oracle

i tried to get a picture of syria, don't like it, it is hard to get a good idea about it.

it seems like in libya, a fragile situation. i have heard only, with early on some hints of resistance, heard of non-violent protest.

what to think of that? knowing protest and police (let alone army) brutality i would actually say that is allways true.

protests are peacefull more so when they are about huge subjects, geopolitics, revolutions stuf like that. (i am somewhat from the school that holds through direct action you can claim back quite some rights and living space, if you do it smartly)

otoh.. would you resist the police at tahrir square, or the uniforms of tunesia (in whatever kinds they came, i think both), certainly , once there is the agreement that the violence from the police does not cross every boundary it meets or dreams up, a fierce riot is what does it.

is it? it looks like that. i know there is something to say for that in eg. petersburg even,

just the moment, to grab that, to once and for all overrule that desperate claim of authority
and the world changed for the better.

as soon as it takes longer it seems it gets more hurtfull. where is ivory coast now?
and what to think of bloody libya?
yemen?

i wonder if the israelis still remember how their protests made to be over housing costs , got politically abused. i do.. well did it help?

not so much. so i wonder about syria.

did you notice assad and erdogan's mouth look very much alike? maybe if they are family.

syria.. it is a political subject.
libya is: libya is oil. and oil, and uhm
oil. so libya is oil. (african oil)

syria is a bit of oil, enough for sth. like syria perhaps. and a lot of kurds. it is not easy to be a kurd. for a kurd you expect the turkish to be gratefull. we brought them civilisation you would think, we even brought them ataturk, without us, the world would have long stopped turning, at least in turkey.

turkish see that differently. i am not sure but i figure. i am not even sure why. i call it kemalism.

after there was this white bloke , that thought, lets do something odd with the relatively rich remnants of the ottoman, there came a lot of far more outrageous authoritarian people, but with less talent. kemalism.

so i like musi. just not his imams. goes with all, small wonder.

anyhow, for historical reasons syrians have very little to do with turkey. syria had just been conquered by the english, so it would be hurtfull for the ataturk national pride of the project of the time. syria is just 'off limit'.

i wudnt buy it, not even from musi, but, perhaps he wouldnt have mind it.

so turkey and syria are two different things. allthough you can't seperate easily between musi philosophy and kurdish identity.

i find that hard, i guess it's his european background.

nevertheless musi was exceptionally bad on the kurdish, typical selfhating american he be.
reminds me of mark levine.

so if we leave the foreign affairs out of the quotation, what we get is a nation of kurds that didn't have an ataturk yet.

unfortunately caliphates of the past have sought division between all the different kurds in eurasia. in syria there are at least 3 or so different races and religions of kurds.

kurdish kurdish, allahfiets, and a few. only i am not sure if they are sunni or shia, both i think.
oh yes and palestinian kurdish i suppose. and a few christian arabs, and arab jews.

but it is majorly the kurdish groups divided through the ottoman eras and english.

history of the region , famously known as the 'morning' or 'evening' land (it depended lattitude), has caused all those people to forget their true roots and history. it is very well possible kurdish people in either western syria or even southern pakistan have forgotten where they came from.

(the evening/morning land).

that is surely a problem.