Thread: do you notice a tendency among reports and commentators to sometimes use terms like “Kurdish groups” but don’t use ethnic terms when writing about some other groups in Syria or even Iraq, for instance Kataib Hezbollah or Faylaq Sham etc
Another aspect of this is that the same people who will use the Ankara media narrative of “PKK/YPG” as if it is the same, will differentiate SNA groups, Syrian rebel groups and even those TFSA or others sent to Libya etc; they will debate nuances of “are they jihadist”
But when it comes to “PKK” or “YPG”, suddenly these nuances disappear and the Ankara narrative sets in of “terrorists”...but the groups that murdered Hevrin Khalaf don’t get the “terrorist” label. Why?
The use of the term “terrorist” is interesting considering when I was in University everyone spent time arguing over the precise meaning of “terrorist”, now it seems that some governments use the term loosely but it’s worth being careful with these labels or explaining them
It seems to me that consistency is important, if one can find all kinds of nuance betwee Hamza and Faylaq Sham and HTS, etc then one can find nuance among other groups such as YPG
Also the tendency to always claim that “poverty” caused people to join Syrian groups that went to Libya, where is the story about family poverty of SDF members. So I think that coverage can also discuss that poverty too.
Consistency is important. “Kurdish armed groups” is one terminology but then why no “Arab armed groups”...remember when terminology was “violent extremists” and “militants.” So if one can find nuance in all the SNA groups or PMU or even Al-Qaeda, then one can do 4 everyone
If one is quick to adopt the terminology of “terrorists” then it is worth explaining if this is because some states use this term, and if so then why one group and not another when different states have different designations. Anyway, consistency.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
