hekdjf kakdkd

You keep repeating the same challenge as if it proves your conclusion. I’ve already explained why it doesn’t. The fact that there may not be a pre-Sassanian source using the exact term “Kurd” as a modern ethnic label does not prove that Kurds were “invented” in the 10th-12th centuries. Modern ethnic identities rarely appear in ancient sources under their exact modern names. That’s why historians study ethnogenesis, migrations, language development, and historical continuity—not just whether a specific word appears in a text. More importantly, you’re the one making the stronger claim: that Kurds were essentially created through Islam and Arab influence between the 7th and 12th centuries. Where is your proof for that? Not a theory. Not a hypothesis. Actual proof. Because so far you’ve presented one interpretation of Kurdish ethnogenesis and treated it as if it were an unquestionable fact. END OF STORY. 😉😂

You still fail to continue all the way to end of the discussion. Stop going round and around. Provide ONE reference that shows clearly a reference to a people known as ethnic Kurds before the Sassanids used the Middle Persian term Kwrt (Kurd) to mean nomad. I still am challenging you.

اجتمعت قيادات جنوب كوردستان وغرب كوردستان مع ممثل الولايات المتحدة في الشرق الأوسط، في مدينة هولير (أربيل)، عاصمة إقليم كوردستان.

No, and I never said that. Kurds are an exception because their homeland is occupied, and they are still being oppressed to this day. What surprises me is how someone like you, who supports Atatürk—a man whose policies oppressed Kurds and led to the deaths of many Kurds—still chooses to live abroad. A lot of Turkish nationalists portray Turkey as some kind of golden country, yet you choose to settle in another country. You’re basically admitting that New York offers a better life than the country you constantly praise. That’s what makes it so paradoxical. You don’t see that every day.

Because I love living in New York, the best city on the planet. I’m still Turkish no matter where I live bud Is your argument that if a person migrants to another nation they erase their national pride? So are the Kurd’s in Germany can’t be proud because they don’t live in the kurdistan region in Iraq? Serious question.

Turks are losing it. Hacking attempts and mass community notes. All because we launched a Kurdistan map. If it doesn’t exist, why are you so triggered? map.kurdism.org

"END OF STORY" 😂😂 Bro really thinks typing in all caps turns a debated theory into a historical fact. The funniest part is that you're presenting your interpretation as if there is complete academic consensus, when there isn't. The origins of the Kurds, the meaning of the term "Kurd," and Kurdish ethnogenesis are all subjects that historians and linguists still debate. You've gone from: "Kurds didn't exist before the 15th century." To "Kurds became an ethnicity in the 12th century." To "The word Kurd originally meant nomad." To "Kurdish isn't one language." Every time one argument gets challenged, you switch to another one and then write "END OF STORY" as if that settles anything. And here's the funny part: even if I accepted your entire timeline, it still wouldn't prove that Kurds are an invented people. It would just mean that Kurdish ethnogenesis happened gradually, exactly like the ethnogenesis of Italians, Germans, French, Turks, and many other peoples. So no, writing "END OF STORY" after a theory that is still debated in academia doesn't actually end the story. It just shows that you're treating a hypothesis as if it were an unquestionable fact. 😉

📷 Kurdish ethnicity was created gradually starting from around the 10th to 12th century with the help and promotion of the Islam and the Arabs. Before that, there is no ethnic and homogeneous people known as Kurds. PERIOD. Before the Sassanids (3rd-7th centuries), there is no mention anywhere of this specific Middle Persian term Kurd (Kwrt) which meant nomad (a social class applied to many different peoples of the Zagros Mountains). . END OF STORY. If you disagree, provide a source that clearly shows a people known as "Kurds" in a reference before the Sassanid Period. I challenge you.

@CarbonBased55 @Kurdism2026 Oh, no, I actually don't — I'm a refugee. What's your excuse, though? As far as I know, Turkey isn't at war with anyone, so I still don't get why you're living in another country instead of the one you claim to love so much.

@hej37372182 @Kurdism2026 Oh dope, you live there ?

@CarbonBased55 @Kurdism2026 Yeah, that’s good for you. I wonder why you don’t live there if you love it so much. And what do you mean? I have a country — it’s called Kurdistan.😘😘😘

@hej37372182 @Kurdism2026 it’s a great feeling knowing I can come back to my country. How does it feel not having one?

@CarbonBased55 @Kurdism2026 It’s honestly hilarious how some Turkish nationalists claim to love their homeland more than anything, yet choose to live in another country. The math ain’t mathing.

@Kurdism2026 Her biji 🫶🏼

You’re moving the goalposts again. The claim was that Kurds are an “invented” ethnicity that only appeared in the 10th–12th centuries. Now you’re talking about dialects and mutual intelligibility. But linguistic diversity doesn’t prove that an ethnic identity is invented. Arabs speak dozens of varieties of Arabic. Germans speak High German, Low German, Swiss German, and Austrian varieties. Chinese people speak Mandarin, Cantonese, Hokkien, Wu, and others. Jews historically spoke Hebrew, Aramaic, Yiddish, Ladino, and many other languages. More importantly, ethnic identities are formed gradually. Italians were not “invented” because a modern Italian identity emerged long after the Roman Empire. The same applies to Germans, French, Turks, Persians, and many other peoples. Even if we accepted your argument that Kurdish ethnogenesis was largely completed between the 10th and 12th centuries, that still wouldn’t make Kurds an invented people. It would simply mean that, like many other nations, their identity developed over time rather than appearing fully formed overnight. So the real question isn’t whether Kurdish identity evolved. Nearly every ethnic identity evolved. The question is why you treat that as evidence against Kurds, but not against anyone else.

You keep adding new arguments. There is no Kurdish language, but they are languages (with an "s") because the issue has been politicized since the national movement was born. Ask linguists. There are many Kurdish languages that are in fact completely different. You cannot discredit all linguists who assert that the Kurmanji, Sorani and Pahlavani are completely different where the average Kurd in Turkiye and Dohuk for example cannot understand, and cannot communicate in writing with, a Kurd in Iran and Sulaimaniya, because the two speak different languages and use different alphabets.

You're asking for something historians rarely have for ancient peoples: a modern ethnic group appearing thousands of years ago under its exact modern name. Can you show me a pre-Islamic source where modern Italians, Germans, French, or Turks are described exactly as they are understood today? Of course not. Ethnic identities evolve. The real question isn't whether the exact modern ethnic meaning of "Kurd" existed before Islam. The question is whether the populations that later became the Kurds existed before Islam. Most historians would say yes. Also, you're still presenting one theory as settled fact. The origin of the term "Kurd" and the ethnogenesis of the Kurdish people remain debated subjects in academia. So the burden isn't on me to prove that modern Kurds existed unchanged 2,000 years ago. The burden is on you to prove that millions of Kurdish-speaking people suddenly emerged from Arabization after the 7th century, which is not the scholarly consensus.

No one is saying the term Kurd appeared all of a sudden in the 12th century. The transformation from the nomad status of the Middle Persian term Kwrt (Kurd) by the Sassanids to an ethnic people in the 10th to the 12th century with the help of Islam and the Arabs was gradual that started with the conversion to Islam in the 7th century. The rest of what you wrote is just meaningless. One challenge for you: Show us ONE archeological or legit reference that mentions the word "Kurd" used as an ethnic people before Islam and before the Sassanids.

You’re confusing “Iranic” with “Iranian.” Kurds are an Iranic people, just like Pashtuns, Baloch, and Persians are Iranic peoples. That doesn’t make all Iranic peoples Iranian. Otherwise Afghanistan would be Iran because Pashtuns are Iranic too. “Iranic” is an ethnic-linguistic classification. “Iranian” is a nationality or national identity. They are not the same thing.

@hej37372182 @Kurdism2026 @nikitabier You can’t be more Iranian than Kurds. Kurds are ethnically Iranian.

Add the official Kurdistan flag. Remove the unofficial Iran flag. Ok @nikitabier?

You’re presenting a debated theory as an established fact. Many scholars agree that the term “kurd” was sometimes used in the early medieval period to describe nomadic groups, but that does not automatically prove that Kurds were not an ethnic group. Those are two different claims. And you’ve changed your argument again. First you said Kurds didn’t exist before the 15th century. Then it became the 12th century. Now it’s that the word originally referred to nomads. Those are completely different arguments. Also, ethnic groups rarely appear out of nowhere. The English, French, Germans, Persians, and Turks all emerged gradually from earlier populations. Historians call this ethnogenesis. So even if we accepted that “kurd” originally had a social meaning, it would not prove that modern Kurds suddenly appeared in the 12th century. It would simply mean that a population gradually developed into the ethnic identity we know today. The fact that historians still debate the origins of the Kurds is precisely why you cannot present your interpretation as an unquestionable linguistic fact.

My theory? It is not my theory--it is linguists' facts. Do your search and I challenge you to provide ONE source for this term "Kurd" as ethnic people before Islam and the Sassanids. You proved my point when you said there are references to Kurds in medieval and early Islamic sources ... lol. I am with you. There are references to Kurds in medieval and early Islamic sources, but those referred strictly to nomads, robbers or bandits after the Kwrt (nomads) converted to Islam in the 7th century and mixed with the Arabs (Muslims) who defeated the Sassanids. The Arabs popularized the term Kurd into the regions that they later conquered like Iraq, Syria, etc. Only in the 12th century, the term Kurd took an ethnic appellation and with that the term kurdistan was born in its simple meaning.

A few problems with your argument. 1.Nobody is claiming the Ottoman Empire was called Kurdistan. The point is that modern states such as Iraq and Syria are only about 100 years old, while Kurds lived in those regions long before those states existed. 2.Your theory about "Kurd" simply isn't accepted as fact. There are references to Kurds in medieval and early Islamic sources as a distinct people, and historians still debate the exact origin of the term. The fact that there is debate shows the issue is not settled. 3. You're confusing a nation with a state. Jews were a nation long before modern Israel existed. Poles remained a nation even when Poland disappeared from the map. Having no state does not mean a people do not exist. 4. Whether there are 20 million, 30 million, or 40 million Kurds doesn't change the argument. Even your own estimate would make Kurds one of the largest stateless nations in the world. 5.And regarding the Medes, you dismiss them because the empire lasted less than 100 years. That's not a historical argument; that's your personal definition of what counts as an empire. Historians still refer to the Median Empire as an empire regardless of its lifespan. 6. And Your challenge is misleading because historians debate the exact origins of the Kurds. However, there are references to peoples that many scholars associate with the ancestors of the Kurds long before Islam. The best-known examples are the Carduchii (Karduchoi), mentioned by the Greek historian Xenophon around 401 BC, and the Cyrtians, mentioned by Greek and Roman authors centuries before Islam. There are also pre-Islamic Sasanian sources such as the Kar-Namag i Ardashir i Pabagan, where "Kurds" are mentioned during the Sasanian period, centuries before the Arab conquest. So the debate is not whether Kurdish history began in 632 AD. The debate is how far back we can trace the ancestors and ethnogenesis of the Kurdish people. Those are two very different questions.

1. I am not the one saying Kurds appeared suddenly in 1923. Even before the new borders between the newly created countries of Iraq, Syria, Turkiye, etc. etc. there was ONE empire known as the Ottoman Empire. It was not Kurdistan. Enough manipulation of words, exaggeration and manipulation. 2. The term Kurd was created by the Sassanids from the Middle Persian term Kwrt, or tent-dweller nomads. As Islam was born and spread in the 7th century, Kurds converted to Islam, mixed with the Arabs and the Arabis took the Middle Persian term Kwrt (Kort) and applied it themselves, spread the word (كرد) Kurd (singular) and created Akrad (plural). There is no mention of people known as Kurds before Islam and the Sassanids. I challenge you to show us ONE legit record of some ethnic people known as Kurds before the Sassanid Dynasty or roughly before Islam. 3. It is not the issue of UN recognized or not alone. A real country must have the necessary institutions to function and to deal with neighboring countries. Such an environment and condition did not exist for a country that was called kurdistan. 4. We need to stop inflating the Kurdish population. There are no official records that allows any Kurd to make these claims of 40 million. It is all estimates made by politicians and nationalists. But according to 1948 records from the CIA and "estimating" birth rate statistics, etc. then one could say that the Kurdish population is between 20-22 million.

You're moving the goalposts again. First it was "Kurds never had a state." Then when Kurdish dynasties and rulers are mentioned, suddenly the requirement becomes "they must have fought for a modern Kurdish nation-state." And your claim that the Median Empire wasn't a real empire because it lasted less than 100 years is just a subjective opinion. Plenty of empires throughout history existed for relatively short periods of time and are still called empires by historians. As for the Medes, nobody said there is definitive proof that Kurds and Medes are identical. The argument is that many historians believe Kurds descend, at least partly, from ancient Iranian peoples such as the Medes. Saladin is widely described by historians as being of Kurdish origin. Whether he fought for Islam rather than Kurdish nationalism is irrelevant, because nationalism as we know it didn't even exist in the 12th century. And having an Arabic name proves nothing. Many Kurds, Persians, Turks, and others adopted Arabic names after the spread of Islam. By that logic, half the Middle East would be Arab. 😂

The Mede's "empire" lasted less that a 100 years. Wonder why? You do not call such an enterprise an empire. Also, there is no proof that the Kurds and Medes are the same people. Do a simple search in AI. And every time one asks about the Kurds, they jump and mention all these different names in history and claim that those were Kurds. We are talking about Kurds, why not respond with something related to this term Kurds. Did Saladin say that he was a Kurd? No. Did Saladin speak Kurdish? No. Did Saladin fight for a Kurdish state? No. He fought for Islam and Arabs. Did Saladin have a Kurdish name? No, his full name was purely Arabic.

That’s simply not true. Some Kurds were nomadic, but many others were settled farmers, townspeople, and rulers for centuries. Historians have documented both nomadic and settled Kurdish communities throughout history. And being an Iranic people doesn’t automatically make someone Iranian. Pashtuns are Iranic too, yet nobody calls Afghanistan part of Iran. “Iranic” is an ethnic-linguistic classification, not a nationality. 😉 kurdipedia.org/files/relatedf…

@Kurdism2026 @nikitabier Kurds are always and anywhere Iranic nomads and always part of Iran.

Having an empire is a strange requirement for nationhood. Most nations never had empires. But even then, many historians consider Kurds to be descended, at least in part, from ancient Iranian peoples such as the Medes, who built the Median Empire in the 7th century BC. Later, Kurdish rulers established their own dynasties, including the Ayyubid dynasty under the Kurdish ruler Saladin, which ruled a vast territory from Egypt to Mesopotamia. So the claim that Kurds never ruled anything or never had states is simply false. The real question is why Kurds are expected to prove their existence through empires when most nations are not held to that standard.

They did not claim to have south Poland, north Poland, west Poland or east Poland when they did not have a state. Your other point is true, there are many stateless people. But those are two classes: a) People who had states and empires before, but do not have one today, such as the Assyrians. b) People who did not have states before and still do not have a state today, such as people known as Kurds, yet they claim that an imaginary country of theirs exists and that it has east, west, north and south. Be reasonable and you will gain friends ... Enough with these Kurdish claims.

@FredAprim @Kurdistan_AR For centuries there was no independent Poland, yet Poles still existed. The same applies to many other peoples throughout history

@FredAprim @Kurdistan_AR there were two Korean states. And the fact that “Kurdistan” was used centuries ago to describe a region inhabited by Kurds actually weakens your argument, because you’re admitting the term existed historically. A nation doesn’t stop existing because it lacks a sovereign state.

@HrtSigenw9 @SabinaQuli89660 @Tru4Hurts @grok Also, you’ve quietly moved from “Kurds didn’t exist before the 15th century” to “ethnic identities form over time.” Those are not the same argument. The first claim is historically false, which is why there are references to Kurds centuries before the 1400s. 😉😂

@HrtSigenw9 @SabinaQuli89660 @Tru4Hurts @grok Modern nations are not frozen in time. They develop from earlier populations. The fact that the Medes disappeared as a distinct identity does not mean their descendants disappeared from the earth.

Turks are originally from Mongolia Kurds are originally Middle Eastern Confirmed by Chatgpt