Erbil Edition
Erbil Edition is an insight into the Kurdistan Region. The host and his guests discuss various topics such as history, culture, environment, travels, books, politics, past and present.
Erbil Edition
Kurds and their place in Middle East conflicts
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
This episode of Erbil Edition is a conversation with Halwest Jamal, the host of Halwest News, an online Kurdish news channel based in Erbil.
Okay, so take over. So you start the show, because it's your show, I think. No, not today you are taking over. Okay, so I'm taking over CAC AU's herbal edition show today. I'll be asking some questions because we have friends. We normally talk about some some political and geopolitical stuff together on a daily basis, but we have not discussed these on camera. So I wanted to have this together. So probably I will be asking most of the questions today, but he might also. He's also allowed to ask any questions he prefers. So Kaku, welcome. Thank you so much. You have covered the Iraq war, the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. And now this war in Iran is happening. Do you see any similarities between them?
SPEAKER_00Yes, I think so. They there are some similarities in the sense that uh there is uh almost an international coalition. This time it's only the United States and Israel, as you know, uh at war with Iran. But in 2003 there was an international coalition that included more than I think 35 countries. So that's the similarity. Another similarity is the heavy bombing. Because I, as you said, I covered the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. There were ground troops back then, and I covered most of the war going from the north of the Kurdistan region to the south of Iraq, sometimes with US troops, other times with Kurdish forces. But this time in Iran, it's mainly aerial bombardment, which they also did in Iraq, minus the ground troops.
SPEAKER_01But like in Iraq, what concluded the mission was the ground troops. Do you think not sending ground troops to Iran means the mission will not be completed or the regime change will not happen?
SPEAKER_00That's a good question that everyone is asking. What will you do without ground troops? You could drop as many bombs as you want, you could just destroy as many rocket facilities, uh, army bases, infrastructure, whatever you want when you invade or attack a country, in this case Iran, uh, what's the exit strategy or what's your next plan? Some people argue that without ground troops, it will the war will never end or it will take a long time. Yeah, but then we have to remember that the United States, especially the current administration, they have promised from day one that even if they go to war with any country, they will roll out sending ground troops because they have learned their lesson from Afghanistan, from Iraq. They don't want to repeat that. So basically, the method of warfare has changed, and we see it in the case of Iran. It's all technology, drones, rockets.
SPEAKER_01So you think they will not be sending any American, like the service members of the USA to Iran?
SPEAKER_00I don't think so. I mean, I do not know for sure, but things are changing really fast. I think I don't think so. I don't think they will send ground troops because it's very complicated.
SPEAKER_01This will lead to them supporting Kurdish ground troops to to enter?
SPEAKER_00Who? The US?
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_00This uh question of whether Iranian Kurds should uh be allowed to go to Iran or not is very complicated.
SPEAKER_01Let's talk about the the the should or should not a bit later. But do you think them sending not sending ground troops, US ground troops, to Iran will lead, will pave the way for Kurdish Iranians to enter with with Israeli US support? Do you think that the ruling out of the US ground troops leads to something for Kurds?
SPEAKER_00I think that that's a good question, and it's also very likely, because you remember almost a week ago, suddenly there was this question of Iranian Kurdish armed groups going back to Iran. And as you say, it's in the place of US ground troops. So that's why at some point they will need uh some ground forces do not necessarily mean armed forces. So if a group of activists or ministers or people, influential people in Iran itself, let's say mayors or governors or a minister, anyone, a group of people decide to take over the government, that's like ground troops. What the US does is the aerial work, and ground troops does not have to be armed groups like the Kurdish groups, it could be anyone on the ground in Iran who might be willing to take over the reign of government.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, but but there is a it seems like there's a change of plan and change of like uh Trump previously said it would be wonderful, just in his I quote unquote. He said it would be wonderful if Kurds enter Iran. Then later on in his plane, he said to the reporters that uh it will make the war more complicated. So I've told the Kurds, even though they are willing to go, I've told them not to. Do you think he's changed his mind?
SPEAKER_00Uh he may have changed his mind, or it could be a tactic, because as you know, during war, uh statements, positions, and uh basically the course of events change very rapidly. So when he said it would be wonderful if Kurdish groups could go back to Iran and later changing his mind, saying he wouldn't encourage something like that because he does not want Kurds, the Kurds get hurt. That's what he said. We we are not really in his head, so we don't know what his true intentions are. But of course, he has advisors, reality on the ground, assessments, reports. So if he changes his mind, it's basically based on one of those things.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. Okay, so in 2003, Kurds were a key ally, key like player in the Saddam's fall in the end of that regime. Do you think Kurds are again a key ally and a key player in Iran's regime change?
SPEAKER_00Uh it depends on the progress of and the course of events at the moment. But the Kurds, yes, they were uh a major ally of the United States in 2003, and uh it was not only the Kurds, as I said, there was a major international alliance, but then the extent of the Kurdish involvement in Iraq is different from the Kurdish possible engagement or involvement in Iran. Why? Because in uh Iraq uh the war was for a regime change. Okay, so the United States clearly wanted to change the regime in Iraq. And once the Kurds and Iraqis were sure that this time the United States really wants to change the regime, more people were willing to join this alliance. That's why the Kurds of Iran are a bit sensitive now, or they are cautious, not sensitive, I must say. And that's because they have seen similar cases in the past in Iraq, in Syria, in other countries, I must say, where the United States comes forward with a mission and accepts any alliance in the region, but at some point they have been abandoned. So there is still that fear in the mind of uh many Kurdish people in Iraq, in Iran, and many parts of the Middle East. Once you are 100% sure the intentions of the United States, if it's going to be regime change, to what extent are they going into the country, then you could discuss an alliance.
SPEAKER_01Do you think the US government is aware of the suspicions and the problems of trust, trust issues that Kurds have with USA after the Kurdistan's referendum and the Rojava and Syria events? Do you think the US is aware of this cautiousness of Kurds?
SPEAKER_00I think so, and I hope so. I hope the United States, their government, and people, mainly the leaders, are aware that Kurds in the region, not only Kurds, some other groups as well, are cautious of getting into alliances with the United States for that reason. Because they and it's very it's a cliche almost that Kurds want guarantees. So whoever wants to ally with the United States, they really want guarantees, written guarantees, not short-term promises.
SPEAKER_01And in the case Kurds, by any chance, if you have heard this, do you think Kurds have asked the US to provide them a written guarantee? Because I've read some some some places that Kurds.
SPEAKER_00I don't know, but if Kurdish leaders on both sides of the border have asked Washington for guarantees in order to get into any alliances, I think that's very wise. Because you can't just do something based on a promise, oral promise. You must have some written guarantees. And in the case of Kurds, look at the Middle East. You have these countries, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, the region, they have spent uh billions of dollars in uh the latest uh military technology, they have fighter jets, they have all the defense systems, and they none of them is willing to join any kind of conflict without guarantees from the United States. How would you expect the Kurdish people, a few armed groups, and the rest in Iran or in Iraq, millions of civilians with some Kurdish Peshmerga forces? We are nothing compared to these Gulf states. Okay, and how can you expect the Kurds to join any alliance without guarantees if these powerful states need guarantees?
SPEAKER_01So let's let's let me ask this this important question. Do you think Kurds should enter Iran?
SPEAKER_00In what way? Like militarily? Yeah.
SPEAKER_01Is there any other way to enter?
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I think uh I don't really know. I mean I have a different answer for how the Kurds should go back to Iran. I don't like the word should the Kurds enter Iran. It's their home. If they decide one way or another to go to Iran, I just call it coming home, basically, or returning to their homeland, to the to their origins. That's why I think the world should be fair. For example, in this case, CNN, as you know, they broke the story, I think, right? That the US or CIA were trying to arm and equip Kurdish forces to go into Iran. I think these channels, these uh media organizations and other countries, they must have spent some time in the last 20, 30 years to cover the Kurdish story in Iran in general, to see what their problems are. I I think it's not fair to ignore a nation, in this case the Kurds of Iran, for three decades. And then where the when there is war, you suddenly come and you they pique your interest and you wonder whether you should arm them or not. They should have listened to their struggle in the past, and uh then they should have come and say whether they should go into Iran or not. But once again, my point is even if they go, they are just going home. It's not they are not an invading troops.
SPEAKER_01But this is in our point of view. The world may have a different point of view, you know. The world may see Iran as a sovereign country and a military group outside of the country, entering the country means invading the country in their terms. But I'm not asking for any predictions, but in your opinion, for example, if you're a military advisor to Kurdistan regional government, would you advise the government to allow the Iranian Kurdish Peshmerga forces to go back to their homeland?
SPEAKER_00Once again, I am not uh a military leader, nor do I run the Kurdish government. But I must say uh no. At this stage, no. It's very complicated. We are still at the beginning of this Iran-Israel-US conflict. I think it would be too soon for the Kurdistan region or even for the Kurds of Iran. But in this case, I talk about the Kurdistan region, it's very sensitive. The situation here is more sensitive now than it ever was. So everyone is watching. So, as you know, the Gulf countries are under constant attack. Has any one of them responded by launching a counter-attack? No. So because the situation is sensitive, plus, it's not our war, it's no one's war, it's the a war between Iran, Israel, and the United States. True. So if you take sides, you suddenly uh basically join an alliance. And you cannot do that so easily. You cannot join wars and alliances. It's easy to start, but very hard to end.
SPEAKER_01But Kurds have always, almost always, gained the rights and and gained something from chaos and conflicts. Don't you agree with that? Because like we as Kurdistan region, we also happen to have a region after a chaos and conflict in the region. Yeah. And don't you think the Iranian Kurds should also capture some something from this war?
SPEAKER_00Yeah, it's uh uh it doesn't mean that Kurds uh thrive in chaos. Uh what you mean is that uh there we take some seize some opportunities basically, and it happens to every country after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Many countries gain independence from the former Soviet Union in Africa, in Asia, when major political shifts take place, some countries uh benefit from that, or some people. So the Kurds of Iraq, the Kurdistan region, after the Kuwait invasion by Iraq and then the International Alliance and the first Gulf War, let's say, or the second, the Kurdistan region was created. People here seized the opportunity, the Iraqi government was weak, an uprising was done in 91, Kurdish provinces were liberated, the no-fly zone was imposed, and we have what we have now. With the case of Iran, of course, the situation is chaotic now. It may sound like an opportunity to some that the Kurds of Iran should quickly go in and capture some places, but it is up to them, first of all, what to do. And the Iranian Kurds are not only the few groups that are in the mountains here. That's important. It's not only a few armed groups in Koya or Erbil or somewhere. True. It's millions of people who also live in Iran in their cities and villages. They have to be also taken into into account.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, which means if if there is like um something happens that Kurdistan region Because you know, Kurdistan region is not a country, it's not a sovereign country, it's all Kurdistan has always been under attack from from Iraqi militia groups and from Iran in from Iran itself. So if Kurdistan region is not willing to to open gates for Peshmerga forces, Iranian Kurdish Peshmerga forces to go back to Iran, they can do something like that if they're willing and if the opportunities allow them, uh they can just start an uprising in in Iranian Kurdish territories, right?
SPEAKER_00So Iran, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. That in that case, uh you cannot blame anyone. For example, there is some kind of, even if it's not a written agreement, but uh some kind of agreement between the Kurdish groups of Iran, between Erbil, the Kurdistan regional government, and Iran, that these groups will stay dormant, harmless, basically not launching any attacks against Iran. And the Kurdistan region's official policy has been neutrality. These there are many Iranian groups, and there used to be the PKK as well, that the Kurdistan region should not become a launch pad of attacks against any neighboring countries. And I think that's why the Kurdistan region is still maintaining that policy, which I think is good. You are not in a position to declare war on any of your neighbors. True.
SPEAKER_01And I think Iran has warned the Kurdistan region a few times recently about any incursion, any any entering by Kurdish forces into Iran, right?
SPEAKER_00Exactly. There has been warnings during the previous war, last summer, and this ongoing war. But as you said, if people in Iran themselves, whether in the Kurdish areas or in Tehran or anywhere, rise up and want change or want something else, no one can blame anyone for saying you incited this.
SPEAKER_01But the Kurdistan region, in your opinion, should stay the neutral region as it is.
SPEAKER_00It should, yes. Even if it was an independent state, I am all for neutrality. Not only the current autonomous region that we have, we have to be careful uh about. Even if Kurdistan was an independent sovereign state, I would still vote for neutrality. War is very destructive, it's devastating, and uh no one has seen more war and conflict and heartbreak than the Kurdish people. So I hope now and in the next 500 years we will still remain neutral. Okay.
SPEAKER_01So from your experience, do you think uh Kurds in both in all of these countries that Kurds live in, in the four major countries that Kurds are divided into will gain their rights through democratic and diplomatic negotiations, or there should be force always?
SPEAKER_00That's a good uh very good question. I think uh no regime change in Iran or Iraq or Syria or anywhere will solve the Kurdish problem. Okay the only thing that will forever solve and settle this Kurdish question is a change in mentality in those cities, in Baghdad, in Tehran, in Damascus, in the capitals. And I must say that the struggle, the struggle of the Kurds of Iran is not only against the current system or current regime. It was against the previous one, against the current one, and it will most likely go on against any future governments in Iran unless they change their mentality and the way they deal with the Kurds and the Kurdish question. That's why I hope in the future, whether with Iraq, with Syria, or our neighboring countries, Turkey and Iran, diplomacy, negotiations, understanding each other is the only way forward. Because for the last 100 years, exactly, almost 100 years, these countries have been trying to erase the Kurdish people and the Kurdish question and the Kurdish cause, but it does not go away, it only gets stronger. So for these capitals, these capitals, they must finally realize the only way is to acknowledge, is to appreciate, is to let people live their lives.
SPEAKER_01Then how do you expect Kurds to go and negotiate with such countries where their main goal is to erase Kurds from their roots? Exactly. How do you expect Kurds to negotiate? Like if there is not force, if there is not armed forces of Kurds, how do you expect uh expect these countries to come forward and accept Kurdish rights uh when their core mentality is erasing them?
SPEAKER_00Yeah, so that's a good question. The only way I expect these countries uh, I mean, for these countries, if these countries, uh these four countries where Kurds live, if they want the Kurdish armed struggle to end, if they don't want Kurds to have weapons, to have armed groups, to have Peshmerga, this and that, they also must change their way. That's why. The Kurdish struggle, the Kurdish armed struggle, is a reaction to the behavior and to the policies of these uh central governments in these countries. That's why, if they do not allow for negotiations for understanding each other, for acknowledging Kurdish identity, their rights, their political assembly and everything, they must also not be surprised if Kurds will continue to fight them forever.
SPEAKER_01So do you think Turkey has done this and that's why PKK is laying down their arms? I hope so.
SPEAKER_00I mean it's called a peace process in Turkey, right?
SPEAKER_01It's called a peace process by Kurds, it's called a free from terror process by Turkey.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, so that's a problem. We people must all I mean, we must be all on the same page. The PKK and Ankara, the Kurds of Iran and Tehran. And that's why you have to trust each other. It's all a matter of trust. These the Kurds and their central governments do not trust each other. They have never trusted each other for a minute. That's why it continues. And then you say a peace process is called something else in Turkey versus it's called something else in Kurdistan. It should be genuine. The Kurds are not going to go anywhere. I I heard a famous quote uh somewhere, and it says you can. Take uh you can take a Kurd out of Kurdistan, but you can never take Kurdistan out of a Kurd or Kurds in general. So for these governments must realize buying tanks, the latest fighter jets, the latest weapons, the latest military technology is not going to solve the Kurdish problem. Only recognizing their rights that this is their land, this is their country, this is where they have lived for thousands of years, that will solve the problem.
SPEAKER_01Do you think because in my perspective, the only thing that solves the Kurdish problem is having a self-governance in these countries. Yeah. A semi-autonomous region like as we do. I think this solves most of the problems, although not all of them, as we are experiencing ourselves, we still have conflicts with Baghdad, we are still being attacked by Iraqi militias, but like we are the ultimate Kurds region that Kurds should look to. Or they can settle for something less. For example, they can just settle for speaking in Kurdish, Kurdish becoming the formal language of the country, and being able to preserve their culture and heritage.
SPEAKER_00That's a good question. I think I agree with I agree with you. I think it will self-rule, autonomy, and federalism will solve most of the Kurdish problem for now. And that's the demand of perhaps in the past, many Kurdish groups everywhere wanted full independence, but at the moment they want uh autonomy and self-rule. And my message to these countries, to Baghdad, Tehran, Ankara, Damascus, any country in the world, but in this case these four countries, why are they so frightened of the word federalism? Every time you propose a new solution, the first answer is that this is to divide the country, this is to break up the country, this will lead to partition. But it's very simple. The Kurds of Iran or Kurds of Iraq, or Syria in this case, recently their story was self-rule means people in this city want the governor to be of their own. Local governor, local checkpoint, Kurdish language, local municipality, local flag. It's not the end of the world. Look at the United States. They have a federal United States flag, then each state has its own flag. They have state law, federal law, all types of freedoms and working. It's working perfectly. But these countries, it's very simple. The Kurdish demand is this land is Kurdistan. Kurds have lived here for however many centuries or thousands of years, and they want to continue this way. It's better for everyone that Baghdad gives up trying to control a small village in the Kurdistan region, in Penjun, for example. It's one of the most re remote cities. It's better for people of Penjun to run their own affairs and then the Kurdistan region to run itself, not these faraway capitals trying to impose everything. That will make these problems go on forever.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. So, what do you think Kurds in the Kurdistan region should be supporting right now? They should be supporting a neutral region so that they are out of the conflict, or they should be supporting the nationalism movement which is uh supporting Kurds to go back to Iran. What do you think that as a nation Kurds should be doing right now?
SPEAKER_00I think nothing. Should be careful, should they should do everything. First of all of all, the Kurds of Iran have been ignored for many years by the international media, by the world. Okay, only now, in the last two weeks, suddenly everyone is talking about the courage of Iran. And they have suffered for many years. Is that an opportunity to seize? Exactly. So it's an opportunity to seize. They must make their story known. The world should pay more attention to the human side of the Kurds of Iran. The Kurds of Iran, I call them the culture capital of all of Kurdistan. Most of our culture and art and music and melodies, food, clothes, many of the Kurds, of the things that Kurds are proud of, even fruits, okay, come from Eastern Kurdistan or the Kurdistan of Iran. But unfortunately, they have been ignored, marginalized in Iran, ignored internationally. Only now the world is interested in them. But the world must pay more attention to their true story, so that if this regime goes or stays in power, they their story doesn't isn't silenced once again.
SPEAKER_01You have seen Baghdad's fall. Do you think you will see Tehran's fall?
SPEAKER_00I don't know really. I mean it's it's different.
SPEAKER_01Doing the calculation, it's different, the war is different.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, and exactly during the war when I was covering the US-Iraq war in 2003, you don't know how long it's going to last, you don't know what tomorrow is going to be to be like. So no one's going to be able to do that. So you live in with it until it ends, then you see what happens. At this moment, it's it's not very clear.
SPEAKER_01Do you think with this this pace of war, um, the way this uh war continues right now, do you think it will lead to a regime change? Or no? Like with this pace.
SPEAKER_00Is not easy because that government in Iran has been ruling for 47 years. So it will take a while. Even if there's regime change, it will take a long time. Because that government has been running the country.
SPEAKER_01I saw something that says US and Israel were not expecting the war to last like this, to last for for such a long time. Although it's not a very long time, it's only two weeks. Two weeks. But they were expecting a weaker Iran. But what I've heard is Iran from the very from the the Islamic Revolution that happened in the 70s, from that time they are preparing for a potential war with USA and Israel because they know it's their enemy.
SPEAKER_00Yeah.
SPEAKER_01And one day this war will happen.
SPEAKER_00Yeah.
SPEAKER_01Which means they have been preparing for decades. But USA may have decided to enter this war on a last notice. Yeah. Do you think this is true?
SPEAKER_00Yeah. I mean things may be different from what they expected when they launched this war, but we do not really know what the US and Israelis want.
SPEAKER_01Do you think Iran? Do you think USA was as prepared as Iran for this war?
SPEAKER_00I think so, yeah. Militarily, yes. But then there are other things. Okay, in you if you are in your own country and you are attacked, you are in a bit of a stronger position than being the attacker. So they might not be as powerful as the US militarily, but I'm sure they have done other calculations and preparations. And again, the war is only it sounds like it's only starting now. It's too soon to say, will it change the regime, will it end in one way or another?
SPEAKER_01Was the USA's main goal, main objective in this war, was to obliterate Iran's nuclear capability, or no? It's just the cover-up and there were other things behind?
SPEAKER_00I think it's a good question that even I see in the American media that most people there and critics of this war say we don't know what the final goal is. What the goal is, why did they attack Iran? Were they an imminent threat to the US or not? Is it to remove their nuclear program? Is it to change their regime? Is it to weaken Iran? That's why we've received many mixed messages from the US leaders themselves, even.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, because they might might have gained what they asked for. They might have gained uh these through the negotiations that were going pretty well, I think. On both sides, they were both agreeing on the fact that the negotiations negotiations were productive and fruitful, but then this war happened. So it may lead to us that we we may think the war happens because of other reasons, and the other reasons that I see in uh USA media is Israel pushing for this war because Israel wants to eliminate any enemy state in the country, and this mate may have happened because of Israel's push.
SPEAKER_00In your opinion, do you think that's what some people say in the media that it's Israel's war? But it's true in the sense that Israel has wanted this war or always seen Iran as enemy number one that should be degraded or weakened or changed. It's obvious Israel and their leader Netanyahu has not have not hidden this. So that's one thing. But uh we do not really know what's going on behind the scene in Washington and those capitals in Israel. So we have to wait, as they say in Kurdish, until the dust or the storm of the war settles. Then we will see. Many truths will come out.
SPEAKER_01So you were a journalist in the early 2000s, and you covered the war, and you know, during wars, there are a lot of misinformation and a lot of um facts that are not fact-checked, and they're presented as facts in the media. As a journalist, how did you fact-checked all those information that were you were given to the international media? Because even now I'm suffering with fact-checking.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. That's a good question. And uh I'm sure you may have faced the same with your show. Also, you have a very popular show, I must say. And uh uh when I was working as a journalist uh 20 years ago, it was a lot easier to check a source of information. Okay, the internet was not as prevalent and not occupying our lives as it is now. So you would go with the US Army, for example, you get their side of the story, you go to the other side, the Iraqis or the insurgent groups, you you double check your source and you find the news in one day or half a day or in a few hours. But now you are not on the ground. Most journalists are not on the ground at the moment covering the Iran, the Israel war. And yet we have a million sources of information. You have social media, you have all these websites, you have all these news organizations, and then independent news sources and citizen journalism, as you know. So there is a lot of fake news, a lot of real information, a lot of misinformation, disinformation, and uh going around. So it's a lot harder now to check a uh fact or a source of information than it was 10 or 20 years ago. So it's way more difficult. The wars were simpler, I think, than it is now. Now it's more efficient, but then it's hard to check your news. Uh, and then back then the war was messy, more messy, I must say, but then uh simpler in some ways.
SPEAKER_01During the Iraqi war, I think I've not asked this question to you, although we were we have talked many times, but you were working for when? Which channel uh were you working for during the the war?
SPEAKER_00During the war, I first started as a uh translator, they called them us fixers back then. So we you would support a team of foreign journalists representing an outlet, for example. I worked the first few months of the war, 2003, with the New York Times team. I think the first uh four You're working with the New York Times? Yeah, their team. I worked with them from covering the war in Kurdistan to Baghdad. And then there was uh Public Radio International, it's a co-production of the BBC based in Boston. I worked with them for more than a year, I think. And then many other news uh outlets.
SPEAKER_01I would either write for them or report or but then during the war you became source of information for many TV channels, right? Yes. Yeah, yes. I've seen you covering the war. I I I still have your videos that you were talking to to many international TV channels. How a young journalist that's seeing us and watching us now, how can they be a source of information for international outlets one day?
SPEAKER_00I mean it depends on where they work, what they do, whether they become a journalist. If they become a news junkie, let's say a young person here wants to become a journalist or source of information, they must be interested in politics, in conflict, in what's going on in international relations, so you automatically get enough information to be able to either write about it or to share it with someone. Yeah, it just yeah, really depends.
SPEAKER_01You said war is chaotic and war brings a lot of pain with with it. Is there any story from the Iraqi war that you have covered? And you it still it still remains in your head, you still think about it. Any story that happened during that war that affected you so much?
SPEAKER_00Many, I guess. Uh yeah. I do not I don't know if uh I can uh single out a single story, but I I saw a lot of death and uh destruction and uh attacks, let's say US special forces killing Iraqi soldiers in front of my eyes, Iraqis killing former Iraqi security, some of the deadliest car bomb attacks I saw in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq during the sectarian violence, and then innocent people. I've seen lots of many, many innocent people uh die, many homes destroyed, the environment, nature, people's gardens, bridges. So it's too much. I cannot even point out a single one.
SPEAKER_01Let this be my last question. You are originally from Halabjah. Yeah. And Halabjah was a city, for those who may not know, was chemically bombarded and thousands of people were killed in a day by Saddam Hussein. Then you become a journalist and cover the fall of Saddam Hussein.
SPEAKER_00Yeah.
SPEAKER_01Did this satisfy you in any possible way? Did this give you the taste of revenge?
SPEAKER_00Uh I wouldn't call it a taste of revenge, but yeah, I was happy. I was happy uh that his regime was removed. I know some dark days followed in Iraq, sectarian violence and a lot of death. But uh all in all, I think it was good. And I was happy, yeah. I I walked through many, almost all of Saddam Hussein's palaces. As I was covering the war, we would go into his palaces in Mosul, in Tikrit, in Baghdad, in uh the south of Iraq. And yeah, I have thought about it myself. Someone coming from Halabjah and Kurdistan, not even Halabjah, as a Kurd, and you know what Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds of Iraq. So when you walk through his palaces, when you walk through his army bases, and when you walk through the city where he imposed so much power and fear on people, and you realize that he's gone, his regime is gone, he's nowhere to be seen, his era has ended, it yeah, it gives you a good feeling.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I'm experiencing it myself because when I'm in Sleimania, for example, I sit in Azadi Park, Pakia Azadi, and when I sit there, I remember what my father told me about Azadi Park, which was a place for torture. And now I'm sitting there sipping my tea and enjoying the view and walking through the trees. It it satisfies me in some way because I know a generation before me went through hell in this place. When I go to Aminasuraqa, which was a literally a prison for torture, and now I sit there in a cafe and read my books and do stuff, it really satisfies me. So I can understand the feeling you went through that time.
SPEAKER_00And you yeah, you you you you are satisfied or happy in that place because you know the background story. You know what it was like before. It's the same, yeah, with the Kurds, with any minority groups. Once your oppressor is gone, uh of course you are happy. Well, how else would you feel?
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_00It was nice talking to you, Kaku. Thank you so much for taking over my show today. It was my pleasure. Thank you.