Cyprus-Forum.com

[denizaksulu]

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?

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

All killing is barbaric Kafenes.
The points I am raising here is the support they gave to the Orthodox church, and the suggestion that they might even have helped the invaders.

The looting and the killings (giving no quarter) was the normal practice all over Europe at that time. Why would the Ottomans be different. Having given the Greeks their church, why slaughter? We do not know. What else we dont know from this writing is what came first, Granting them their church or the slaughter. My guess is the slaughter after the city refused to surrender. Had they surrendered they might ave been saved. It was barbaric, Kafenes, but those were the days.

Deniz, it clearly says 'after the siege'. Your guess is only your excuse for not wanting to admit. You know, it takes balls to say sorry and so far I haven't seen one word of apology on this forum by TCs.

How would you like me to say that the mass killings of some TC villages by EOKA were barbaric but those were the days. Had they left the villages they might have saved themselves. But as I have admitted long before, I am ashamed and sorry to what happened to these people.

So you want to 'visit our fathers sins' onto modern day TCs. I dont know, and you dont know why these people were killed. Th Greek population who were the prefered 'people' of Cyprus were released from serfdom and given their church and the control of their own people, and then the 'killings'. It doesnt make sense. I would be glad to be enlightened.
I am not making excuses for not saying sorry. I am talking of the 'times'. If I say sorry for what the Ottomans did, if it will make any difference, I will say sorry.
Its a cheap shot trying to equate these killings with the murderings of TC families you talk about. At least these are well documented and not reported by 'biased' media.

Have a Happy New Year Kafenes.

[Viewpoint]

Greeks which is also disputable whether they were or not, never owned the island they just lived here, its like you drove the car but never own it. You have always been a ruled people the only opportunity you got to rule yourselves was in 1960 and look at the result, obviously you are not capable.

[denizaksulu]

denizaksulu, the Ottomans used the Orthodox Church as their tax collectors. As long as the Archibishop was loyal to the Ottomans then great. If the Ottomans even suspected that the Archibishop would do something against their orders then they would simply execute him, as it happened with Archibishop Kyprianos on 9th July of 1821.

Apart from some massive slaughters I do not claim that the Turkish rule was worst than the rest. However it was just another foreign ruler who had Cyprus under its empire for the sole reason of exploiting the land and its people.

Here we go again. Do you ever sleep at night for te fear of the Turk? No. Tough. I remember not sleeping at night also in 1963, watching thousands of heavily armed GCs of all description, moving from the southern suburbs along the river, past the old 'golf course', towards Kermia, not knowing whether they would cross the 'golf course ' bridge and turn into the Turkish sector of Kosklu Chiftlik, behing the Ledra Palace Hotel. We escapd the slaughter, but for the handful of TC defenders who gave their lives for us. This is modern history, very well documented. Others were not so lucky.

[denizaksulu]

denizaksulu, the Ottomans used the Orthodox Church as their tax collectors. As long as the Archibishop was loyal to the Ottomans then great. If the Ottomans even suspected that the Archibishop would do something against their orders then they would simply execute him, as it happened with Archibishop Kyprianos on 9th July of 1821.

Apart from some massive slaughters I do not claim that the Turkish rule was worst than the rest. However it was just another foreign ruler who had Cyprus under its empire for the sole reason of exploiting the land and its people.

Piratis, add this to your collection;

"The former foreign elite was destroyed--its members killed, carried away as captives, or exiled. The Orthodox Christians, i.e., the Greek Cypriots who survived, had new foreign overlords. Some early decisions of these new rulers were welcome innovations. The feudal system was abolished, and the freed serfs were enabled to acquire land and work their own farms. Although the small landholdings of the peasants were heavily taxed, the ending of serfdom changed the lives of the island's ordinary people. Another action of far-reaching importance was the granting of land to Turkish soldiers and peasants who became the nucleus of the island's Turkish community.

Although their homeland had been dominated by foreigners for many centuries, it was only after the imposition of Ottoman rule that Orthodox Christians began to develop a really strong sense of cohesiveness. This change was prompted by the Ottoman practice of ruling the empire through millets, or religious communities. Rather than suppressing the empire's many religious communities, the Turks allowed them a degree of automony as long as they complied with the demands of the sultan. The vast size and the ethnic variety of the empire made such a policy imperative. The system of governing through millets reestablished the authority of the Church of Cyprus and made its head the Greek Cypriot leader, or ethnarch. It became the responsibility of the ethnarch to administer the territories where his flock lived and to collect taxes. The religious convictions and functions of the ethnarch were of no concern to the empire as long as its needs were met.

In 1575 the Turks granted permission for the return of the archbishop and the three bishops of the Church of Cyprus to their respective sees. They also abolished the feudal system for they saw it as an extraneous power structure, unnecessary and dangerous. The autocephalous Church of Cyprus could function in its place for the political and fiscal administration of the island's Christian inhabitants. Its structured hierarchy put even remote villages within easy reach of the central authority. Both parties benefited. Greek Cypriots gained a measure of autonomy, and the empire received revenues without the bother of administration.

Ottoman rule of Cyprus was at times indifferent, at times oppressive, depending on the temperaments of the sultans and local officials. The island fell into economic decline both because of the empire's commercial ineptitude and because the Atlantic Ocean had displaced the Mediterranean Sea as the most important avenue of commerce. Natural disasters such as earthquakes, infestations of locusts, and famines also caused economic hardship and contributed to the general condition of decay and decline"

[Nikitas]

According to Viewpoint:

"Greeks which is also disputable whether they were or not, never owned the island they just lived here, its like you drove the car but never own it. You have always been a ruled people the only opportunity you got to rule yourselves was in 1960 and look at the result, obviously you are not capable."

Greeks of the mainland never owned Greece, and Turks never owned Turkey either before their declaration of independence and the establishment of their respective states. By the same token it can be said that the Nazis owned France or Holland during world war II. The same goes for almost every modern state in the world, including some of the very big ones like the USA. I would like to see you stand in front of an American and tell him that he is not American and that he never owned America.

There is no such thing as ownership in states. There is the acquisition by long term occupancy and there is no dispute that the people who call themselves Greek Cypriots have a very long occupancy of Cyprus. As the practices of the invading Ottomans proved way back in 1571 when they appointed the GREEK ORTHODOX church as the head of the local indigenous population. If there were no Greeks then you tell us Viewpoint why the Ottomans appointed the Greek Orthodox priests as heads of the local populace.

[Nikitas]

"Although their homeland had been dominated by foreigners for many centuries, it was only after the imposition of Ottoman rule that Orthodox Christians began to develop a really strong sense of cohesiveness. "

Deniz, I do not know who wrote the above, but whoever it was they are forgetting the Byzantine Empire which lasted one thousand years and was effectively a Greek Empire. It was during this time that the church of Cyprus was declared Autocephalus, that is independent and acted as the main force of cohesion for the local population. Just look around Cyprus and the dates when churches were built. That should act as a pointer, it takes a lot of cohesion for communities to band together to build a church in the 4th century and later.

Analysing Greek and Cypriot history without reference to the Byzantine Empire is a non starter for anyone who wants to gain understanding of these two places and their people.

[zan]

Eric,

Can you answer this: Do you think that the number of Turkish military personel in the North of Cyprus is beneficial, or detrimental to the problem? 40,000 really seems like an excessively high number, given the proximity of Turkey to Cyprus, and the relatively low number of Greek and Greek Cypriot forces south of the Green Line...

If you don't mind I would like to answer this utu.

Since the s300 missile crisis and what happened in 63/64 and all the times that Turkey threatened to land on cyprus to save our necks, she needed permission from someone or another. The reason the GCs are so keen on getting the army off the island, accepting he propaganda reasons, is that it would be impossible to land soldiers on an EU country again. It's proximity to Cyprus has no bearing in this situation. It would if it were all out war but then it would be all out war with the EU as well. The legal tricks being used to settle this affair is what TPap knows....The political side leaves him wanting I am afraid. The foothold by Turkey can only be broken with negotiations and a political will to do so. That is why Turkey needs and we need a guarantor power status from Turkey. That is exactly why the GCs don't want us to have it. Without it Turkey is fully out of the picture. I believe hat is why the EU let Cyprus in in the first place and are not trying too hard to get Turkey out. They have passed he relevant resolutions because they had to but knew they could do nothing in the TRNC/KKTC. It stops Turkey attacking anyone and it stops the "RoC" attacking us with 40,000 soldiers there. A bit of a happy stale mate manufactured by the EU.

[CopperLine]

Hallelujah, thank god for Nikitas.

Greeks of the mainland never owned Greece, and Turks never owned Turkey either before their declaration of independence and the establishment of their respective states. By the same token it can be said that the Nazis owned France or Holland during world war II. The same goes for almost every modern state in the world, including some of the very big ones like the USA. I would like to see you stand in front of an American and tell him that he is not American and that he never owned America.

However, being pedantic, I'd modify his

There is no such thing as ownership in states.

to 'Nationality does not entail ownership.' So, just because one may be a Cypriot national does not give one a greater legal claim over Cypriot land/property. What gives greater legal claim is that you may be the property owner and not that you are a national.

I would like to see you stand in front of an American and tell him that he is not American and that he never owned America.

I'd like to see that too, but it would be correct for you to say the second part. S/he might have legal title and be owner of a patch of land that was in the USA, all the while as a US citizen/national, but it would be a complete fiction if they thought that they 'owned' America.[/quote]

[Stout]

Since the s300 missile crisis and what happened in 63/64 and all the times that Turkey threatened to land on cyprus to save our necks, she needed permission from someone or another. The reason the GCs are so keen on getting the army off the island, accepting he propaganda reasons, is that it would be impossible to land soldiers on an EU country again. It's proximity to Cyprus has no bearing in this situation. It would if it were all out war but then it would be all out war with the EU as well. The legal tricks being used to settle this affair is what TPap knows....The political side leaves him wanting I am afraid. The foothold by Turkey can only be broken with negotiations and a political will to do so. That is why Turkey needs and we need a guarantor power status from Turkey. That is exactly why the GCs don't want us to have it. Without it Turkey is fully out of the picture. I believe hat is why the EU let Cyprus in in the first place and are not trying too hard to get Turkey out. They have passed he relevant resolutions because they had to but knew they could do nothing in the TRNC/KKTC. It stops Turkey attacking anyone and it stops the "RoC" attacking us with 40,000 soldiers there. A bit of a happy stale mate manufactured by the EU.

Although I would personally like to see the troops withdrawn from from Cyprus and the people able to co-exist in peace and brotherhood, I feel that such a situation would not suit the politicians of those nations which have vested interests in the island.
On that basis, I think the above observation is a very accurate assessment of the truth of the matter, we should cease arguing about it for we can achieve nothing.
Recent world history has proven that the opinions of the masses are of little consequence once the politicians have laid the foundations of their future plans.

[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?

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

All killing is barbaric Kafenes.
The points I am raising here is the support they gave to the Orthodox church, and the suggestion that they might even have helped the invaders.

The looting and the killings (giving no quarter) was the normal practice all over Europe at that time. Why would the Ottomans be different. Having given the Greeks their church, why slaughter? We do not know. What else we dont know from this writing is what came first, Granting them their church or the slaughter. My guess is the slaughter after the city refused to surrender. Had they surrendered they might ave been saved. It was barbaric, Kafenes, but those were the days.

Deniz, it clearly says 'after the siege'. Your guess is only your excuse for not wanting to admit. You know, it takes balls to say sorry and so far I haven't seen one word of apology on this forum by TCs.

How would you like me to say that the mass killings of some TC villages by EOKA were barbaric but those were the days. Had they left the villages they might have saved themselves. But as I have admitted long before, I am ashamed and sorry to what happened to these people.

So you want to 'visit our fathers sins' onto modern day TCs. I dont know, and you dont know why these people were killed. Th Greek population who were the prefered 'people' of Cyprus were released from serfdom and given their church and the control of their own people, and then the 'killings'. It doesnt make sense. I would be glad to be enlightened.
I am not making excuses for not saying sorry. I am talking of the 'times'. If I say sorry for what the Ottomans did, if it will make any difference, I will say sorry.
Its a cheap shot trying to equate these killings with the murderings of TC families you talk about. At least these are well documented and not reported by 'biased' media.

Have a Happy New Year Kafenes.

You are right, it was a cheap shot, I'm sorry. But saying sorry about what the Ottomans did is realising old mistakes and that is how we will fix them. In the case of the Turks, they never admit of any past wrong doings and they continue with their 'mistakes' which brands them 'barbarians' and very rightfully too.

Happy New Year to you as well Deniz.