Cyprus-Forum.com

[zan]

The rebel has left the building either to google like mad though I suspect not because that would mean long hours of concentration...OR....He has gone to think about another name change........Points for guessing which Afro based name he will pick this time


In the meantime....It gives me an opportunity to have a bath and a nap. I feel dirty after talking to him...........

[phoenix]

[Eric . . . . thank you so much for allowing us the opportunity to be awarded such an interesting and very necessary abstract from Piratis.

Now kindly read it and learn something to save us from your future misrepresentations . . .

Sorry dear, have no time to read any crap from any mad-cow diseased people who just whinge and whine just because they like the sound of their own squeaking voice.

He claimed that I wrote the article I posted even though I posted a link to it.

He also claimed that Cyprus has been "Hellenic" for 3500 years.

Now than, if you want to help your Greek compatriot save him by proving him right on both of his claims. Tell us all when the last period Greek Cypriots or Greeks were the owners of the island. You can go back 8000/10000 years but if you are going to come up with the same crap as "Greeks have always lived here" then forget it, that is no proof that the island has ever been Greek, it only proves that Greeks have been longer on the island but it in no way and no how proves them (Greeks) to be the owners.

Now cut the crap and prove your/his/Greek claims/lies or shut the heck up, got it puppet?

OKAY . . . let us tackle this in a simple fashion, and from a slightly different approach, since the usual ones don't seem to be firing your neurons . . .

First I establish how long people have been on Cyprus, circa 10,000 years. . . . . . See ARTICLE 1

Then we establish where the Turks were at this time (and for the next 9,500 years or so). . . . ie in MONGOLIA.
See ARTICLES 2 & 3

Then we can conclude:

The Turks were nowhere near Cyprus for well over 8,000 years, whereas the Hellenic / Greeks where flitting back and forth from Cyprus and Greece like they had invented the Hovercraft

ARTICLE 1:

Letters
How Old Is the Human Presence on Cyprus?

Albert Ammerman's contributions to archaeology are substantial, but his
comments about Cyprus may mislead the reader ("Exploring the prehistory of Europe, in a few bold leaps," J. Bohannon, News Focus, 13 July, p. 188).
Current studies on this Mediterranean island have indeed indicated a
human presence much earlier than previously believed. As the article notes, research by Peltenburg and others has pushed back the island's Neolithic presence to ~8200 calibrated B.C.E.
Ammerman suggests that his sites are approximately 12,000 years old and are the remains of seafaring pre-Neolithic hunters and gatherers. Whether or not aeolianite dunes would have made suitable camps, we commend Ammerman for examining ephemeral sites that all too often have been ignored. However, he believes that these are "the oldest evidence of seafaring in the Mediterranean," a claim presently based only on artifactual data, and as Peltenburg points out, "independent evidence" is needed to confirm their antiquity.

An early human presence on Cyprus has been well established at Akrotiri
Aetokremnos for nearly two decades (1). It is thus no surprise that there may be other sites dating to this time period, and many of us hope that Ammerman's sites are as old as he claims. But until this can be confirmed
by defensible dating of materials in good context, these sites should not
enter the literature as examples of a pre-Neolithic presence on Cyprus.

ARTICLE 2

Mongolia ... Ethnography and early tribal history

.... Some of the northern tribes migrated westward, where descendants—together with the members of other tribes— Byappeared in Europe in the 5th century AD as the Huns of Attila. then, of course, these people were considerably more mixed ethnically.

In Mongolia the Xiongnu were succeeded both by Turkic-speaking peoples and by others identified by some scholars as Mongols, or Mongol speakers.

Among the peoples who have been considered possibly Mongol, the most important tribal names are Sienpi (Xianbi), who may however have been Tungus (modern Evenk) rather than Mongol, recorded in Han dynasty annals, and the Juan-juan (Rouran, or Geougen) of the 4th to 6th centuries. The latter have been identified by some scholars with the Avars, who migrated into Europe along the plains of the Danube and were nearly annihilated in Hungary by Charlemagne in the late 8th century.

According to a legend recorded by the Chinese, the Turks of Mongolia, whose name is recognizable under its Chinese transcription “Tujue,” were a subject tribe ruled by the Juan-juan. The Turks overthrew their masters and soon were in control of all Mongolia, centring their power in the Orhon valley in the northern part of the country. The Orhon (Orkhon) Turks were contemporaries of the Tang dynasty (618–907) in China, and their fortunes rose and fell in counterpoint to periods of Tang strength and weakness. Comparison of archaeological and historical data, moreover, shows that power in Mongolia was at this time not based simply on levies of nomad horsemen. The khans and great men had fixed headquarters, surrounded by cultivated land that enabled them to breed large, stable-fed horses capable of carrying a man in armour. This situation emphasized a class distinction between the aristocrat on his charger and the herdsman-warrior-archer on his smaller horse. Agriculture also became an element in the economy, and the Uighurs, who came to power after the fall of the Orhon Turks, enter history as an oasis-centred people.

Before the era of Genghis Khan, a defeated Khitan army had migrated westward at the fall of their Liao dynasty. It was led by a prince of the Khitan imperial line but must have included heterogeneous tribal elements. Moving westward through Mongolia, it reached what is now Kazakhstan and created a new and briefly powerful empire, the Karakitai. It ruled primarily over Turkic-speaking peoples, made up of nomads and city dwellers in the oases, and the Khitan nucleus had the opportunity to apply its knowledge of how to deal with nomads and its ability in the administration of a bureaucracy.

ARTICLE 3:

Answers wrote:


Turkic peoples

Any of various peoples who speak one of the Turkic languages. They are connected with the Tuque (T'u-chüeh), nomadic people who in the 6th century AD founded an empire stretching from Mongolia to the Black Sea (see Turkistan). In the 11th century the Seljuqs created an extensive empire after defeating the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert (1071), an event that opened Anatolia to settlement by Turkic-speaking peoples (and eventually led to the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in the 20th century). Though overrun by the Mongols in the 13th century, the Turks succeeded in absorbing them after Genghis Khan's death (1227). In the 14th century Timur, who was of mixed Mongolian and Turkic ancestry, held most of Central Asia and some of South Asia. In the 15th century Russian expansion drove the Turkic peoples eastward into what is now Kazakhstan. Today Turkic peoples live mostly in Turkey, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan.

[Expatkiwi]

And the idiots in this forum want to make us believe there are no Greeks in Cyprus and "we're all Cypriots".

TWO POLITICALLY EQUAL AND SOVEREIGN PEOPLES LIVE ON CYPRUS

The conflict in Cyprus has been ongoing for the past 52 years. Yet still there seems to be no sign of a settlement, and no hope for one as well. Cyprus became part of the Ottoman Empire in 1571 and more than 300 years later, it was leased to Britain by Turkey with the agreement that Cyprus was to be returned to Turkey when Britain no longer wanted it.
Britain ruled Cyprus as a protectorate until 1914, when Turkey sided with Germany in the Great War. Britain then annexed Cyprus and assumed sovereignty, ruling it as a colony until 1960 when it became an independent republic.

Although Cyprus has historically never been part of any Greek state, the population of Cyprus was changed dramatically by the British once Cyprus became a Crown Colony. The British began to allow Greeks to settle in Cyprus and communities were set up in Greece to encourage people to move to the island of Cyprus. Greek Cypriots became a majority on the island of Cyprus and remain so today.

Around mid 1950s Britain decided to hand sovereignty over to the inhabitants of the island. Her decision was to transfer sovereignty jointly to the Turkish and Greek Cypriot peoples, for the "creation of an independent, partnership state in Cyprus."

It was on this basis that the constitution of 1960 was negotiated and the Treaties of Guarantee, Alliance and Establishment were finalized. It was at this point that the Republic of Cyprus came into being as an independent partnership state.

The agreements that were made were based on equality and partnership between the two people in the independence and sovereignty of the island. The 1960 constitution required joint presence and effective participation on both sides in all organs of the state to be legitimate.

Neither community had the right to rule other the other, nor could one of the communities claim to govern the other. The aim of the basic articles of both the constitution and the subsequent treaties was to safeguard the rights of the two peoples as equals.
It was hoped that the two peoples of the island and their new partners would be able to live peacefully together under this new political partnership.

It soon became obvious that this was not going to be possible. It became clear that the Greek Cypriots and Greece did not intend to abide by the constitution. They did not give up their ambition for the annexation of the island to Greece, and the Greek Cypriot leadership sought to unlawfully bring around constitutional changes.

In effect, this would negate the "partnership" status of the Turkish Cypriots and clear the way for annexation with a Turkish minority.

The only way that the Greek Cypriots could achieve their aims was to destroy the legitimate order, by the use of force, and to overtake the joint-state. The rule of law collapsed on the island in 1963 as a result of a ruling by the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus.

The Turkish Cypriots took the Greek Cypriots to court because the Greek Cypriots refused to obey the mandatory provision of separate municipalities for the two communities. The court ruled against the Greek Cypriots, and as expected they ignored the courts' ruling.After this the Greeks tried to get eight basic articles of the 1960 Agreement abolished. These articles were there to protect the Turkish Cypriots, and so by removing them the Turkish Cypriots would be reduced to a minority subject to control by the Greek Cypriots.

Christmas 1963 saw Greek Cypriot militia attack Turkish Cypriot communities across the island killing many men, women and children. Around 270 mosques, shrines and other places of worship were desecrated. The constitution became unworkable, because of the refusal on the part of the Greek Cypriots to fulfill the obligations to which they had agreed.

The bi-national republic which was imagined by the Treaties ceased to exist after December 1963. The Greek Cypriot wing of the “partnership” State took over the title of the “Government of Cyprus” and the Turkish Cypriots, who had never accepted the seizure of power, set up a Turkish administration to run their own affairs.

In the end, the Greek Cypriot state was internationally recognized under the title of the “Government of Cyprus,” was brought into the EU, and the Turkish Cypriots were forced in 1985 to unilaterally declare their own administration under the name of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,” which still is not recognized.

The two main peoples on Cyprus, the Turks and the Greeks, share no common language besides English, no common religion and no common literature, nor do they, except on the surface, share any common culture, from the past until the present.

A “United Cyprus” is a utopian idea that has no hope of realization.

http://www.arcaajans.com/kose.asp?kose_id=2849

Nice to see the voice of sanity returning to the forum... Happy New Year, Eric.

[Eric dayi]

[Eric . . . . thank you so much for allowing us the opportunity to be awarded such an interesting and very necessary abstract from Piratis.

Now kindly read it and learn something to save us from your future misrepresentations . . .

Sorry dear, have no time to read any crap from any mad-cow diseased people who just whinge and whine just because they like the sound of their own squeaking voice.

He claimed that I wrote the article I posted even though I posted a link to it.

He also claimed that Cyprus has been "Hellenic" for 3500 years.

Now than, if you want to help your Greek compatriot save him by proving him right on both of his claims. Tell us all when the last period Greek Cypriots or Greeks were the owners of the island. You can go back 8000/10000 years but if you are going to come up with the same crap as "Greeks have always lived here" then forget it, that is no proof that the island has ever been Greek, it only proves that Greeks have been longer on the island but it in no way and no how proves them (Greeks) to be the owners.

Now cut the crap and prove your/his/Greek claims/lies or shut the heck up, got it puppet?

OKAY . . . let us tackle this in a simple fashion, and from a slightly different approach, since the usual ones don't seem to be firing your neurons . . .

First I establish how long people have been on Cyprus, circa 10,000 years. . . . . . See ARTICLE 1

Then we establish where the Turks were at this time (and for the next 9,500 years or so). . . . ie in MONGOLIA.
See ARTICLES 2 & 3

Then we can conclude:

The Turks were nowhere near Cyprus for well over 8,000 years, whereas the Hellenic / Greeks where flitting back and forth from Cyprus and Greece like they had invented the Hovercraft

ARTICLE 1:

Letters
How Old Is the Human Presence on Cyprus?

Albert Ammerman's contributions to archaeology are substantial, but his
comments about Cyprus may mislead the reader ("Exploring the prehistory of Europe, in a few bold leaps," J. Bohannon, News Focus, 13 July, p. 188).
Current studies on this Mediterranean island have indeed indicated a
human presence much earlier than previously believed. As the article notes, research by Peltenburg and others has pushed back the island's Neolithic presence to ~8200 calibrated B.C.E.
Ammerman suggests that his sites are approximately 12,000 years old and are the remains of seafaring pre-Neolithic hunters and gatherers. Whether or not aeolianite dunes would have made suitable camps, we commend Ammerman for examining ephemeral sites that all too often have been ignored. However, he believes that these are "the oldest evidence of seafaring in the Mediterranean," a claim presently based only on artifactual data, and as Peltenburg points out, "independent evidence" is needed to confirm their antiquity.

An early human presence on Cyprus has been well established at Akrotiri
Aetokremnos for nearly two decades (1). It is thus no surprise that there may be other sites dating to this time period, and many of us hope that Ammerman's sites are as old as he claims. But until this can be confirmed
by defensible dating of materials in good context, these sites should not
enter the literature as examples of a pre-Neolithic presence on Cyprus.

ARTICLE 2

Mongolia ... Ethnography and early tribal history

.... Some of the northern tribes migrated westward, where descendants—together with the members of other tribes— Byappeared in Europe in the 5th century AD as the Huns of Attila. then, of course, these people were considerably more mixed ethnically.

In Mongolia the Xiongnu were succeeded both by Turkic-speaking peoples and by others identified by some scholars as Mongols, or Mongol speakers.

Among the peoples who have been considered possibly Mongol, the most important tribal names are Sienpi (Xianbi), who may however have been Tungus (modern Evenk) rather than Mongol, recorded in Han dynasty annals, and the Juan-juan (Rouran, or Geougen) of the 4th to 6th centuries. The latter have been identified by some scholars with the Avars, who migrated into Europe along the plains of the Danube and were nearly annihilated in Hungary by Charlemagne in the late 8th century.

According to a legend recorded by the Chinese, the Turks of Mongolia, whose name is recognizable under its Chinese transcription “Tujue,” were a subject tribe ruled by the Juan-juan. The Turks overthrew their masters and soon were in control of all Mongolia, centring their power in the Orhon valley in the northern part of the country. The Orhon (Orkhon) Turks were contemporaries of the Tang dynasty (618–907) in China, and their fortunes rose and fell in counterpoint to periods of Tang strength and weakness. Comparison of archaeological and historical data, moreover, shows that power in Mongolia was at this time not based simply on levies of nomad horsemen. The khans and great men had fixed headquarters, surrounded by cultivated land that enabled them to breed large, stable-fed horses capable of carrying a man in armour. This situation emphasized a class distinction between the aristocrat on his charger and the herdsman-warrior-archer on his smaller horse. Agriculture also became an element in the economy, and the Uighurs, who came to power after the fall of the Orhon Turks, enter history as an oasis-centred people.

Before the era of Genghis Khan, a defeated Khitan army had migrated westward at the fall of their Liao dynasty. It was led by a prince of the Khitan imperial line but must have included heterogeneous tribal elements. Moving westward through Mongolia, it reached what is now Kazakhstan and created a new and briefly powerful empire, the Karakitai. It ruled primarily over Turkic-speaking peoples, made up of nomads and city dwellers in the oases, and the Khitan nucleus had the opportunity to apply its knowledge of how to deal with nomads and its ability in the administration of a bureaucracy.

ARTICLE 3:

Answers wrote:


Turkic peoples

Any of various peoples who speak one of the Turkic languages. They are connected with the Tuque (T'u-chüeh), nomadic people who in the 6th century AD founded an empire stretching from Mongolia to the Black Sea (see Turkistan). In the 11th century the Seljuqs created an extensive empire after defeating the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert (1071), an event that opened Anatolia to settlement by Turkic-speaking peoples (and eventually led to the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in the 20th century). Though overrun by the Mongols in the 13th century, the Turks succeeded in absorbing them after Genghis Khan's death (1227). In the 14th century Timur, who was of mixed Mongolian and Turkic ancestry, held most of Central Asia and some of South Asia. In the 15th century Russian expansion drove the Turkic peoples eastward into what is now Kazakhstan. Today Turkic peoples live mostly in Turkey, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan.

I expected that you would come back with the usual crap you are used to but I would have thought you would take your time and eat your peanuts first in order not to choke on them.

You problem is that you can't prove anything what you claim and yhou make yourself look more of a silly stupid puppet then you already are.

Living in a country no matter how long does not prove that you own it, I thought I made it clear that you should give us proof, any proof that Cyprus was Hellenic/Greek but you instead spew up the same old shite that you always do.

Get yourself a new clean sock and come back when you have anything worthwhile to report otherwise, get back in the closet and stay there, even the aroma of the most vile smelling cheese is more welcome than your stink right now.

[Eric dayi]

And the idiots in this forum want to make us believe there are no Greeks in Cyprus and "we're all Cypriots".

TWO POLITICALLY EQUAL AND SOVEREIGN PEOPLES LIVE ON CYPRUS

The conflict in Cyprus has been ongoing for the past 52 years. Yet still there seems to be no sign of a settlement, and no hope for one as well. Cyprus became part of the Ottoman Empire in 1571 and more than 300 years later, it was leased to Britain by Turkey with the agreement that Cyprus was to be returned to Turkey when Britain no longer wanted it.
Britain ruled Cyprus as a protectorate until 1914, when Turkey sided with Germany in the Great War. Britain then annexed Cyprus and assumed sovereignty, ruling it as a colony until 1960 when it became an independent republic.

Although Cyprus has historically never been part of any Greek state, the population of Cyprus was changed dramatically by the British once Cyprus became a Crown Colony. The British began to allow Greeks to settle in Cyprus and communities were set up in Greece to encourage people to move to the island of Cyprus. Greek Cypriots became a majority on the island of Cyprus and remain so today.

Around mid 1950s Britain decided to hand sovereignty over to the inhabitants of the island. Her decision was to transfer sovereignty jointly to the Turkish and Greek Cypriot peoples, for the "creation of an independent, partnership state in Cyprus."

It was on this basis that the constitution of 1960 was negotiated and the Treaties of Guarantee, Alliance and Establishment were finalized. It was at this point that the Republic of Cyprus came into being as an independent partnership state.

The agreements that were made were based on equality and partnership between the two people in the independence and sovereignty of the island. The 1960 constitution required joint presence and effective participation on both sides in all organs of the state to be legitimate.

Neither community had the right to rule other the other, nor could one of the communities claim to govern the other. The aim of the basic articles of both the constitution and the subsequent treaties was to safeguard the rights of the two peoples as equals.
It was hoped that the two peoples of the island and their new partners would be able to live peacefully together under this new political partnership.

It soon became obvious that this was not going to be possible. It became clear that the Greek Cypriots and Greece did not intend to abide by the constitution. They did not give up their ambition for the annexation of the island to Greece, and the Greek Cypriot leadership sought to unlawfully bring around constitutional changes.

In effect, this would negate the "partnership" status of the Turkish Cypriots and clear the way for annexation with a Turkish minority.

The only way that the Greek Cypriots could achieve their aims was to destroy the legitimate order, by the use of force, and to overtake the joint-state. The rule of law collapsed on the island in 1963 as a result of a ruling by the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus.

The Turkish Cypriots took the Greek Cypriots to court because the Greek Cypriots refused to obey the mandatory provision of separate municipalities for the two communities. The court ruled against the Greek Cypriots, and as expected they ignored the courts' ruling.After this the Greeks tried to get eight basic articles of the 1960 Agreement abolished. These articles were there to protect the Turkish Cypriots, and so by removing them the Turkish Cypriots would be reduced to a minority subject to control by the Greek Cypriots.

Christmas 1963 saw Greek Cypriot militia attack Turkish Cypriot communities across the island killing many men, women and children. Around 270 mosques, shrines and other places of worship were desecrated. The constitution became unworkable, because of the refusal on the part of the Greek Cypriots to fulfill the obligations to which they had agreed.

The bi-national republic which was imagined by the Treaties ceased to exist after December 1963. The Greek Cypriot wing of the “partnership” State took over the title of the “Government of Cyprus” and the Turkish Cypriots, who had never accepted the seizure of power, set up a Turkish administration to run their own affairs.

In the end, the Greek Cypriot state was internationally recognized under the title of the “Government of Cyprus,” was brought into the EU, and the Turkish Cypriots were forced in 1985 to unilaterally declare their own administration under the name of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,” which still is not recognized.

The two main peoples on Cyprus, the Turks and the Greeks, share no common language besides English, no common religion and no common literature, nor do they, except on the surface, share any common culture, from the past until the present.

A “United Cyprus” is a utopian idea that has no hope of realization.

http://www.arcaajans.com/kose.asp?kose_id=2849

Nice to see the voice of sanity returning to the forum... Happy New Year, Eric.

Happy new year Dean, glad to see that you have not let the bullies of this forum chase you out of the forum.

They think they can do whatever they like and get away with it just because they believe the world owes them something. It's about time they woke up from their dreams and smell the reality of life and that their lying days are over and no one believes a word they say any more.

They are done for but do not realise it, all they have to do is to listen and understand what Tpapdope is telling them but hey, they can stay in their dream land for all I care, no skin of our noses.

[Eric dayi]

The rebel has left the building either to google like mad though I suspect not because that would mean long hours of concentration...OR....He has gone to think about another name change........Points for guessing which Afro based name he will pick this time

Well, they do say that the Greeks originated form Ethopia, maybe that's why he prefers Afro names

In the meantime....It gives me an opportunity to have a bath and a nap. I feel dirty after talking to him...........

Yeah, he has that effect on most people.

[alexISS]

Great summary of the history of Cyprus by Piratis, the criteria some Turks use in order to determine the "owner" of a land are ridiculous. So Cyprus is not "Cypriot" but Venetian, Turkish and English? Not very surprising, after all the Turkish state "turkified" the history of Anatolia by applying the same criteria

And I suppose the first Greek was born with a map up his arse telling the rest of the world where Greece was when dinosaurs walked on the world.....History....1960...Zurich agreement...Murderous Greeks decided they didn't like it and we have what we have today..... Perhaps you should have stuck to that instead of the Megali idea and confined that to history instead. You sure as hell didn't get what you wanted and confined us to history....

Calm down, zan. The greeks stole nobody's history and nobody's land. If you believe otherwise do tell who their victims are. Also, how come it's the Turks, not the Greeks that are internationally stereotyped as "murderous"? Is the whole world wrong and you're right? Or is this too the result of the "Greek propaganda"?

[Eric dayi]

Great summary of the history of Cyprus by Piratis, the criteria some Turks use in order to determine the "owner" of a land are ridiculous. So Cyprus is not "Cypriot" but Venetian, Turkish and English? Not very surprising, after all the Turkish state "turkified" the history of Anatolia by applying the same criteria

And I suppose the first Greek was born with a map up his arse telling the rest of the world where Greece was when dinosaurs walked on the world.....History....1960...Zurich agreement...Murderous Greeks decided they didn't like it and we have what we have today..... Perhaps you should have stuck to that instead of the Megali idea and confined that to history instead. You sure as hell didn't get what you wanted and confined us to history....

Calm down, zan. The greeks stole nobody's history and nobody's land. If you believe otherwise do tell who their victims are. Also, how come it's the Turks, not the Greeks that are internationally stereotyped as "murderous"? Is the whole world wrong and you're right? Or is this too the result of the "Greek propaganda"?

Alexander the Great was Greek.....MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


'nuf said.

[denizaksulu]

Eric, what makes you think that you can rewrite Cyprus history?

Cyprus has been a Hellenic island for 3500 years, about as long as any other Greek island and just a few centuries later than the Greek mainland. Cyprus was Hellenic long before the Greek Alphabet was discovered and before the Greek civilization became the great civilization everybody knows today. Cyprus was an integral part of Hellinism since then. One of 12 Gods of Olympus was Cypriot. Cypriots spoke the earliest known dialect of Greek, Mycenaean Greek, which later became the Arcadocypriot dialect of Greek.

Cyprus was Hellenic so long ago, that at that time the concept of a country did not exist. There was no such thing as a "Greek country" back then for Cyprus to belong to. What we had where Hellenic city kingdoms, and Cyprus had several of them. However Cyprus did belong for many centuries to the Hellenic Byzantine Empire and the people of this island, like the rest of the Hellenic world, became Greek Orthodox Christians and abandoned the Olympus Gods.

Later Cyprus passed under several foreign rulers and empires, but this didn't change the Hellenic character of the island. The last rulers before the Turks where the Venetian and the Lusignan.

Form the USA Library of congress:

During the long Lusignan period and the eighty-two years of Venetian control, foreign rulers unquestionably changed the Cypriot way of life, but it was the Cypriot peasant with his Greek religion and Greek culture who withstood all adversity. Throughout the period, almost three centuries, there were two distinct societies, one foreign and one native. The first society consisted primarily of Frankish nobles with their retinues and Italian merchants with their families and followers. The second society, the majority of the population, consisted of Greek Cypriot serfs and laborers. Each of these societies had its own culture, language, and religion. Although a decided effort was made to supplant native customs and beliefs, the effort failed.

Then the Turks invaded our island:

Throughout the period of Venetian rule, Ottoman Turks raided and attacked at will. In 1489, the first year of Venetian control, Turks attacked the Karpas Peninsula, pillaging and taking captives to be sold into slavery. In 1539 the Turkish fleet attacked and destroyed Limassol. Fearing the ever-expanding Ottoman Empire, the Venetians had fortified Famagusta, Nicosia, and Kyrenia, but most other cities were easy prey.

In the summer of 1570, the Turks struck again, but this time with a full-scale invasion rather than a raid. About 60,000 troops, including cavalry and artillery, under the command of Lala Mustafa Pasha landed unopposed near Limassol on July 2, 1570, and laid siege to Nicosia. In an orgy of victory on the day that the city fell--September 9, 1570--20,000 Nicosians were put to death, and every church, public building, and palace was looted.

The Turks oppressed the Cypriots and slaughtered them whenever they revolted or even on the suspicion that they would revolt. For example in 1821 when the Greek revolution against the Ottoman Turks started for the creation of an independent Greek state:

During the Greek War of Independence in 1821, the Ottoman authorities feared that Greek Cypriots would rebel again. Archbishop Kyprianos, a powerful leader who worked to improve the education of Greek Cypriot children, was accused of plotting against the government. Kyprianos, his bishops, and hundreds of priests and important laymen were arrested and summarily hanged or decapitated on July 9, 1821.

During their oppressive rule the Turks created a Muslim minority in Cyprus. The Muslims (later called TCs) where given more rights and had to pay less taxes, while the native Cypriots had almost no right and had to pay twice as much taxes. This is when the division between Cypriots and Muslim Turks was first created in Cyprus.

However, unlike was Eric claims, during this time most Turkish peasants in Cyprus spoke Greek, followed Greek traditions and many of them even followed Christian events. This happened because many of the Muslims where in fact native Greek Cypriots who had changed religion in order to be treated better and pay less taxes.

When the British took over the Cypriots hoped that the time of their liberation from foreign rule was approaching, and in fact many of them fought on the side of the British during WWII hoping that the British would grand their freedom after the war was over.

Unfortunately the British decided that Cyprus was too important for them, due to its location, to just pack up and go. When the Cypriots revolted against them demanding freedom and union with the rest Greece they decided to use the Turkish Cypriot minority of Cypurs against the rest of Cypriots in their usual divide and rule tactics. They fully exploited the TC fears and later greed in order to achieve their aim.

Here from some British documentary:

The British hire Turkish Cypriot policemen to fight against the Greek Cypriot liberation fighters:



Britain decides that the Turkish Cypriot minority can be used as an excused to deny to Cypriots their freedom and self determination, so they propose to Turkey to partition Cyprus.


First inter-communal conflict:


In 1959 the Cypriots where blackmailed and forced to accept a foreign made constitution for their own island. According to those agreements the UK would maintain two huge bases on our island. Those agreements divided the Cypriot people along ethnic lines, maintaining the divide and rule policy of the UK against Cyprus.

In that constitution, in order to keep the TC minority on their side and against Cypriots, the British granted to TCs super privilages on the expense of other Cypriots. For example the 18% of Turkish Cypriot minority was given 30% of all government positions and 40% of the police personnel.

These unfair discriminations obviously irritated the Cypriots who wanted something more just and fair. At the same time in both sides there were those that didn't like any kind of compromise. A minority of Greek Cypriots would not accept anything short of union with Greece, while a minority of Turkish Cypriots would accept nothing short of partition. (people like Eric Dayi, Zan and Viewpoint)

When the president of Cyprus proposed changes in the constitution that would make it more fair and with less racist discriminations the TC extremists guided by Turkey found the chance to restart the conflict of the late 50s. The Greek Cypriot extremists responded and this caused another conflict that lasted from 1963 until 1968.

Eric Dayi and his propaganda are trying to present that conflict as a one way attack of GCs against TCs, but the truth is that both sides where equally responsible and both sides had an about equal amount of casualties, a few 100s each.

In 1974 there was a coup in Cyprus. Our president was at the UN condemning the coup while Greek Cypriot resistance fighters where fighting against the coupists. Turkey seeing that Cyprus was totally undefended from external threats it decided that this was a good time to put into action their plan to occupy the north part of Cyprus. There excuse was that they supposedly invaded to "save the TCs" while in fact the inter-communal conflict was over since 1968 and in 1974 no TC was killed before the Turkish invasion had started.

Turkey absolutely illegally occupied the north part of our country and ethnically cleanse the great majority of Cypriots from it replacing them with Anatolian Turkish Settlers. The north part of Cyprus, like every other part, is the homeland of 5+ times more Greek Cypriots than Turkish Cypriots, with a Greek history that spans many 1000s years. Yet the Turks have the nerve call this land as being "Turkish", simply because they illegally occupy it by brute force and against UN resolutions.

Eric Dayi has every right not to feel Cypriot. He can be whatever he wants to be. What they have no right to do is to ethnically cleanse us from our own land and violate our human rights.

http://www.cypnet.com/.ncyprus/people/l ... ambaki.pdf


Piratis, if you could read pages 753 onwards, you will finds that you need to amend your information database. The bit relatinf to the 1571 invasion of Cyprus and the benefits the Orthodox church gained from the Turks. If you have already read it, why did you fail to mention anything from it.

Link provided by Rajput. The author is not Turkish by the way, so you can not call that Turkish Propaganda. To me it shows that the Ottoman Turks were not the barbarians you often paint them as. Enjoy.

[kafenes]

Link provided by Rajput. The author is not Turkish by the way, so you can not call that Turkish Propaganda. To me it shows that the Ottoman Turks were not the barbarians you often paint them as. Enjoy.

Deniz, what about these killings? Wouldn't you say it was barbaric?

[quote]In the summer of 1570, the Ottoman Empire struck again, but this time with a full-scale invasion. About 60,000 troops, including cavalry and artillery, under the command of Lala Mustafa Pasha landed unopposed near Limassol on 2 July 1570 and laid siege to Nicosia. On the day the city fell (9 September 1570), 20,000 Nicosians Greeks were put to death, and every church, public building, and palace was looted.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_%28 ... _Empire%29