this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
13 points (66.7% liked)
People's Court
493 readers
1 users here now
This is a community for Lemmygrad users and admins to discuss administrative issues in a more transparent manner
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Here's the thread for context everyone, and the specific comment.
They're using some edgy language, and that debate got spicy, but their comment doesn't seem like they're calling for ethnic cleansing of kurds at the hands of islamic fascists. They're being critical of Rojava as a US-funded military project.
I personally don't think heated arguments or edgyness are good excuses for statements such as this one. I'm not well versed in Syrian or Middle-Eastern modern history myself, but I'm at least well aware that AANES as a state(-ish) entity was formed for the precise reason of combating genocidal forces in both ISIS and Turkey.
To advocate for the destruction of that in the current state of things can (and will, by the broader public) be read, not as ultra-leftism or idealistic anti-imperialism, but as cover for the very likely genocidal acts of the current victors of the war. Specially considering that a majority of the users here are from the Global North or otherwise very distant from the topics of discussion.
IMO we should hold ourselves to higher standards than that, or else we start looking like Reddit Trotskyists and raddle anarchists wishing death and destruction on any third world statelet because they don't align with our own much broader geopolitical interests.
Exactly this.
Funny how multitotal didn't actually link the thread directly, just quoted one comment without context. Almost like they're trying to start drama or do wrecker shit by trying to turn the community against the mods.
"Link to what you're criticizing" should be a rule for posts like this.
I get that people get hot about this one, and its not necessarily a bad thing to make a people's court post about stuff like this. We always gotta be open to criticism.
I'm fine with people bringing up a discussion they think is unacceptable, but to do so without posting links to it is just pointless drama, or deliberate wrecker behaviour.
I didn't want it to seem like I'm asking for people to go and jump on the discussion.
It's interesting though that people are all like "context?" in response to this, but if someone had written "I hope China gets wiped off the map", they'd be instantly banned for "imperialism" (rightfully so) and nobody would pause for two seconds to ask for context. Same thing with any of the other n things where the mere implication of a thought rather than anything written is worthy of a permanent ban.
But when someone says, in no uncertain terms, they wish Turkey and its militias ethnically cleanse the Kurds from northern Syria the response is "hm.. what is the context of that statement?" LMAO
Just to be clear, genocide and similar crimes are never acceptable in any context.
The context that I was asking for is the context in which the words in the thread title/description were stated. This was not to make assumptions about the context in which advocating for genocide is okay. It was to avoid making incorrect assumptions and accepting your interpretation without evidence. It was not too see whether the context might suggest that genocide was acceptable. It was to determine whether anyone had advocated for the genocide of Kurds.
That's fair. But let's entertain a hypothetical...
If someone had posted "China should be wiped off the map" or "Russia should be wiped off the map". Do you think we'd be having this discussion regarding motives and context?
Maybe I didn't link it publicly so it wouldn't seem like I am trying to start drama with the person. I didn't ask for the person to get banned or their comment deleted, just asked about that rule going forward.
I don't see genocide in their words. They also say HTS should be wiped off the map. Doesn't mean they want to kill all Sunni Muslims in Syria. They just wish Rojava didn't exist as an organization.
In fact OP is making the same argument that Israel makes when accusing its critics of antisemitism.
As an afterthought edit. Because clearly they saw it as a way to push Turkey's talking points onto this forum.
No, they're not. They also referred to people of Rojava as "terrorists". Only country who calls them that is Turkey.
Actually, SNA/HTS are sunni, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas are shia.
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
To equate the two is to say that Palestinians want to genocide/ethnically cleanse Israel, when that is not true. Meanwhile SNA is already running a terror campaign in the areas they control.
To equate the two is saying that just like the Kurds in northern Syria and Iraq, Israeli nationals/settlers are native/indigenous to Israel. This is also not true.
What is true though, is that Turkey has used the same rhetoric against PKK/SDF/YPG/Kurds as Israel uses against Palestinians. Turkey calls them terrorists and uses that to justify invading north Syria and killing civilians.
So the people of Rojava and the Kurds are more akin to the Palestinians and Turkey and the Turkish-backed forces are more akin to Israel.
Thank you for bringing that up, now my position is even more clear and justified.
Well, what about this ?
Calling people of Rojava "racist terrorists". Do you think they are calling the land racist, or perhaps the pieces of paper that run their bureaucracy? No, they're referring to the people of Rojava.
Expressing glee at the thought of people of Rojava ("racist terrorists") are reaping.
Turkish-backed SNA didn't wait to start an ethnic cleansing campaign: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/12/11/turkish-backed-fighters-accused-killing-soldiers-syria/