Alan
Elite member
- Messages
- 2,522
- Reaction score
- 456
- Points
- 83
- Ethnic group
- Kurdish
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1a1a1
- mtDNA haplogroup
- HV2a1 +G13708A
It is none of your business what my age is. "Tatars came to Crimea as immigrants" The Tatars have been in Crimea since 1441, 563 years! They came long before the Russians did, the Russians only came rather recently! They have much to do with Crimea! As the Greeks and Tatars in Crimea are the only current inhabitants who have been in Crimea over 500 years, the Russians only in the past 250 years.
A Turkish-supported regime is occupying the northern part of Cyprus, this is true. However, Cyprus is not Greece, many people in Cyprus are of Greek descent, but Cyprus and Greece are separate countries. I am of Greek descent, I do not support what is happening in northern Cyprus, Greek and Turkish Cypriots, the Greek government, and the Turkish government are negotiating a settlement between all sides.
As to what you call "Northern Kurdistan", I believe you are referring to southeast Turkey. There is no Northern Kurdistan. This region is a fundamental part of the Turkish state. Your people would be better off being a part of Turkey, than receiving independence; as if you do, Southeastern Turkey would destabilise, and become like Iraq. I am not saying that the Kurdish-majority region(s) of Turkey should not have semi- or fully autonomy, which would be good. In addition, when Turkey joins the EU, Kurds will likely have more cultural and linguistic protection due to various treaties and policies employed by The European Union.
And regarding the statement "Turks are immigrants to the region as Tatars are." We have already established that Tatars are not immigrants. It is true that Turks did emigrate to Anatolia, but this happened very long ago. In addition, since the original people of Anatolia (the Greeks), have been ousted from Anatolia (except for some Greeks which did stay, or have come back to Turkey), it is unlikely that Anatolia would be returned to the Greeks, and it will likely stay Turkish. And I am alright with that, as it has been Turkish for a long time.
Also, I am assuming that you are an immigrant! And a recent one at that, the Kurds have not been in The Netherlands for hundreds or thousands of years! Perhaps a few decades. :grin:
Anyhow, this thread is regarding Crimea, not Turkey, there are other threads that are regarding Turkey.
A Kurdish state in "Southeast and East Anatolia" (which is actually North Mesopotamia, Transcaucasus and part of the wider iranian plateau) would destabilize the Near East, but a Tatar state on disputed land between Western and Eastern powers would bring peace to the region. Cut me your illogical arguments, it's full of ignorant hypocritical nonsense. The worst part is that delusional people still believe more influence for Turkey means more influence for the West. Kurdistan is the only reason for hope in that on paper drawn country called Iraq. The reason why Iraq is unstable, is because Iraq as such should have never been a country. And it was never stable to begin with. And you talk about autonomy for Kurds in Turkey as if it is something Turkey is even ready to give.
Also you seem to have not much idea about the history of Crimea. The Tatars appeared roughly at 1400 century AD while Crimea was part of the Kievan Rus around 10th to 11th AD.
By the way just to build up some geographic knowledge. This is traditional (original Greek) Anatolia.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/AnatolieLimits.jpg
What you call East and Southeast Anatolia was always part of the Mesopotamian, Iranian and Caucasian empires and never Greek nor Anatolia.