Cyprus-Forum.com

[Murtaza]

The examples of Turkish architecture can be found all across the vast Ottoman Empire covering the time span of over 600 years.....

Great contribution so far. Seems you don't know the difference between building and excels of architecture.
Two examples to ring some bells to you: La Tour Eiffel, and Ayia Sophia at Constantinoupolis.

Or Taj Mahal?
Blue Mosque?
So It looks like you are the one dont know.

Alexandros Lordos

As you see, at least MicAtCyp dont know Turkish history.
And His coment is completly wrong.
And yes you have right for comment wrongly

[erolz]

The actions of Turkey in 74 were political acts in response to an ongoing poltical crisis that had existed since the formation of an independent Cypriot nation.

Similar poltical mass movements of people litter out common history as human beings

POLITICAL???? You still insist?

What was the seperation of India into India and Pakistan (which involved the movement of people in their millions)? A legal 'event' or a poltical one? Or Pakistan into Pakistan and Bangladesh? A legal matter or a poltical one? The splitting of Yugoslavia. Political or legal? Yes I still insist that the moevement of GC from the north of Cyprus by turkey was political.

What ARE YOU talking about man? Are you referring to the middle ages again? Or to what the EU Aquis, the UN charter

What I am talking about is what is themain legal basis of a state _today_. Not in the middle ages. Contrary to what you think or would like to think the main legal basis for a state is not it's ownership of the land that makes up the state, or recognition of it by other countries, but is in fact it's ability to control the area it claims to control. Sorry - I do not make these rules - they are made by whoever makes 'international law' (ie no one or the powerful). I just point out the reality to you.

If we could that would not be 'fine' for you.

It is fine for us because you couldn’t

More of this unique GC logic I see

Oh, there is much more in your reply.Sorry enough of time wasting...

As you wish

[Piratis]

Yes I still insist that the moevement of GC from the north of Cyprus by turkey was political.

You know if you insist on this will change nothing. The only thing will change will be what we will do with you when the balance of power will change, since I guess you will have no problem with all of you being moved to Turkey.

[Turks]

You know if you insist on this will change nothing. The only thing will change will be what we will do with you when the balance of power will change, since I guess you will have no problem with all of you being moved to Turkey

Dream on

[erolz]

Yes I still insist that the moevement of GC from the north of Cyprus by turkey was political.

You know if you insist on this will change nothing. The only thing will change will be what we will do with you when the balance of power will change, since I guess you will have no problem with all of you being moved to Turkey.

Personaly I am somewhat bemused that their is even any debate that what happened in 74 was 'political'? Certainly a political act can be deemed legal or illegal - within the limits of the reality of international law is it is an 'external' event. My argument is not that it had no legal or illegal aspects. My argument is that is was also political and denying that and the reality that a solution to it must also be polticial is to me extreme denial of reality.

Is what is happening in Iraq now political or legal? As far as I am concerned it is a poltical act that can be considered legal or illegal under interanational law (personaly I consider it illegal - but I realise the reality of 'intertnational law' and what it is worth).

[magikthrill]

.

Is what is happening in Iraq now political or legal? As far as I am concerned it is a poltical act that can be considered legal or illegal under interanational law (personaly I consider it illegal - but I realise the reality of 'intertnational law' and what it is worth).

so do you also consider the Turkish invasion of 74 illegal - but realize the reality of international law and what it it is worth as well erol?

[Alexandros Lordos]

And yes you have right for comment wrongly

Thank you for granting me freedom of speech. This is a great step forward for Turkish civilization.

You are right in your criticism of my analysis that "there is more to Turkish civilization than just the Ottomans". It is true that the Turkic tribes flourished in Central Asia, building cities and creating civilization of their own. You are also right in saying that "Anatolia was already settled when the Ottomans came, so if they wanted to live in Anatolia they had no choice but to invade it".

Which brings us to my two questions:

Firstly, if there is more to Turkish Civilization than just the Ottomans, then where would you place the Ottomans within this wider culture? I would say they were the renegades who thought that plundering and stealing was a more profitable lifestyle than building and creating. Something like an early version of the third reich. Of course as you say there is more to Turkish Civilization than just the Ottomans, so I hope I am not insulting you personally by denouncing the way of the Ottomans. After all, Ataturk himself denounced the Ottoman culture.

Secondly, if Anatolia was already settled, but there was much free space in Central Asia, why did the Ottomans not just let the people in Anatolia live in peace, themselves remaining in Central Asia? For an answer to this question, see the above paragraph.

[Murtaza]

And yes you have right for comment wrongly

Thank you for granting me freedom of speech. This is a great step forward for Turkish civilization.

You are right in your criticism of my analysis that "there is more to Turkish civilization than just the Ottomans". It is true that the Turkic tribes flourished in Central Asia, building cities and creating civilization of their own. You are also right in saying that "Anatolia was already settled when the Ottomans came, so if they wanted to live in Anatolia they had no choice but to invade it".

Which brings us to my two questions:

Firstly, if there is more to Turkish Civilization than just the Ottomans, then where would you place the Ottomans within this wider culture? I would say they were the renegades who thought that plundering and stealing was a more profitable lifestyle than building and creating. Something like an early version of the third reich. Of course as you say there is more to Turkish Civilization than just the Ottomans, so I hope I am not insulting you personally by denouncing the way of the Ottomans. After all, Ataturk himself denounced the Ottoman culture.

Secondly, if Anatolia was already settled, but there was much free space in Central Asia, why did the Ottomans not just let the people in Anatolia live in peace, themselves remaining in Central Asia? For an answer to this question, see the above paragraph.

So you think Turks come for just fun?
They fleed from China, Mongols and famine.
They come for their life.

And Ottomans also fleeing form Mongols.(Hmm Mongols= Turks?)
They helped Selcuks against a war to mongols.
And Selcuks give them their first place to live.
They didnt come for Plunder, They come for living in anatolia
And They settled in Anatolia.
So still have to learn something about Turks?

I think you have to remember crusaders who come for plunder and helped by Greeks?

and What peace?
Why greeks didnt let other people live in peace?
Why romans take that much place?
Why English didnt let people live in peace?
Why Troy destoreyed?
Why didnt Mongols let us live in peace?


Did you ever come Turkey? Did you ever see what ottoman build?
I think you dont ever have to come Turkey.
I dont know cyprus, But I am almost sure, Ottomans build something also there.

[suetoniuspaulinus]

They most certainly did

Some of it in keeping with the existing French ( Lusignian ) and Italian (Venetian) Architecture, and some of it in a wholly Ottoman style.

[erolz]

so do you also consider the Turkish invasion of 74 illegal - but realize the reality of international law and what it it is worth as well erol?

I have said in the past I pretty much subscibe to the 'general' view on this issue. The intervention of Turkey in 74 was legal under international law (treaty of guarantee) but their subsequent failure to reestablish the consitititional order of 1960 undermined and undermines this inital legality under the same 'international law' (treaty of gurantee)