Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 68

Thread: the President o f Europe

  1. #51
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,089

    Re: the President o f Europe

    Quote Originally Posted by kaya'08 View Post
    No actually, they dont count.
    These are two very different situations.
    The Ottomans obtained Cyprus from the Byzantines first of all, not the Romans, with a fair contest of war. There was no revolt, there was no ethnic cleansing or opression: it was a war, man and man, sword and sword, blood for blood. The Greek's didnt even have that much to offer in the 70's leading up to the war. Instead they embarked on a mission to opress the island's minorities (hence the mass immigration of cypriots to Britain) and the British personnel on the island to unite the Island under Greece sovereign. It was Greek Cyprus fighting a civil war essentially against its own people with the backing of the mainland.
    And the Ottoman's lost the administration of the island to the British and later the Ottoman Empire was dissolved and all claim to the island lost. If the Ottoman's want the island back, then let them ask.. no wait they are not around any more.

    Where the hell are you getting ancient claims from?
    The Turks liberated there opressed diaspora after an illegal Greek backed coup, does it not occur to you the Turks sat and bit there lip when all this was going on? Do you think ethnic cleansing began DURING 1974? It was going on for a good 30 years before that. Considering the Turks are a minority by far, i can bet your ass the fight was less than fair.
    History. You cant come and claim the island based on 300 years of rule by an Empire that does not exist any more.. just idiotic.

    Sorry i cant understand what your saying. And no cypriots dont want that. On the contrary they wanted peace (annan plan come to mind?) something the Greek cypriots rejected. Now, they are seeking a two state solution.
    I am talking about your original claim that the British did not hand the island back to Turkey and instead instigated independence.

    Again, fair contest of war? I never heard of Ottomans wiping the Greeks clean and throwing a coup together. It was obtained with national force, and they arose victorious, do you think Denmark was yours before you came along? Of course not.
    The Ottoman Empire was one of the most brutal empires ever to exist lol. And they did conquer the island and much more from the Greeks/Byzantine Empire or as I like to call it the Eastern Roman Empire.

    You have misunderstood, no ancient claims where made. This has nothing to do with historical claims, this has to do with the fact that the minority of Cyprus was severly opressed and it was Turkey's right as a gaurentee power to liberate the island. And she did just that.
    You claimed it lol

    Now, after they left, rather than handing back to Turkey, the previous owner, they handed it to the Greeks and
    How is that not a historical claim? The Ottoman Empire is no more for one. It is like zionist Israelis claiming a god given right to Israel based on some very suspect historical fact dating back 2000+ years. What is next, that Ethiopians start claiming all of the planet since it seems man kind came from the rift valley?

    Im sorry, but that is offence. To correct your quote, id say you have been subject to severe Greek orthodox propaganda and whatever other crap the ECHR has made you believe. I no fully well the Turks are no better in the scheme of things, but just allow me to bring this point foward because it seems that when it comes to Cyprus, Turkey is the bad guy here.
    Hardly. I could give a rats ass about the Greeks in this case. Facts are facts. The Ottoman Empire lost all its claim when it was dissolved. And the new Turkey actually signed away all claims to the island if you did not know. As per your own claim that something won in war is fair game, the British could do whatever they wanted with the island which is what they did. That the majority of the population was Greek and not Turkish (despite 300+ years of Turkish rule... ), it is only natural to turn the island over to the majority population with the provisions of protecting the minority. That was done. That radicals on both side then brought into the conflict the ancient Greece vs Turkey/Ottoman Empire conflict does not mean that the British did anything remotely wrong.

    Of course, Taksim was just as bloody as Enosis, but one has to look at the conflict on the island and realize it was actually the Greeks who first took up arms and destroyed the Republic of Cyprus that the Turks where more than content with despite the fact that it was less than equal power sharing.
    And there was no provication at all from the Turkish side? The Turkish side was all angles and innocent right? There was no ethnic cleansing when the Turkish military invaded .. none at all?

    Whatever way you put it, European colonialism.
    How can it be "European Colonialism" when first off the island is in Europe and secondly you agree that the island was "correctly won in war".. or is it only correct when it is the Ottomans that won it in war and not the Brits? I mean, you do realize that the Brits defeated the Ottomans right?
    PeteEU

  2. #52
    Sage
    kaya'08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    British Turk
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,363

    Re: the President o f Europe

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    And the Ottoman's lost the administration of the island to the British and later the Ottoman Empire was dissolved and all claim to the island lost. If the Ottoman's want the island back, then let them ask.. no wait they are not around any more.
    Sorry are you trying to illegitimize Turkey's right as a gaurentee power to liberate the island and its opressed diaspora? Now that the Greeks have been pushed back, because of their inability to be able to live beside the Turks, the Northern Republic of Cyprus is Turkish land, nothing less, nothing more.

    History. You cant come and claim the island based on 300 years of rule by an Empire that does not exist any more.. just idiotic.
    Point out where i did that. I was telling you the impacts of British colonialism, i wasnt saying we have an inherited right to Cyprus, but we do now.

    I am talking about your original claim that the British did not hand the island back to Turkey and instead instigated independence.
    Thats not what i meant. The British agreed to divide up the island but instead made a rash decision which led to the conflict because they where brought to their knees at the hands of the EOKA terrorists.

    The Ottoman Empire was one of the most brutal empires ever to exist lol. And they did conquer the island and much more from the Greeks/Byzantine Empire or as I like to call it the Eastern Roman Empire.
    Brutal? Please, give me a few examples. Let me help you out, Armenian genocide. You do the rest. If i recall correctly the Ottoman empire was the first to practice religious tolerance, the high ranking officials in the army where Greek. Also, the sooner you can realize the Ottomans where not Turks, then ill give you a point up for history lessons.

    How is that not a historical claim? The Ottoman Empire is no more for one. It is like zionist Israelis claiming a god given right to Israel based on some very suspect historical fact dating back 2000+ years. What is next, that Ethiopians start claiming all of the planet since it seems man kind came from the rift valley?
    I didnt mean the entire island, i meant the parts Britian was going to initially recede to Turkey.

    Hardly. I could give a rats ass about the Greeks in this case. Facts are facts. The Ottoman Empire lost all its claim when it was dissolved. And the new Turkey actually signed away all claims to the island if you did not know. As per your own claim that something won in war is fair game, the British could do whatever they wanted with the island which is what they did. That the majority of the population was Greek and not Turkish (despite 300+ years of Turkish rule... ), it is only natural to turn the island over to the majority population with the provisions of protecting the minority. That was done. That radicals on both side then brought into the conflict the ancient Greece vs Turkey/Ottoman Empire conflict does not mean that the British did anything remotely wrong.
    Let me give you a little insight into Cyprus here, you seem to be convieniently forgetting why the Northern side is their in the first place.

    When the Greeks took up arms after Makarios and Kucuk established the Republic of Cyprus, a political establishment with a Greek president, Turkish vice president and up to 15 more parliamentary seats for Greeks, the EOKA campaign began attacking Turkish villages and bombing Turkish schools and hospitals. This greately destabilized the island, and TAKSIM was established as an opposition movement to EOKA, which basically perpetrated the exact same atrocities. Now, the Turks where outnumbered by about 250,000 Greeks to 130,000 Turks in terms of population. Since the 60's, the two communities thought a bloody war, with the Greeks attacking British and Turkish villages and the Turks fighting and attacking Greek villages. This led to a brutal war and then eventually, a Greece back militarialistic coup by Nikos Samsun which took full control of the island, closed the Parliament to all Turks and diverted economic resources for EOKA. This, under UN international law, provoked a just and fair respone by Turkey, its duty as described in the gaurentee rights the British and Greece, with Turkey signed, to protect the minorities of each respecting nation, invaded the Northern side and established the Northern Turkish republic. Do you think it would have been a difficult feat for the might of the Turkish army to invade the remainder of the island? Of course not, its not what they wanted. Impatience grew over the years and the Turks came to the conclusion that the only way to ensure the peace of its diaspora was to establish a seperate sovereign state for them.

    Not only is the island the most peaceful since it has ever been now the Greeks have been seperated, but the Turks carried out fully and justify their right as signed by both British and Greek leadership, their right as a gaurentee power to the island. Something the British failed to do and is currently being sued for by the Greeks.

    And there was no provication at all from the Turkish side? The Turkish side was all angles and innocent right? There was no ethnic cleansing when the Turkish military invaded .. none at all?
    No, it was the Turkish cypriot community which retalliated with TAKSIM and prompted the ethnic cleansing, NOT the Turkish army, it also WASNT the Turkish army that funded TAKSIM unlike EOKA which had Greece backing.

    Again, all sides are wrong here, but there are point i must, i must set straight.

    How can it be "European Colonialism" when first off the island is in Europe and secondly you agree that the island was "correctly won in war".. or is it only correct when it is the Ottomans that won it in war and not the Brits? I mean, you do realize that the Brits defeated the Ottomans right?
    One minute your confusing me. European colonialism isnt subject to non-European countries, i hope you know that. Lastly, Ottoman AND GREEK colonialism is what caused the main troubles, add the Brits to the equation, and you have what you started with: European colonialism.
    "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
    > Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <

  3. #53
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,089

    Re: the President o f Europe

    Quote Originally Posted by kaya'08 View Post
    Sorry are you trying to illegitimize Turkey's right as a gaurentee power to liberate the island and its opressed diaspora? Now that the Greeks have been pushed back, because of their inability to be able to live beside the Turks, the Northern Republic of Cyprus is Turkish land, nothing less, nothing more.
    I guess I am. Turkey is not the Ottoman Empire for one. Turkey signed over all claims to the island in the 1920s. Turkey has no legitimate claim to the island what so ever. The only claim Turkey can have is if it uses the "ancient claim" bit and even then we can debate it till we are blue in the face and ultimately the Ethiopians would win.

    Point out where i did that. I was telling you the impacts of British colonialism, i wasnt saying we have an inherited right to Cyprus, but we do now.
    Sorry but you did as I pointed out. And as I also pointed out that it is not British "colonialism" because they won the island from the Ottoman Empire after WW1. So going by your own logic of a claim, since the Ottomans won the island in war, then the British claim and hence right to do what ever they want with the island is just as legit. Hence they are not colonialists, but conquerors.

    Thats not what i meant. The British agreed to divide up the island but instead made a rash decision which led to the conflict because they where brought to their knees at the hands of the EOKA terrorists.
    That is however how it sounded. And the British as I have stated could do anything they wanted to the island. It was there's as part of spoils of war.

    Brutal? Please, give me a few examples. Let me help you out, Armenian genocide. You do the rest. If i recall correctly the Ottoman empire was the first to practice religious tolerance, the high ranking officials in the army where Greek. Also, the sooner you can realize the Ottomans where not Turks, then ill give you a point up for history lessons.
    Actually forgotten about the Armenian genocide and was not going to give that as an example. But hey!

    And yes the Ottoman Empire was brutal, but also very tolerant once they got their way. They were imperialistic and colonialists. They looked down on the people they conquered for one and yes they slaughtered people left a right over their 500 year history. The sacking of Constantinople is just one of many examples.

    I didnt mean the entire island, i meant the parts Britian was going to initially recede to Turkey.
    As I stated, Britain could do whatever they wanted to the island. That they at one point thought of giving part of the island back to Turkey does not mean they cant change their minds. It was after all the British who owned the island and for them to what ever they wanted.

    No, it was the Turkish cypriot community which retalliated with TAKSIM and prompted the ethnic cleansing, NOT the Turkish army, it also WASNT the Turkish army that funded TAKSIM unlike EOKA which had Greece backing.

    Again, all sides are wrong here, but there are point i must, i must set straight.
    It does not matter who funded who, the whole conflict still goes back to the conflict between Greece and Turkey that goes back centuries before the British even set foot on the island. Even if the British never had administrative rights to the island, it still would have been a flashpoint. Cyprus has been fought over since before Christ.

    One minute your confusing me. European colonialism isnt subject to non-European countries, i hope you know that. Lastly, Ottoman AND GREEK colonialism is what caused the main troubles, add the Brits to the equation, and you have what you started with: European colonialism.
    You are claiming colonialism is to blame for all the ills of Cyprus. I say it is not because for one losing the area in a war is not colonialism.. it is called conquering. And I claim that the conflict is not about Cyprus per say, but at its core is the animosity between the Greek and Turkish people that go back centuries. Why else would you be calling one side the "Greek Cypriots" and the other side "Turkish"..
    PeteEU

  4. #54
    Sage
    kaya'08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    British Turk
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,363

    Re: the President o f Europe

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    I guess I am. Turkey is not the Ottoman Empire for one. Turkey signed over all claims to the island in the 1920s. Turkey has no legitimate claim to the island what so ever. The only claim Turkey can have is if it uses the "ancient claim" bit and even then we can debate it till we are blue in the face and ultimately the Ethiopians would win.
    Wrong. Just before the Republic of Cyprus was established, the 3 powers of Cyprus agreed to sign a gaurentee power to protect their minorities and use military actions if such minorities or their rights where threatened. Turkey has no right to the island; even they know that. But Turkish Cypriots do, and are more than entitled to have the Northern Republic of Cyprus. But had it have not been for Turkish intervention, the EOKA campaign would have ended any Turkish minority on that island and would have united Cyprus with Greece. The Turkish Cypriot minority have been on the island for many, many years, are more than entitled to the island, just like the Greeks are, but unfortunately any attempts at peace where foiled.

    The kicking out of Turkish Cypriots from their island is something you clearly support, and clearly cant see the fact that the Turkish Cypriot community is just as entitled to Cyprus as Greek Cypriots. You need to re-evaluate your blind Pro-European only stance because quiet frankly, its sickening.



    Sorry but you did as I pointed out. And as I also pointed out that it is not British "colonialism" because they won the island from the Ottoman Empire after WW1. So going by your own logic of a claim, since the Ottomans won the island in war, then the British claim and hence right to do what ever they want with the island is just as legit. Hence they are not colonialists, but conquerors.
    Read the above post. You're right, the British can do whatever they want with it, and they did. They made Turkey a gaurentee power, the Greeks forced the Turkish cypriot minority into enclaves and the Turks acted accordingly under law. Infact, your claim we are conqueres is very offensive and shows a lack of understanding on the conflict when Turkish Cypriots have just as much a right to the island as any Greek.

    That is however how it sounded. And the British as I have stated could do anything they wanted to the island. It was there's as part of spoils of war.
    Read above.

    Actually forgotten about the Armenian genocide and was not going to give that as an example. But hey!
    Im not trying to run away from the Ottoman's mistake, i will openly accept anything you can gather.

    And yes the Ottoman Empire was brutal, but also very tolerant once they got their way.
    Nope, thats how Ottoman law was, very religiously tolerant, it has nothing to do with getting there way.

    They were imperialistic and colonialists. They looked down on the people they conquered for one and yes they slaughtered people left a right over their 500 year history. The sacking of Constantinople is just one of many examples.
    So how does that make the Ottomans any different to Rome, or Byzatine? You still havent made any points because most of your accusations are just based on xenephobic rubbish. So much Xenephobia exists against Turks in Europe infact, they are quick to overlook the fact we produced one of the greatest European statesman of the 20th century. Let it be known, that if it wasnt for the ridiculous bundles of money Turkey spends to ensure European security and the integrity of Balkan boarders, and instead it was an Arabic nation at your door, Europe would be a very, very different place. The Turkish war of independance was the best thing to happen to you lot.


    As I stated, Britain could do whatever they wanted to the island. That they at one point thought of giving part of the island back to Turkey does not mean they cant change their minds. It was after all the British who owned the island and for them to what ever they wanted.
    Yes, and then the Greeks embarked on ethnic cleansing and under law Turkey acted and gave the Turkish cypriots their right to the island because unfortunately the Greek cypriots where not willing to let them have it.


    It does not matter who funded who, the whole conflict still goes back to the conflict between Greece and Turkey that goes back centuries before the British even set foot on the island. Even if the British never had administrative rights to the island, it still would have been a flashpoint. Cyprus has been fought over since before Christ.
    Actually the conflict only arose when the Ottoman empire collapsed. Do you think Cyprus is unique? The same thing happened in Crete when it was a Turkish island, the Greeks eventually threw the Turks out but this time nobody was fooled.

    You are claiming colonialism is to blame for all the ills of Cyprus. I say it is not because for one losing the area in a war is not colonialism.. it is called conquering. And I claim that the conflict is not about Cyprus per say, but at its core is the animosity between the Greek and Turkish people that go back centuries. Why else would you be calling one side the "Greek Cypriots" and the other side "Turkish"..


    I did that because i didnt feel it neccessary to write Cypriots, if you look back at my post, convienient interpretation aside, you'll realize i did it to the Greeks aswell. Of course Turkish Cypriots are Turks from Cyprus, as are Greek Cypriots from Cyprus. Nobody here is claiming Turkish cypriots dont exist or dont have their own sovereign rights to the island, of course they do, your ill informed and thats where your offensive accusations are stemming from.

    What are you suggesting from the text in bold?
    Last edited by kaya'08; 11-29-09 at 12:51 PM.
    "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
    > Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <

  5. #55
    In a house by the river
    MetalGear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Denmark, Grena
    Last Seen
    05-16-11 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,233

    Re: the President o f Europe

    PeteEU, read the Genocide files.

    The Genocide Files

    That should help curtail the blanket of ignorance you have wrapped around your head like a Bhurka

  6. #56
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,089

    Re: the President o f Europe

    Quote Originally Posted by kaya'08 View Post
    Wrong. Just before the Republic of Cyprus was established, the 3 powers of Cyprus agreed to sign a gaurentee power to protect their minorities and use military actions if such minorities or their rights where threatened. Turkey has no right to the island; even they know that. But Turkish Cypriots do, and are more than entitled to have the Northern Republic of Cyprus. But had it have not been for Turkish intervention, the EOKA campaign would have ended any Turkish minority on that island and would have united Cyprus with Greece. The Turkish Cypriot minority have been on the island for many, many years, are more than entitled to the island, just like the Greeks are, but unfortunately any attempts at peace where foiled.
    I know of the excuses used by Turkey and I know of the excuse of the Greeks and what they are alleged to have done. I also know of the alleged ethnic cleansing of the Turks.

    Does not change the fact that we seem to be talking about two different things. I thought this discussion was that of the colonial evils of Europe not of the conflict in Cyprus. I have pointed out time and time again that Cyprus's problems have nothing to do with colonial Europe but everything to do with age old animosity between Greece and Turkey in different formats.

    The Ottomans won the island in war, and lost it in war, but the conflict over the island transcends their conquest by centuries.

    The kicking out of Turkish Cypriots from their island is something you clearly support, and clearly cant see the fact that the Turkish Cypriot community is just as entitled to Cyprus as Greek Cypriots. You need to re-evaluate your blind Pro-European only stance because quiet frankly, its sickening.
    Ah get off your high horse. I favour no one in the conflict. My point has been and still is, to rebute your claim that the Turks had some god given right to the island over the Greeks and that the whole mess is the fault of the British and their "colonial" expansion. On that front you are wrong.

    Read the above post. You're right, the British can do whatever they want with it, and they did. They made Turkey a gaurentee power, the Greeks forced the Turkish cypriot minority into enclaves and the Turks acted accordingly under law. Infact, your claim we are conqueres is very offensive and shows a lack of understanding on the conflict when Turkish Cypriots have just as much a right to the island as any Greek.
    And as I have stated time and time again I agree. But that is not what you started out with. You started out with by claiming (as I have shown) that Turkey should have been given back the island instead of the island given independence. Now you might not have meant that but that is what you wrote.

    Im not trying to run away from the Ottoman's mistake, i will openly accept anything you can gather.
    Then why do you keep claiming some sort of "Turkish right" over the island. No the peoples of Cyprus have the right, not Turkish, not Greek. But the Turkish and Greek governments are very much involved on both sides of the divide and driving the division to its fullest. There is no good or bad in this conflict, it is all bad.

    Nope, thats how Ottoman law was, very religiously tolerant, it has nothing to do with getting there way.
    Sure they were religiously tolerant. But that does not make them any less brutal towards indigenous populations of lands they conquered. Constantinople did not exactly remain a Christian city did it now...

    So how does that make the Ottomans any different to Rome, or Byzatine? You still havent made any points because most of your accusations are just based on xenephobic rubbish. So much Xenephobia exists against Turks in Europe infact, they are quick to overlook the fact we produced one of the greatest European statesman of the 20th century. Let it be known, that if it wasnt for the ridiculous bundles of money Turkey spends to ensure European security and the integrity of Balkan boarders, and instead it was an Arabic nation at your door, Europe would be a very, very different place. The Turkish war of independance was the best thing to happen to you lot.
    It does not, and I have never claimed it did. It is you that at first glossed over the fact that the Ottoman Empire was just as brutal as any other imperial force during the last 2000+ years. The British were also brutal, but also brought many things to the world.. world commerce for example. The Romans brought roads, the Persians civilization. Does not mean they were not brutal does it now?

    Yes, and then the Greeks embarked on ethnic cleansing and under law Turkey acted and gave the Turkish cypriots their right to the island because unfortunately the Greek cypriots where not willing to let them have it.
    Yes so claims the Turks. I bet the greeks claim otherwise. And are you saying that the Turks did not ethnic cleans the North when they invaded?

    Actually the conflict only arose when the Ottoman empire collapsed. Do you think Cyprus is unique? The same thing happened in Crete when it was a Turkish island, the Greeks eventually threw the Turks out but this time nobody was fooled.
    As I have stated, the conflict in Cyprus goes back to the animostity between Greece and Turkey, going back centuries. It is part of the Byzantine Empire versus the Ottomans, it is part of the Christian's vs Muslims going back centuries.

    I did that because i didnt feel it neccessary to write Cypriots, if you look back at my post, convienient interpretation aside, you'll realize i did it to the Greeks aswell. Of course Turkish Cypriots are Turks from Cyprus, as are Greek Cypriots from Cyprus. Nobody here is claiming Turkish cypriots dont exist or dont have their own sovereign rights to the island, of course they do, your ill informed and thats where your offensive accusations are stemming from.
    And you are putting words in my mouth. I have never said that the "turkish" cypriots dont have rights to the island. I have stated that TURKEY has no right to the island which is what you attempted at least to claim several times by defending the 1974 Turkish invasion and stating

    Now, after they left, rather than handing back to Turkey, the previous owner, they handed it to the Greeks and
    As I stated, you might not have meant that but that is what you wrote and has since hence in part defended.

    What are you suggesting from the text in bold?
    Exactly what it says. That the conflict is defined as being Turkish Cypriots against Greek Cypriots. If that does not scream of being a Turkish vs Greek issue dating back centuries then well.
    PeteEU

  7. #57
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,089

    Re: the President o f Europe

    Quote Originally Posted by MetalGear View Post
    PeteEU, read the Genocide files.

    The Genocide Files

    That should help curtail the blanket of ignorance you have wrapped around your head like a Bhurka
    What that Turkey is in denial over its past? Not the first country to be in denial nor the last.

    But regardless it aint what the discussion has been about.

    Are you denying there is not a historical animosity between Greece and Turkey, going back to at least the Byzantine Empire if not the early crusades?
    PeteEU

  8. #58
    In a house by the river
    MetalGear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Denmark, Grena
    Last Seen
    05-16-11 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,233

    Re: the President o f Europe

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    What that Turkey is in denial over its past? Not the first country to be in denial nor the last.

    But regardless it aint what the discussion has been about.

    Are you denying there is not a historical animosity between Greece and Turkey, going back to at least the Byzantine Empire if not the early crusades?
    No im not denying that wtf.

    and the only thing Turkey is denying about her past is the genocide which just sucks.
    Everything else seems to be obvious. That book has nothing to do what your talking about.

  9. #59
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,089

    Re: the President o f Europe

    Quote Originally Posted by MetalGear View Post
    No im not denying that wtf.

    and the only thing Turkey is denying about her past is the genocide which just sucks.
    Everything else seems to be obvious. That book has nothing to do what your talking about.
    Then dont post it and confuse me!!!:. trying to type and get ready to go out and watch Barcelona vs Real Madrid omfgs!!!

    Hows the weather up there btw? As bad as it is here.. yes we got rain!!!!
    PeteEU

  10. #60
    Sage
    kaya'08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    British Turk
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,363

    Re: the President o f Europe

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    I know of the excuses used by Turkey and I know of the excuse of the Greeks and what they are alleged to have done. I also know of the alleged ethnic cleansing of the Turks.

    Does not change the fact that we seem to be talking about two different things. I thought this discussion was that of the colonial evils of Europe not of the conflict in Cyprus. I have pointed out time and time again that Cyprus's problems have nothing to do with colonial Europe but everything to do with age old animosity between Greece and Turkey in different formats.
    Yes but this age old animosity between the two countries over Cyprus are as a result of THERE colonialism, thats what im saying! For example, if it wasnt for Ottoman colonialism in the first place, there would be no Turks. If the Byzantines had not colonized Cyprus, there would be no Greeks. No Turks + No Greeks = No war. Get it?

    Ah get off your high horse. I favour no one in the conflict. My point has been and still is, to rebute your claim that the Turks had some god given right to the island over the Greeks and that the whole mess is the fault of the British and their "colonial" expansion. On that front you are wrong.
    Turkey has no right over the island - but it had a right to protect its diaspora. The Turkish Cypriots, however, have a right over the island.



    And as I have stated time and time again I agree. But that is not what you started out with. You started out with by claiming (as I have shown) that Turkey should have been given back the island instead of the island given independence. Now you might not have meant that but that is what you wrote.
    Then my apologizes honestly.

    Then why do you keep claiming some sort of "Turkish right" over the island. No the peoples of Cyprus have the right, not Turkish, not Greek. But the Turkish and Greek governments are very much involved on both sides of the divide and driving the division to its fullest. There is no good or bad in this conflict, it is all bad.
    I dont claim this, i claim Turkish Cypriot right over the island, for the same reason there is a Greek Cypriot right over the island.


    Sure they were religiously tolerant. But that does not make them any less brutal towards indigenous populations of lands they conquered. Constantinople did not exactly remain a Christian city did it now...
    Thats cause the Christians pissed themselves, packed up and left. At the height of the Ottoman empire, it was the Ottomans that had one of the biggest christian populations in Europe. And an Ottoman isnt neccessarily a Turk at all. Infact most Ottomans where not Turkish. There was once a Greek man called himself an Ottoman proudly. Today they dont even speak about that part of their history.

    It does not, and I have never claimed it did. It is you that at first glossed over the fact that the Ottoman Empire was just as brutal as any other imperial force during the last 2000+ years. The British were also brutal, but also brought many things to the world.. world commerce for example. The Romans brought roads, the Persians civilization. Does not mean they were not brutal does it now?
    No of course not. Judging from the tone of your post i assumed you meant the entire foundation of the Ottoman empire was just brute and evil, when outside of the battlefield, it really wasnt the case, as goes for Rome and Byzantine. Then again, all Colonialists are brute bastards, right?

    Yes so claims the Turks. I bet the greeks claim otherwise. And are you saying that the Turks did not ethnic cleans the North when they invaded?
    Pah, of course they did. Ive admitted it in every post so far.

    As I have stated, the conflict in Cyprus goes back to the animostity between Greece and Turkey, going back centuries. It is part of the Byzantine Empire versus the Ottomans, it is part of the Christian's vs Muslims going back centuries.
    Which i think is wrong. The government has no religion in Turkey.

    And you are putting words in my mouth. I have never said that the "turkish" cypriots dont have rights to the island. I have stated that TURKEY has no right to the island which is what you attempted at least to claim several times by defending the 1974 Turkish invasion and stating
    I defended the invasion because if it wasnt for the invasion they would have slaughtered and kicked the Turkish cyp's out as a whole and most likely achieved EOKA. Im glad they invaded, and now the Turkish cypriots have peace in there own land.


    Exactly what it says. That the conflict is defined as being Turkish Cypriots against Greek Cypriots. If that does not scream of being a Turkish vs Greek issue dating back centuries then well.
    Brotherly rivarly, i call it. The people are virtually indifferent culturally and in so many other ways, where Islam/Christianity does not have heavy influences.
    "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
    > Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •