And Asshead supports Kurdish autonomy. So if the Iraqi Kurds join the party and start kicking the Islamists' asses and reinforcing Kurdish autonomy, is not Asshead killing two birds with one stone here?

I don't support the intervention. I can't bring myself to support Statists, regardless of their flag or allegiance.

Why are you calling him asshead? That's the fucking height of racism right there, yet you think you can get away with it just because he's a tyrant.

[Red Commissar]

I said it was a conspiracy theory sourced to PYD supporters. I don't need to tell you my opinion on the credibility of these Kurdish parties is again.

The guy talks about the Barzani clan's Jewish mentality, ffs.

Sometimes I wonder if this site is filled with nothing but idiots, but I stop wondering when I read this thread and see people actually believing Barzani's threats to invade.

Afaik only op seemed to have taken it seriously. All I had done was put these announcements in context for users who might not be as familiar with this situation. I don't understand why you are so aggressive about this to other users.