But in the context of Rojava it does. Because DAANES was specifically created to protect the Kurdish minority from ISIS repression.

What if someone said “China should be wiped off the map”? What would you infer from that sentence?

I didn’t want to link so it doesn’t come across as I am asking people to go pile up on a person. I reported it this morning. I’ll send you a link in a PM if that’s ok.

But in what context can genocide/ethnic cleansing/repression of a people be OK?

tl;dr: China has done so much for the world, while rojava should be wiped off the map by HTS because it’s just a blight.

But, but! Ukrainians are white and watch Netflix.

he can’t be counted on to do anything good

Of course not. I’m of the opinion that he knows he’s too stupid for a war/major conflict, that’s why he’s against it. I’ve met plenty “business types”, and while they all like to present themselves as aggressive, they are all conflict-averse and will run from a fight.

I thought Derek Chauvin’s case set a precedent. The two cases seem to be similar.

It’s reverse. You’re saying Palestinians shouldn’t be supported because they took money/aid from the US.

Rojava is literally supported, armed, and trained by a NATO country (USA).

Because no one else would help them. If your options were ethnic cleansing of your own people and help from the US, which one would you choose?

Take Rojava out of the ideal, kumbaya world and situate it in time and history where it is now. Tell me what other option did they have?

they actually want an ethnostate.

No, they actually don’t. Repeating this only betrays your ignorance of the topic to anyone with a modicum of knowledge on DAANES.

They played a much larger role in their own demise than anyone else did.

What demise? They’re still there.

They literally only have themselves to blame for what’s about to come next.

Can you at least try to be less gleeful about the murder of hundreds of thousands of people? Tens of thousands have already been internally displaced, fleeing from Idlib, Manbij and other cities under attack by SNA/Turkey.

But keep cheering Turkey on, whose stated mission is to eradicate the PKK (Worker’s Party of Kurdistan) and SDF. You want Turkey and its islamist militias to wipe out a socialist project because 1) it doesn’t affect you, 2) so you can smugly write "I told you so*.

Nope, they love it when they have an excuse to implement racist policies.

It’s gonna be interesting to see EU justify rejecting asylum applications from Syrians on the basis that ISIS is now in power and they should return home.

Doesn’t surprise me. All of them will jump on the bandwagon, cause EU socdems are now virtually indistinguishable from the far right when it comes to immigration policy.

And I had a person respond to me here saying they hope HTS kills all the Kurds in Syria…

OK. I will just say that one must examine Rojava as it exists in its current conditions, and not compare it to some ideal.

So what should happen to Rojava and the Kurds and minorities in it? If DAANES disappears, the HTS and SNA will genocide/ethnically cleanse the Kurds.

What would be the communist and anti-imperialist thing to do in their situation?

I’m stupid, connect them for me.

rojava should be wiped off the map by HTS

You want ISIS to genocide the Kurds so that you can be “proven right” in an internet argument. The state of you.

ethnostate

Not an ethnostate. Maybe you should learn abou Rojava before you “criticise them”.

evidence show that they are profiting from this situation with Syrian oil.

What evidence? Conjecture is not evidence.

we don’t know how much oil they are extracting

Since you haven’t come up with a number, I’m confident in saying 0.

The Kurds of Rojava have a fourth way: to build a “people’s economy”. The 42nd article of the Social Contract says: “The economical system in the provinces shall be directed at providing general welfare and in particular granting funding to science and technology. It shall be aimed at guaranteeing the daily needs of people and to ensure a dignified life. Monopoly is prohibited by law. Labour rights and sustainable development are guaranteed.” [37].

Dr Ahmad Yousef defines the core of the new economy with the following words: “Historical facts assure us that the economy becomes a science to meet the needs of communities, it isn’t a science to maximise wealth for specific groups. From this definition we must know that the economy would not be economical if it is not social, in other words, any economy that is not aimed at achieving the social welfare of all members of society cannot be defined as economy, but is a sophisticated mechanism for financial, intellectual and cultural looting. This definition of economics is the theoretical basis for the development of economic and social policies in Rojava.” [38].

He continues: “The market is a main part of social economy, but the use-value must be greater than the exchange-value, and there is no stock market” [39].

…

The method in Rojava is not so much against private property, but rather has the goal of putting private property in the service of all the peoples who live in Rojava, for them to use. Naturally we’re only at the beginning. But nonetheless, even if only in small ways, we’re seeing some positive developments. We must be clear that we don’t need an economic revival and development which has no clear goal for the community […] It shouldn’t be a capitalist system, one without respect for the environment; nor should it be a system which continues class contradictions and in the end only serves capital. It should be a participatory model, based on natural resources and a strong infrastructure.

…

A people’s economy should thus be based on redistribution and oriented towards needs, rather than on being oriented exclusively towards accumulation and the theft of surplus value and surplus product.

From a lengthy article (from 2016) analysing the economy of Rojava. written by a Russian Marxist (that’s how he is described, don’t know for certain).

Sure it’s not full communism, but it’s obvious they don’t want to be capitalist.

But they didn’t destabilise Syria. They fought ISIS who threatened their existance. They created an autonomous region to govern themselves because there was no SAA or Syrian government presence. SAA was not able to defend people in that region from ISIS.

DAANES (they were formerly AANES) had always stated that their goal is to preserve the integrity and sovereignty of Syria. They wanted to be an autonomous region under the Syrian constitution. They didn’t want to separate or declare independence.

Syrian government and SDF were in negotiations (slow and rocky) but they did have a dialogue and limited cooperation.

Except the US armed them and thus helped them fight off ISIS and survive. So DAANES has already gotten something pretty significant from the US, meanwhile what has the US gotten? How much of the extracted oil ended up in US hands?

It was actually the SAA that was helping them fight off Turkey though, US never offered SDF fighting Turkey.

They didn’t “trust US imperialism”, they trusted the US to provide military assistance fighting against a foe whose stated mission was to ethnically cleanse north-east Syria and absorb it into its global caliphate.

So, yeah, you are saying that they should have rejected US’ help and just let themselves be slaughtered. Is there another (realistic) alternative you can see?