Cyprus-Forum.com

[bilako22]

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"?

IN the Dillirga area there such TCs who fit your description . My grandparents and their parents , who were all Moslem , used Greek as their one and only language. I would say that once the British took Cyprus and the Hellanic dream of Enosis started to become a strong movement these Moslems looked into themselves and realised that they were Turks.

[CanDiaz]

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?

Obviously yes.

With all your naming dates, you conveniently skipped around the fact that France was at war with the Ottoman's, during the period of his Premiership, so of course he would have bad things to say about them.
In WW2 the British spread the rumour that Hitler had Syphilis, but now we know that was just propaganda & that he really had crabs.

[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?

Obviously yes.

With all your naming dates, you conveniently skipped around the fact that France was at war with the Ottoman's, during the period of his Premiership, so of course he would have bad things to say about them.
In WW2 the British spread the rumour that Hitler had Syphilis, but now we know that was just propaganda & that he really had crabs.

This must be one of the most childish attempts at "defending" Turkey I've ever seen...

So, for you would the following statement hold true? (note modified version)

“There is no instance in Europe, Asia or Africa, where the establishment of Turkish domination over another country has not resulted in a INCREASE of material prosperity and an IMPROVEMENT in civilization. Wherever Turkey has emerged victorious it has brought SUCCESS."

[CanDiaz]

what would hold true to me is that, people are just people, it doesnt matter where you go or how you label them, like it or not they are NO DIFFERENT than you, until you learn that, your just wasting pixels.

But obviously the only things that hold true to you are, the ones that keep divisions alive & notions of superiority, that keep people blinkered to the extent that they cant even see common sense.Common sense as in above, where you see defending Turkey, i see the VERY OBVIOUS fact that it was during ww1 & they were enemy's.Dont mistake me with yourself, i dont have no agenda here, where as you OBVIOUSLY do.

Good Luck with that.

[Oracle]

what would hold true to me is that, people are just people, it doesnt matter where you go or how you label them, like it or not they are NO DIFFERENT than you, until you learn that, your just wasting pixels.

But obviously the only things that hold true to you are, the ones that keep divisions alive & notions of superiority, that keep people blinkered to the extent that they cant even see common sense.Common sense as in above, where you see defending Turkey, i see the VERY OBVIOUS fact that it was during ww1 & they were enemy's.Dont mistake me with yourself, i dont have no agenda here, where as you OBVIOUSLY do.

Good Luck with that.

You are not just agenda-less you are also clue-less and are in no fit state to opine.

Allow your left-hemisphere to communicate with your right-hemisphere and steer yourself away ....

[Get Real!]

what would hold true to me is that, people are just people, it doesnt matter where you go or how you label them, like it or not they are NO DIFFERENT than you, until you learn that, your just wasting pixels.

But obviously the only things that hold true to you are, the ones that keep divisions alive & notions of superiority, that keep people blinkered to the extent that they cant even see common sense.Common sense as in above, where you see defending Turkey, i see the VERY OBVIOUS fact that it was during ww1 & they were enemy's.Dont mistake me with yourself, i dont have no agenda here, where as you OBVIOUSLY do.

Good Luck with that.

Your sentiments are sweet, but I'll remind that this is a political forum where people present cases, hopefully backed by credible sources, in the name of debate.

[CanDiaz]

Oh yeah, criticising me is going to change the facts of the 1st World war.

But at least you got the steering myself away, part right. I learned a long time ago that you cant reason with idiot's. You can only reply with an insult, instead of debate.So its good bye to you & your alter ego.

Your sentiments are sweet, but I'll remind that this is a political forum where people present cases, hopefully backed by credible sources, in the name of debate.

Just after he said this:

This must be one of the most childish attempts at "defending" Turkey I've ever seen...

Now this thread makes sense.

[Get Real!]

Oh yeah, criticising me is going to change the facts of the 1st World war.

But at least you got the steering myself away, part right. I learned a long time ago that you cant reason with idiot's. You can only reply with an insult, instead of debate.So its good bye to you & your alter ego.

Your sentiments are sweet, but I'll remind that this is a political forum where people present cases, hopefully backed by credible sources, in the name of debate.

Just after he said this:

This must be one of the most childish attempts at "defending" Turkey I've ever seen...

Now this thread makes sense.

And you point here being...

[CopperLine]

First, Get Real, I do not think it is safe to assume that Clemenceau's words are from his last years. They could as easily be from pre-1923. In any case the broader point holds that the custom of referring to any Muslim as Turk was common. The formal reference to the Ottoman Empire was, of course, the Sublime Porte.

Second, the administration, rule, military operation, economic development of the Ottoman empire was a multi-religious and multi-national empire. It was not a Turkish i.e, ethnically or linguistically Turkish. It would be no more accurate to describe the Ottoman empire as Turkish than it would be to describe the British empire as German or Hanoverian (on grounds of the 'ethnicity' of the British royal family).

Third, Piratis I don't know when the terms Turkish Cypriot or Greek Cypriot were introduced. I suspect that it was post-1915 or possibly post 1922-23, but I doubt that they were terms used before then. Something though to investigate. I'd be intrigued to find out when the descriptor 'Cypriot' was introduced, with or without linguistic or ethnic prefix. Again I suspect not until the twentieth century; well see.

[CopperLine]

And before I forget, Clemenceau did not play a significant role at Lausanne; indeed I do not think he played any formal role at Lausanne nor in the associated negotiations.

" ... Clemenceau would have no doubt played an important role ..." I don't think this is a matter for assumption or speculation. It is a matter of verifiable fact. Let's look at the historical record, not guess, and then make unsafe assumptions followed by further questionable assertions. Let's just check the record.