|Re: If The French Are The French|
- Monday, February 5 2007, 20:28:23 (CET)|
from 184.108.40.206 - 220.127.116.11 - Windows XP - Internet Explorer
If that is the argument one should use, then HOW do you explain Kurdistan?
NO Kurd can prove he's Kurdish, because there NEVER was a Kurdistan or a KUrdish nationality, in the history of mankind, yet they are sitting in our homeland, as we speak, DEMANDING our country be called Kurdistan, and even threatening to de-stabilize the Iraqi government if it doesn't make Kurdistan a reality? Why aren't they seditionists, secessionists, traitors to the Iraqi government? But we ARE in our own homeland? Iraq has been taken over by Kurds, COMPLETELY! We have a KURD as president of Iraq, (Talabani) and Kurdistan has a KURD as president, (Barazani). Why NO ONE has called THEIR actions, "sedition", "treason"? Why is it that we always beat ourselves for trying to hold on to what little we have left, but we don't beat up the Kurds for taking Iraq over, completely?
No sir! I am not going to blame the Assyrians for fighting for and trying to hold on to their ancestral lands, while thinking it is ok for others to be seditionists, but not me, it is ok for others to be treasonous, but not me! If I don't fight to keep what little I have, WHO will? Do you think another would risk his life, money, and waste his time for MY cause?
Human Rights were established for these reasons, and WE the Assyrians, are just as entitled as ANY nationality to guard our identity, our land, our home, our language. The reason we lost most of what we had to begin with, is due to our lack of fighting back. We picked up the cross and dropped the sword, and those that pick-up the cross, CANNOT kill, but those of us that are willing to do what the Kurds are doing, will have to pick up the sword and kill if we have to, and happily!
I don't believe in violence, but if I have to kill to keep alive, so be it!
Bob Aprim wrote:
>The argument that as the French are believed when they say they are French so too must the Assyrians be believed when they say they are Assyrians, sounds convincing, but only in a superficial way. In fact the French do have to show documents whenever their nationality is in question, as when they apply for passports or official documents or driver’s license or in any transaction in which proof of nationality must be shown, as when dealing with foreign governments etc. Ultimately it isn’t enough, even for a Frenchman, to simply say he is French and demand to be taken at his word…and not even the fact that he speaks French will be accepted as proof positive because anyone can learn a language.
>So we’re back at the old stand. How can an Assyrian prove, the way a French person can prove, that he is what he says he is? Both can make their claims, but only one has officially approved documents to back him up and since there are indeed many instances when even a Frenchman must and can show such documents…the one claiming to be Assyrian never can…for there are no such, officially approved, documents.
>These sorts of documents aren’t necessary among ones friends and family, certainly. But when claiming benefits of a government, or attempting to speak for a nation and certainly when making claims against a government, such official documents become imperative. At that level no one will be satisfied with simply the claim that one is French…or Assyrian. This is the reason Muslim governments are willing to take us at our word that we are Assyrians when it comes to festivals and parades and schools even, but refuse such recognition when we demand political or national rights, based on non-existant proof, beyond what the average citizen can expect.
>To make national claims we too have to have a nationality. And as much as we like to talk of an Assyrian nation, though in exile…no one else needs take this seriously..and they don’t. The issue ultimately becomes: do we want to be taken seriously or not and, can we be, without radically modifying our claims to bring them in line with what the rest of the world recognizes?
>Let’s keep in mind that those making the most strident demands are safely out of harm’s way, in the West. If they claim that to make their case pure and clean without regard to practical consequences is the noble and right way, disdaining compromise, then let’s ask them why they make their case only where it’s safe while condemning those living under the gun for being “traitors” and “sell-outs”, when they are the ones who chose to remain in the homeland at all costs making such adjustments and compromises as would allow them to do so?
>Is the point to gain something tangible and practical or to suffer martyrdom for a religion, even from a safe distance?
The full topic:|
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-shockwave-flash, application/vnd.ms-excel, applicatio...
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; sbcydsl 3.12; YPC 3.2.0; FunWebProducts; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; yplus 5.1...