Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

With such accusations, it sounds like we have nothing to lose by posting archives of impressions of Turks ...

Wrong! My thread is about the effect of Turkish foreign policy on other people/countries and not about the Turks themselves, which incidentally can never possibly be placed under a single label.

[bilako22]

With such accusations, it sounds like we have nothing to lose by posting archives of impressions of Turks ...

Wrong! My thread is about the effect of Turkish foreign policy on other people/countries and not about the Turks themselves, which incidentally can never possibly be placed under a single label.

bla , bla , bla

[Get Real!]

With such accusations, it sounds like we have nothing to lose by posting archives of impressions of Turks ...

Wrong! My thread is about the effect of Turkish foreign policy on other people/countries and not about the Turks themselves, which incidentally can never possibly be placed under a single label.

bla , bla , bla

The master debater strikes again...

[bilako22]

With such accusations, it sounds like we have nothing to lose by posting archives of impressions of Turks ...

Wrong! My thread is about the effect of Turkish foreign policy on other people/countries and not about the Turks themselves, which incidentally can never possibly be placed under a single label.

bla , bla , bla

The master debater strikes again...

Thank you .

[CopperLine]

Get Real
First, you ask that someone else prove a negative '.... another country has not resulted in ...' Forget it. You can assume what you like. Should I assume unless you prove otherwise, that you are not an idiot ? Or that you are not rational ? Or that you are not X Y Z ?

Second, the quotation you repeat from Clemenceau is exactly to re-conflate the distinction that I had made. Ottoman and Turk are NOT and were NOT synonymous. In using the term 'Turk' Clemenceau was NOT referring to the Republic of Turkey.

Since Clemenceau viewed France as the definition and measure of civilisation any and all empires would, on his account, be condemned as resulting in decline of material prosperity etc.

[Oracle]

With such accusations, it sounds like we have nothing to lose by posting archives of impressions of Turks ...

Wrong! My thread is about the effect of Turkish foreign policy on other people/countries and not about the Turks themselves, which incidentally can never possibly be placed under a single label.

Apologies, but the comment was towards Muzzy's and 74LB's posts, and in my defence, my first quote was in keeping with the thread.

Turkish foreign policy is an interesting theme, so I will avoid "straying" .....

.... but agree "Turks" are too diverse to unify under one banner!

[Piratis]

Second, the quotation you repeat from Clemenceau is exactly to re-conflate the distinction that I had made. Ottoman and Turk are NOT and were NOT synonymous. In using the term 'Turk' Clemenceau was NOT referring to the Republic of Turkey.

CopperLine, maybe you have some answer in the question I keep asking and I didn't get an answer so far.

In Cyprus the references about the Greeks, the Greek population and the Greek Cypriot leaders go back 1000s of years.

Do you know when it was the first reference about "Turkish Cypriots". It seems to me that during the Ottoman rule what we had were a Muslim minority, and almost all of them spoke Greek and some of them even had Greek as their first language.

When it was decided that these Muslims are the "Turkish Cypriot Community"?

[boomerang]

Ottoman and Turk are NOT and were NOT synonymous

So what would you call the tcs then?...Ottoman Cypriots?

[denizaksulu]

Ottoman and Turk are NOT and were NOT synonymous

So what would you call the tcs then?...Ottoman Cypriots?

Got it in one Boomers. Around the time of the First World war some GCs even applied to join the Ottoman armies in defence of 'their' Empire.

Just came accross that last night.

Even at Gallipoli Greeks were fighting for the Ottomans.

[Get Real!]

Get Real
First, you ask that someone else prove a negative '.... another country has not resulted in ...' Forget it. You can assume what you like. Should I assume unless you prove otherwise, that you are not an idiot ? Or that you are not rational ? Or that you are not X Y Z ?

Second, the quotation you repeat from Clemenceau is exactly to re-conflate the distinction that I had made. Ottoman and Turk are NOT and were NOT synonymous. In using the term 'Turk' Clemenceau was NOT referring to the Republic of Turkey.

Since Clemenceau viewed France as the definition and measure of civilisation any and all empires would, on his account, be condemned as resulting in decline of material prosperity etc.

Allowing common sense to prevail, we can safely assume that Clemenceau made this statement at some stage during his last six years of his life… that is between the year 1923 when the Ottoman remnants became “Turkey” under the Treaty of Lausanne, and his death in 1929.

We can also safely assume that having served as the French PM on two occasions, the now veteran politician Clemenceau would have no doubt played an important role along with others, in the Treaty of Lausanne so it’s understandable to make a further safe assumption that for a man like Clemenceau the words “Ottomans” and “Turkey” referred to the same people albeit under a new packaging.

Having said that, my question is…

Almost 80 years on after his death, are we able to DISCREDIT Georges Clemenceau’s statement?