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.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.
I am talking about your original claim that the British did not hand the island back to Turkey and instead instigated independence.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.
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.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.
You claimed it lolYou 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.
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?Now, after they left, rather than handing back to Turkey, the previous owner, they handed it to the Greeks and
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.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.
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?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.
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?Whatever way you put it, European colonialism.