CaptainBasculin

This job does not take your casual racist; no this takes a competitive racist to identify them.

Ethnic cleansing is killing off the majority of a population solely because of their ethnicity. Turkey has sent various ambassadors to get as many civilians possible to not get involved in the revolts and helped them relocate; then used the army to surpress the revolt movement. How does this constitute as ethic cleansing?

"Kurdistan" refers to an imaginary territory claim inside Turkey, it is obvious why the term is banned. It promotes a seperation idea in a country built with the idea of national unity.

"Kurdish" and "Kurd" were never banned, however referring to PKK as these terms are. Terrorist groups do not represent the entire view of the Kurds as a whole; it would be the equivelant of calling al quada as Arabs.

Restriction of speaking Kurdish was never applied to private life. It's restricted in public displays and official documentation; in a similar manner to every country enforcing their home language. However 80s coup were significantly different times; as even mosque prayer calls were forced to be said in Turkish at that time. It's possible at that time this was enforced more harshly, and that's fair. No one looks back at those times with fond memories.

Ethnic cleansing is killing off the majority of a population solely because of their ethnicity. Turkey has sent various ambassadors to get as many civilians possible to not get involved in the revolts and helped them relocate; then used the army to surpress the revolt movement. How does this constitute as ethic cleansing?

"Kurdistan" refers to an imaginary territory claim inside Turkey, it is obvious why the term is banned. It promotes a seperation idea in a country built with the idea of national unity.

"Kurdish" and "Kurd" were never banned, however referring to PKK as these terms are. Terrorist groups do not represent the entire view of the Kurds as a whole; it would be the equivelant of calling al quada as Arabs.

Restriction of speaking Kurdish was never applied to private life. It's restricted in public displays and official documentation; in a similar manner to every country enforcing their home language. However 80s coup were significantly different times; as even mosque prayer calls were forced to be said in Turkish at that time. It's possible at that time this was enforced more harshly, and that's fair. No one looks back at those times with fond memories.

Ethnic cleansing is killing off the majority of a population solely because of their ethnicity. Turkey has sent various ambassadors to get as many civilians possible to not get involved in the revolts and helped them relocate; then used the army to surpress the revolt movement. How does this constitute as ethic cleansing?

"Kurdistan" refers to an imaginary territory claim inside Turkey, it is obvious why the term is banned. It promotes a seperation idea in a country built with the idea of national unity.

"Kurdish" and "Kurd" were never banned, however referring to PKK as these terms are. Terrorist groups do not represent the entire view of the Kurds as a whole; it would be the equivelant of calling al quada as Arabs.

Restriction of speaking Kurdish was never applied to private life. It's restricted in public displays and official documentation; in a similar manner to every country enforcing their home language. However 80s coup were significantly different times; as even mosque prayer calls were forced to be said in Turkish at that time. It's possible at that time this was enforced more harshly, and that's fair. No one looks back at those times with fond memories.

Not even a tiny bit. Ataturk's ideals are based on national unity regardless of what ancestry you're from, which I sympathise with. Instability on a country's leadership creates conflict; as we saw on Syria.

Population count in Dersim makes the claim "tens of thosands massacred" impossible, as 1935 population count was 101,099 and 1940 population count 94,636. If we add in the people fleeing the region; the estimated death count there is supposed to be near 2500 within the whole ordeal.

Considering Turkish aviation technology around that era, it's tough to imagine Turkey having the means to kill tens of thousands of people with a single aircraft operation. For comparison, Bombing of Dresden in 1945 was made with 2000 military aircraft at the top of their technology has killed 25.000 people. How realistic is it for one pilot to kill tens of thousands of people?

Kurdish language is still outlawed in official mediums, similar to all languages except Turkish and English. While this does not ban individuals speaking it (as in, an syrian can speak arabian within their circle; or a kurd can speak kurdish), this does ban its usage on billboards, signs and any government related documentation. That's pretty much how this goes in rest of the countries.

Kurdish wasn't mentioned under language families, but the language family behind Turkish (Ural-Altaic) is diven more deeply into compared to other families (which are given less examples of), and dialects of Turkish are explicitly stated, so it's a logical conclusion they're not a part of it.

Ataturk did nothing wrong. Turkey's foundation times had seen quite a lot of revolt attempts and conflicts were unavoidable to stop them.

This is outright misinformation. Kurds are specifically mentioned in history classes as in "ethnic groups that lives in various regional areas of Turkey", I recall this from my college times, roughly 2016.

There is nowhere close to a genocide against Kurds considering the amount of Kurds that live there; however Turkey has every right to stop a extremist rebellion idea that would make it lose territory and distrupt the unity between its citizens.

Turkey wants HTS to take full control of the Syria land so they don't have to deal with PKK's sidearm right next to their borders in the first place. This whole operation is made for that.

P

Not reading all that, Sydney Sleeper is the objectively the worst sniper rifle. A jarate effect doesn't justify losing the benefits of one-shotting any opponent. Even the classic works way better than sydney sleeper in that regard.

I am of the opinion that a gameplay idea should not be held solely by a single entity. That could backfire real fast.

However, using a trademarked name while copying it should definetly lean into illegal territory. That's straight up wrong.