Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

When the Barbarian Mongoloid Turks came to Cyprus they killed 20.000 Cypriots. Is that before you counted those 60.000 or after?

I thought Ottomans warred against Venetians not with poor Orthodox serfs that Ottomans have already had sympathy towards because of inter-marriage affairs.

There is no evidence for your fantasies. The Ottoman _ Turks brought over their harems of women ....

lawl

[insan]

We are the Cypriots, you are the foreigners. We don't want you in our island. Now you trying to tell us that we wanted you to come and kill and oppress us and all that bullshit Whatever. We don't want you. This is our island not yours. So fuck off.

You never had a choice Sotos.

That's the problem you have when you never actually rule a place, you don't get a choice to say, the big boys do.

Its too late for this now, we are Cypriots and here to stay, deal with it.

You are not Cypriot whilst you occupy territory that belongs to the RoC, yet deny its existence and government, and instead allow it to be ruled by foreign invaders and colonisers.

What r the criterions of being a Cypriot? Being born in Cyprus? being lived here for 30? 100? 1000? 20.000 years? Being a Greek? or Orthodox? Could u list me the criterions of what makes someone a Cypriot?

True, we r living in a territory of RoC; not a territory of the so-called Greek Republic of Cyprus as u named it "RoC". GCs with help of Greece colonized 61% of territory of Cyprus and made it a Greek Republic of Cyprus. What's wrong with when we did the same on 35% of the territory of Cyprus?

[shahmaran]

We are the Cypriots, you are the foreigners. We don't want you in our island. Now you trying to tell us that we wanted you to come and kill and oppress us and all that bullshit Whatever. We don't want you. This is our island not yours. So fuck off.

You never had a choice Sotos.

That's the problem you have when you never actually rule a place, you don't get a choice to say, the big boys do.

Its too late for this now, we are Cypriots and here to stay, deal with it.

You are not Cypriot whilst you occupy territory that belongs to the RoC, yet deny its existence and government, and instead allow it to be ruled by foreign invaders and colonisers.

You occupy our land down there too, so going by your wonky logic that means you are not Cypriots either?

No one denies their existence, you are free to come and claim it, you can come live here too no one will deny you.

The land problem is just a bi-product of the situation which you choose to ignore.

The goal wasn't your stinking church and homes, you talk as if all we ever wanted was to live in some GC house

It was our right to live here as Cypriots which you denied from us and it cost you your lands and homes and pushed us closer to Turkey.

YOU fucked up!

Yet here you are STILL claiming that we don't have any rights here, some people never learn

[shahmaran]

I don't think they are thought wrong insan, I think they just choose to ignore certain facts of history for their convenience.

Surely the great civilised European Greeks would not teach wrong history on purpose would they?

shahmaran, they have nothing to ignore because their ancestors skipped all the essential facts and invented totally artificial history text-books for the new generations. A kind of false nation building process, i guess.

144 Turks also intermarried with Greeks and Georgians. Greek sources style the offspring of such unions mixovarvaroi. "Though this phenomenon of intermarriage and the appearance of a new generation of mixovarvaroi is only briefly mentioned by the sources, one must assume that it was no rare or isolated occurrence. These mixovarvaroi suffered occasionally from a dichotomy of political sympathy and allegiance, but in the long run their appearance in Anatolia resulted in a process that favored the growth of the Muslim population at the expense of the Christian population, because Muslim society dominated politically and militarily. It is interesting, but unprofitable, to speculate about what would have happened to the Anatolian mixovarvaroi under different political circumstances" (DMH p. 176). Vryonis continues elsewhere: "There is every reason to suppose that intermarriage took place rather extensively from the very beginning of the Turkish occupation of Anatolia and for several centuries thereafter. Anna Comnena speaks of the offspring of such unions as mixovarvaroi, and the twelfth-century Balsamon refers to their curious practises. When the Greek historian Nicephorus Gregoras passed through Bithynia en route to Nicaea in the middle of the fourteenth century, just one generation after the conquest of Nicaea, he observed that the population consisted of Greeks, mixovarvaroi (Graeco-Turks), and Turks. Thus intermarriage of Muslim and Christians at every level of society played a very important role in the integration and absorption of the Greek Christian element into Muslim society" (DMH pp. 228-29). The Turkish-language equivalent of mixovarvaroi may have been ikdish, signifying a gelding or cross-bred animal, particularly a mule. See PT pp. 192-93.

http://rbedrosian.com/Dft139t161.htm

What a shame that they do need such process...

But most people here are old enough to be grandfathers, shouldn't they know better?

[insan]

I don't think they are thought wrong insan, I think they just choose to ignore certain facts of history for their convenience.

Surely the great civilised European Greeks would not teach wrong history on purpose would they?

shahmaran, they have nothing to ignore because their ancestors skipped all the essential facts and invented totally artificial history text-books for the new generations. A kind of false nation building process, i guess.

144 Turks also intermarried with Greeks and Georgians. Greek sources style the offspring of such unions mixovarvaroi. "Though this phenomenon of intermarriage and the appearance of a new generation of mixovarvaroi is only briefly mentioned by the sources, one must assume that it was no rare or isolated occurrence. These mixovarvaroi suffered occasionally from a dichotomy of political sympathy and allegiance, but in the long run their appearance in Anatolia resulted in a process that favored the growth of the Muslim population at the expense of the Christian population, because Muslim society dominated politically and militarily. It is interesting, but unprofitable, to speculate about what would have happened to the Anatolian mixovarvaroi under different political circumstances" (DMH p. 176). Vryonis continues elsewhere: "There is every reason to suppose that intermarriage took place rather extensively from the very beginning of the Turkish occupation of Anatolia and for several centuries thereafter. Anna Comnena speaks of the offspring of such unions as mixovarvaroi, and the twelfth-century Balsamon refers to their curious practises. When the Greek historian Nicephorus Gregoras passed through Bithynia en route to Nicaea in the middle of the fourteenth century, just one generation after the conquest of Nicaea, he observed that the population consisted of Greeks, mixovarvaroi (Graeco-Turks), and Turks. Thus intermarriage of Muslim and Christians at every level of society played a very important role in the integration and absorption of the Greek Christian element into Muslim society" (DMH pp. 228-29). The Turkish-language equivalent of mixovarvaroi may have been ikdish, signifying a gelding or cross-bred animal, particularly a mule. See PT pp. 192-93.

http://rbedrosian.com/Dft139t161.htm

What a shame that they do need such process...

But most people here are old enough to be grandfathers, shouldn't they know better?

That's why only Bananiot knows the truths. Others r mostly youngsters I guess; except Oracle. Zan told me that she is a paid propagandist, Greek American imported to Cyprus for this special mission.

[shahmaran]

I don't think they are thought wrong insan, I think they just choose to ignore certain facts of history for their convenience.

Surely the great civilised European Greeks would not teach wrong history on purpose would they?

shahmaran, they have nothing to ignore because their ancestors skipped all the essential facts and invented totally artificial history text-books for the new generations. A kind of false nation building process, i guess.

144 Turks also intermarried with Greeks and Georgians. Greek sources style the offspring of such unions mixovarvaroi. "Though this phenomenon of intermarriage and the appearance of a new generation of mixovarvaroi is only briefly mentioned by the sources, one must assume that it was no rare or isolated occurrence. These mixovarvaroi suffered occasionally from a dichotomy of political sympathy and allegiance, but in the long run their appearance in Anatolia resulted in a process that favored the growth of the Muslim population at the expense of the Christian population, because Muslim society dominated politically and militarily. It is interesting, but unprofitable, to speculate about what would have happened to the Anatolian mixovarvaroi under different political circumstances" (DMH p. 176). Vryonis continues elsewhere: "There is every reason to suppose that intermarriage took place rather extensively from the very beginning of the Turkish occupation of Anatolia and for several centuries thereafter. Anna Comnena speaks of the offspring of such unions as mixovarvaroi, and the twelfth-century Balsamon refers to their curious practises. When the Greek historian Nicephorus Gregoras passed through Bithynia en route to Nicaea in the middle of the fourteenth century, just one generation after the conquest of Nicaea, he observed that the population consisted of Greeks, mixovarvaroi (Graeco-Turks), and Turks. Thus intermarriage of Muslim and Christians at every level of society played a very important role in the integration and absorption of the Greek Christian element into Muslim society" (DMH pp. 228-29). The Turkish-language equivalent of mixovarvaroi may have been ikdish, signifying a gelding or cross-bred animal, particularly a mule. See PT pp. 192-93.

http://rbedrosian.com/Dft139t161.htm

What a shame that they do need such process...

But most people here are old enough to be grandfathers, shouldn't they know better?

That's why only Bananiot knows the truths. Others r mostly youngsters I guess; except Oracle. Zan told me that she is a paid propagandist, Greek American imported to Cyprus for this special mission.

Miltiades and Piratis are old, not sure how old but old enough to keep repeating themselves

Kikapu and Birkıbrıslı are elderly too, Sotos is just a fool.

Not sure about the rest

[Piratis]

I don't think they are thought wrong insan, I think they just choose to ignore certain facts of history for their convenience.

Surely the great civilised European Greeks would not teach wrong history on purpose would they?

shahmaran, they have nothing to ignore because their ancestors skipped all the essential facts and invented totally artificial history text-books for the new generations. A kind of false nation building process, i guess.

144 Turks also intermarried with Greeks and Georgians. Greek sources style the offspring of such unions mixovarvaroi. "Though this phenomenon of intermarriage and the appearance of a new generation of mixovarvaroi is only briefly mentioned by the sources, one must assume that it was no rare or isolated occurrence. These mixovarvaroi suffered occasionally from a dichotomy of political sympathy and allegiance, but in the long run their appearance in Anatolia resulted in a process that favored the growth of the Muslim population at the expense of the Christian population, because Muslim society dominated politically and militarily. It is interesting, but unprofitable, to speculate about what would have happened to the Anatolian mixovarvaroi under different political circumstances" (DMH p. 176). Vryonis continues elsewhere: "There is every reason to suppose that intermarriage took place rather extensively from the very beginning of the Turkish occupation of Anatolia and for several centuries thereafter. Anna Comnena speaks of the offspring of such unions as mixovarvaroi, and the twelfth-century Balsamon refers to their curious practises. When the Greek historian Nicephorus Gregoras passed through Bithynia en route to Nicaea in the middle of the fourteenth century, just one generation after the conquest of Nicaea, he observed that the population consisted of Greeks, mixovarvaroi (Graeco-Turks), and Turks. Thus intermarriage of Muslim and Christians at every level of society played a very important role in the integration and absorption of the Greek Christian element into Muslim society" (DMH pp. 228-29). The Turkish-language equivalent of mixovarvaroi may have been ikdish, signifying a gelding or cross-bred animal, particularly a mule. See PT pp. 192-93.

http://rbedrosian.com/Dft139t161.htm

What a shame that they do need such process...

But most people here are old enough to be grandfathers, shouldn't they know better?

The quote of insan refers to Asia Minor, not to Cyprus. You really didn't tell us anything new. The so called Turks have really very little to do with the original Turks. Why they call themselves Turks only themselves know.

Here is how real Turks look like:



How many of you look like that?

[Piratis]

Miltiades and Piratis are old, not sure how old but old enough to keep repeating themselves

The facts can not change neither the principles. So if we are discussing the same events or the same issues, the facts and the principles will always be the same.

[Oracle]

I don't think they are thought wrong insan, I think they just choose to ignore certain facts of history for their convenience.

Surely the great civilised European Greeks would not teach wrong history on purpose would they?

shahmaran, they have nothing to ignore because their ancestors skipped all the essential facts and invented totally artificial history text-books for the new generations. A kind of false nation building process, i guess.

144 Turks also intermarried with Greeks and Georgians. Greek sources style the offspring of such unions mixovarvaroi. "Though this phenomenon of intermarriage and the appearance of a new generation of mixovarvaroi is only briefly mentioned by the sources, one must assume that it was no rare or isolated occurrence. These mixovarvaroi suffered occasionally from a dichotomy of political sympathy and allegiance, but in the long run their appearance in Anatolia resulted in a process that favored the growth of the Muslim population at the expense of the Christian population, because Muslim society dominated politically and militarily. It is interesting, but unprofitable, to speculate about what would have happened to the Anatolian mixovarvaroi under different political circumstances" (DMH p. 176). Vryonis continues elsewhere: "There is every reason to suppose that intermarriage took place rather extensively from the very beginning of the Turkish occupation of Anatolia and for several centuries thereafter. Anna Comnena speaks of the offspring of such unions as mixovarvaroi, and the twelfth-century Balsamon refers to their curious practises. When the Greek historian Nicephorus Gregoras passed through Bithynia en route to Nicaea in the middle of the fourteenth century, just one generation after the conquest of Nicaea, he observed that the population consisted of Greeks, mixovarvaroi (Graeco-Turks), and Turks. Thus intermarriage of Muslim and Christians at every level of society played a very important role in the integration and absorption of the Greek Christian element into Muslim society" (DMH pp. 228-29). The Turkish-language equivalent of mixovarvaroi may have been ikdish, signifying a gelding or cross-bred animal, particularly a mule. See PT pp. 192-93.

http://rbedrosian.com/Dft139t161.htm

What a shame that they do need such process...

But most people here are old enough to be grandfathers, shouldn't they know better?

That's why only Bananiot knows the truths. Others r mostly youngsters I guess; except Oracle. Zan told me that she is a paid propagandist, Greek American imported to Cyprus for this special mission.

How is Zan coping in the mental institute these days?

Wish him well and a speedy recovery from me, when you go in for your next session insane!

[shahmaran]

I don't think they are thought wrong insan, I think they just choose to ignore certain facts of history for their convenience.

Surely the great civilised European Greeks would not teach wrong history on purpose would they?

shahmaran, they have nothing to ignore because their ancestors skipped all the essential facts and invented totally artificial history text-books for the new generations. A kind of false nation building process, i guess.

144 Turks also intermarried with Greeks and Georgians. Greek sources style the offspring of such unions mixovarvaroi. "Though this phenomenon of intermarriage and the appearance of a new generation of mixovarvaroi is only briefly mentioned by the sources, one must assume that it was no rare or isolated occurrence. These mixovarvaroi suffered occasionally from a dichotomy of political sympathy and allegiance, but in the long run their appearance in Anatolia resulted in a process that favored the growth of the Muslim population at the expense of the Christian population, because Muslim society dominated politically and militarily. It is interesting, but unprofitable, to speculate about what would have happened to the Anatolian mixovarvaroi under different political circumstances" (DMH p. 176). Vryonis continues elsewhere: "There is every reason to suppose that intermarriage took place rather extensively from the very beginning of the Turkish occupation of Anatolia and for several centuries thereafter. Anna Comnena speaks of the offspring of such unions as mixovarvaroi, and the twelfth-century Balsamon refers to their curious practises. When the Greek historian Nicephorus Gregoras passed through Bithynia en route to Nicaea in the middle of the fourteenth century, just one generation after the conquest of Nicaea, he observed that the population consisted of Greeks, mixovarvaroi (Graeco-Turks), and Turks. Thus intermarriage of Muslim and Christians at every level of society played a very important role in the integration and absorption of the Greek Christian element into Muslim society" (DMH pp. 228-29). The Turkish-language equivalent of mixovarvaroi may have been ikdish, signifying a gelding or cross-bred animal, particularly a mule. See PT pp. 192-93.

http://rbedrosian.com/Dft139t161.htm

What a shame that they do need such process...

But most people here are old enough to be grandfathers, shouldn't they know better?

The quote of insan refers to Asia Minor, not to Cyprus. You really didn't tell us anything new. The so called Turks have really very little to do with the original Turks. Why they call themselves Turks only themselves know.

Here is how real Turks look like:



How many of you look like that?

You obviously have no idea and have totally lost the plot on your rampage to find a substantial ad hominem argument to support your repetitive and equally false claims about history and our past.

If you knew ANYTHING about the Turks you would know that the Turkic people are spread out to a VERY wide area (much larger than the Hellen's ever were) and come in all sorts of shapes, colors and sizes so there is no such thing as the "real Turk". That's the most idiotic thing you have said for quite some time.

Briefly, this is how it goes.

The girls in the photo are probably Turkmen's or Kazakh's since they are more likely to have Asian featured eyes.

We on the other hand, are of Seljuk origin who dominated Anatolia as the Seljuk Empire, mixing greatly with everyone who came by.

You should also know that as opposed to the popular Greek misconception that we are Mongolians (!!), at some point in history the Greeks and the Seljuk's did fight together against the Mongolians AND against the Latins.

Which was followed by the Beylik era of the Turks where the individual principalities had spread all around Anatolia.

It was from one of these where the Ottoman family arouse and that's when shit started raining down on everyone.

The Ottoman family was expelled from Turkey just before the declaration of the Republic, hence why we are NOT Ottomans anymore and don't want much to do with them as they led the population to hell towards the end and decided to side with the Europeans just to save their rich asses. (

Pissing Ataturk off pretty bad who left them with nothing but 2000 pounds each before expelling them to their beloved Europe. Basically they never believed that the Europeans could have been beaten.

So if you want to cry about your 600 year oppression then go find some Ottomans who care, because we don't!

But of course the fact that you are an absolute moron and a total historical cripple, this would all be splitting hairs for you and you would want to ignore all these details purposefully so that you can keep on insisting that we are just Mongolian barbaric invaders who came out of no where to take your lands and have no real place here.

Because all this is probably too much for you to calculate in order to conclude that we don't belong in Cyprus.

Or how else can your silly argument ever survive?

And you are not likely to change your tune anytime soon either, so this is when old age comes in while logic and reasoning goes out of the window.

Oh and don't forget to add a touch of "democracy" in there too