Cyprus-Forum.com

[Simon]

Two words Shah... profanely argumentative!

GR, there is nothing argumentative about it. He repeatedly posts replies that have little to do with my points. Even now he fails to address my actual argument, instead skirting around the issue with nonsense about the Armenians, when this has nothing to do with my original point. He seems to do this in all the threads he participates in. He can't defeat the argument in front of him so he makes up his own.

I thought you were just not reading my posts very carefully but now I understand that you are actually just one thick shit bastard.

What are you some primary school history teacher?

I must be a primary school teacher because I'm attempting to teach some fucked up retard with the mental capacity of a 10 year old basic history but he is struggling to even read.

[Get Real!]

Two words Shah... profanely argumentative!

GR, there is nothing argumentative about it. He repeatedly posts replies that have little to do with my points. Even now he fails to address my actual argument, instead skirting around the issue with nonsense about the Armenians, when this has nothing to do with my original point. He seems to do this in all the threads he participates in. He can't defeat the argument in front of him so he makes up his own.

So you’re basically doing to him what I do to you in the Greek threads… why you little copy-cat!

[Simon]

Answer what question? Whether the British stopped supporting the French? What kind of bollocks is that? Like I said, you're just making this shit up as you go along. What I stated previously is perfectly clear. Look at my previous post to Y-Fred if you require further education.

[Get Real!]

Right! The next person to post profanities and we’ll get Piratis to post his version of the events right from the beginning again!

... and I’m talking all 157 volumes of it!

[shahmaran]

Simon, your supposed argument was that "the Turks did not beat the British and the French single handed" and you wanted to get me off my high horses and also prove that it was not such a ridiculous defeat.

I know deep down none of that is true and you are just looking for some cyber action, maybe you are bored or maybe you're feeling low, whatever.

So yes you might be right, the Turks did not beat the above mentioned armies single handed, because the Turks actually beat the British, the Italians, the French, the Greeks AND the Armenians ALL single handed, solely with some arms support from Russia and nothing else!

Now you might claim that some of these parties lost some support from their bum chums half way through the battle, but honestly Simon, come on, who the hell cares, the war is long lost, the Sevr agreement rolled up and stuffed in your arses which are on their way back home, Turkish independence is declared and everyone is happy now.

Now that is pretty fucking humiliating I know, specially for a nationalist chav such as yourself (I am assuming you are British I might be wrong) but look man, times change, people move on, these things don't matter anymore, the pain will eventually go away, I promise.

I know you just kept "punching air" with me on this matter, but we can move to another subject that you have better control over, how about let say, football, you like football?!

[shahmaran]

Right! The next person to post profanities and we’ll get Piratis to post his version of the events right from the beginning again!

... and I’m talking all 157 volumes of it!

Oh god!!

On a second thought, that might actually help me sleep, as this Simon guy is not even good at being boring

[Simon]

OK Shah, let's break your post down bit by bit. I'm going to help you as much as I can as your Primary School teacher, as I know you have difficulty reading English. Ready? OK, let's start and take your time reading this now...

Simon, your supposed argument was that "the Turks did not beat the British and the French single handed" and you wanted to get me off my high horses and also prove that it was not such a ridiculous defeat.

I know deep down none of that is true and you are just looking for some cyber action, maybe you are bored or maybe you're feeling low, whatever.

This part contains no argument. In fact, this is simply two paragraphs wasted. A common feature in your posts.

So yes you might be right, the Turks did not beat the above mentioned armies single handed, because the Turks actually beat the British, the Italians, the French, the Greeks AND the Armenians ALL single handed, solely with some arms support from Russia and nothing else!

For us to get somewhere, can you please provide links/evidence of your claims that the British Army itself was defeated in battle by Turkish nationalists, which consequently forced Britain and others to sign a peace treaty? I doubt you will because this is rubbish. The decisive battle of the war was fought against the Greeks, long after the British ceased supporting them. So like I said before, your boastful claims are hollow and baseless.

Now you might claim that some of these parties lost some support from their bum chums half way through the battle, but honestly Simon, come on, who the hell cares, the war is long lost, the Sevr agreement rolled up and stuffed in your arses which are on their way back home, Turkish independence is declared and everyone is happy now.

Now we are getting somewhere! You are finally taking some note (only slightly mind) of what I am saying. I'm glad you have finally accepted (albeit half-heartedly) that my argument was correct all along. Of course, I don't expect you to plainly say so, the above is perhaps as close to an admission of defeat as your pride can muster.

Now that is pretty fucking humiliating I know, specially for a nationalist chav such as yourself (I am assuming you are British I might be wrong) but look man, times change, people move on, these things don't matter anymore, the pain will eventually go away, I promise.

For you to call someone else a nationalist really is taking the biscuit mate. I think you should be careful throwing that label around and consider what you stand for. There is nothing humiliating for me about Turkish independence. Fair play to Turkey for gaining independence. Personally, I couldn't really give a shit. I just like correcting stupid Turkish nationalist, brainwashed Ataturk worshipping arseoles like yourself, that's all

I know you just kept "punching air" with me on this matter, but we can move to another subject that you have better control over, how about let say, football, you like football?!

I think I've controlled you quite well on what you would consider your field of expertise, Turkish nationalist history. Hell, I even got a concession out of you in the end. Not bad going eh?

[shahmaran]

Right...

The British army my friend, had a violent attempt working together with the Sultans army which had already become a puppet and tried to suppress the nationalist long before they pulled the poor Greeks into the game, as they realized that they could not get enough military support from home and that the only way to get them under control would be a fully fledged war which they could not do themselves, get it?

That is when the Greek came in.

Typical British, get others to do the manly work while you pommies sit around sipping cups of tea

Just as I said, "they knew what was to come long before and pulled out", but the idiotic Greek's were so blinded by the promises of the fulfillment of their stupid Megali Idea that they went for it.

This is war my friend, anything goes, and when you loose it is too late because you have already chosen your tactics and executed the best you got at that time and if it does not work, you are defeated.

End of, there are not "but ifs" and the British were officially defeated in more than 1 way...

Any more questions?

[Simon]

I'm glad the penny has finally dropped Shah. Much of the above I can agree with. I took issue with your boast that implied all the Great Powers attacked Turkey with their full forces simultaneously but invincible Turkey was simply indestructable. This is the impression I think many would have been left with from what you said. But now you are saying things along the same lines I am; such as, Britain did not do the fighting itself, but got others to do it. This was largely because of a lack of public support at home for another war. The British Army was never itself defeated. The turning point of the war was when the supplies to Greece ceased (which was partly to do with the infamous monkey bites to King Alexander which caused his death). This is when Turkish nationalists took the initiative and the war tipped in their favour. This is what I was saying all along. France and Italy did not fully support Greece's ambitions anyway, and the parties in Turkey were never truly fighting a co-ordinated effort. Like I said, Greece was abandoned in the end, which led to total Turkish victory. Things were nowhere near as simplistic as you originally tried to paint them.

[Paphitis]

Simon wrote:

Paphitis, I have kept my patience until now, but that fact is that you are nothing but an incompetent idiot. I have not insulted you before now, despite you repeatedly attacking me. Enough is enough. You are such a fucking prat that you can't even think logically, probably due to your psychotic obsession with the ANZACS. You claim that the Australians are desperately trying to keep the Brits out, when the majority of Australians are nothing but British settlers anyway you incompetent fool.

I have not attacked you at all, but just politely asked you to not categorise ANZAC troops as British, because if you ever did that in Australia, you would be risking your health.

It is insulting, and Australia today is not part of any Empire, because there is none, and the sooner this gets through your Imperialist mind the better. Australia has absolutely no associations with Britain other than being an ally and sharing the same Crown.

Those of Anglo heritage are 30% or less, and most of them would whack you if you dared called them British. The Irish heritage is more prevalent than the British. Australians are a different species to the Poms. Much less conservative, more outgoing, and egalitarian.

Simon wrote:

Now to your pathetic arguments. The Australian Constitution Act that you keep banging on about did not make Australia fully independent. What it did is united the several colonies as one, but they still remained a part of the Empire.

Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa remained in the Empire as independent DOMINIONS. Australia remained a Dominion after independence because it decided to retained the British Monarch as head of state, and as the Crown of Australia.

Although Australia is an independent nation, Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain is also formally Queen of Australia.

Therefore, the Commonwealth of Australia has its OWN independent Crown, which is the nations head of state (soon to be deposed, requiring another Statute no doubt).

http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/sys_gov.html

Source: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Britain had absolutely NO authority over Australian Governance since 01 Jan 09, so before you start making sweeping statements, please enlighten me with a link of just 1 piece of legislation Britain legislated or ratified on Australia's behalf, because the fact of the matter is, Australia did ask Britain on one occasion to intervene in Australian affairs, before the Statute of Westminster was ratified, because Western Australia (one of the former colonies/states) wanted to sever itself from the Federation. Britain declined, stating that it has no desire to intervene into any matters of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The Statute of Westminster only removed the last "theoretical" avenues in which Britain could intervene within Australian affairs, and a further Statute was required in 1986, because "theoretically", Britain still had the ability to intervene and legislate for any Australian State (former colonies) within the Federation and undermine the Commonwealth of Australia (Federal).

Simon wrote:

You quoted a Wikipedia link which confirms the Federation BUT NOWHERE IN THAT WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE DOES IT SAY THIS MADE AUSTRALIA FULLY INDEPENDENT OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT. THIS IS YOUR OWN SILLY ASSUMPTION.

Don't start playing games Simon. Everyone in Australia knows that Australia became fully independent when the Australian Constitution Act was implemented on 01 Jan 01.

The Australian Federal Government also states quite clearly that Australia became fully independent on 01 Jan 01.

I hope that The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is a good enough source for you!

One of the oldest continuous democracies in the world, the Commonwealth of Australia was created in 1901 when the former British colonies—now the six states—agreed to federate. The democratic practices and principles that shaped the pre-federation colonial parliaments (such as ‘one man, one vote’ and women’s suffrage) were adopted by Australia’s first federal government

http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/sys_gov.html

Source: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

In fact, Australia has ALWAYS been more democratic than Britain itself, because The Commonwealth of Australia has its OWN Constitution (since 1901) and Britain doesn't even have that!

Like the United States and unlike Britain, Australia has a written constitution.

http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/sys_gov.html

Source: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Simon wrote:

Whether Australia was a subject, or an equal in the Empire is irrelevant. They were part of the Empire and not independent. Scotland is an equal nation in the UK, but this does not make it independent. Your arguments are simply illogical.

Australia is still part of the non existent (apart from SBAs in Cyprus and Gibraltar because that is all we have) Empire as a Dominion you imbecile, and so is Canada. This has not changed, but both are independent, and more democratic than Britain itself.

In Australia's case, it became independent on 01 Jan 01.

A nation is born

The Commonwealth of Australia was formed in 1901 through the federation of six states under a single constitution. The non-Indigenous population at the time of Federation was 3.8 million, while the estimated Indigenous population was around 93,000. Half of the people lived in cities, three-quarters were born in Australia, and the majority were of English, Scottish or Irish descent.

The founders of the new nation believed they were creating something new and were concerned to avoid the pitfalls of the old world. They wanted Australia to be harmonious, united and egalitarian, and had progressive ideas about human rights, the observance of democratic procedures and the value of a secret ballot.

http://www.dfat.gov.au/aib/history.html

Source: Department of Foreign Affairs.

Simon wrote:

With regards to Australia's forces, the clue is in IMPERIAL. If they were imperial forces, they were obviously forces of the Empire. Not independent. Plus these forces were under BRITISH COMMAND. THIS SAYS IT ALL. I wish you wouldn't continue going around in circles on things I've clearly refuted.

The fact that Australia is a Dominions to this very day, should also say something to you sunshine. Having Australian commanders is a prerequisite to success and this is proven throughout history! Because every single time the British and especially the Americans have their finger in the pie, we have a disaster on our hands. So stay away from our ADF you incompetent nincompoops, because you are a danger to our safety and were a danger to our AIF in the past!

Our status has not changed within this so called non existent Empire.

British troops have also been under Australian command as well sunshine. In Timor, Australia had under its command British, Kiwi, Irish, American, and Gurkha troops. How is it possible for a Dominion to command British troops if it were not fully independent.

Australian Armed Forces were defined as "Imperial" because by default Australia was ALSO deemed to have an EMPIRE. Technically, all British subjects were also the subjects of the Dominion Powers (Australia, Canada, NZ, South Africa etc) because we shared a Crown which ruled over the Empire, and this Crown was not just Great Britain's but was also the Crown of the Dominion Powers. In other words, Australia's Crown, Canada's Crown etc etc ruled over the Empire's "subjects"!

Simon wrote:

The British DID legislate for Australia after 1901. What the fuck was the Statute of Westminster in 1931 then? Only in 1931 did Australia receive full legislative equality. Read below:

Please provide me with one single law Britain [b]ratified on Australia's behalf, because the Statute of Westminster had to be ratified by Australia.[/b]

"The Statute of Westminster 1931 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (22 & 23 Geo. V c. 4, 11 December 1931) which established a status of legislative equality between the self-governing dominions of the British Empire and the United Kingdom, with a few residual exceptions. The Statute remains domestic law within each of the other Commonwealth realms, to the extent that it was not rendered obsolete by the process of constitutional patriation.[citation needed]

The Statute is of historical importance because it marked the effective legislative independence of these countries, either immediately or upon ratification. The residual constitutional powers retained by the Westminster parliament have now largely been superseded by subsequent legislation. Its current relevance is that it sets the basis for the continuing relationship between the Commonwealth realms and the Crown".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster

The Statute of Westminster needed to be ratified by the Australian Parliament and it was designed to remove any technicalities or theoretical powers which Britain could manipulate and use to intervene within the Australian Commonwealth, which it never did.

So Britain did NOT legislate the Statute of Westminster as it was ratified by the Australian Parliament.

READ MORE CAREFULLY NEXT TIME!

Simon wrote:

Before you jump on the bandwagon about the self-governing bit, Falkland Islands is self-governing, but it's not independent. Britain has many such territories. There are many self-governing territories that are not fully independent.

ALL Australian colonies had self Governance from the 1850s you nincompoop. I'm not associating self governance with independence!

These self governing colonies united to form The Commonwealth of Australia when the Australian Constitution (something you don't have) was implemented on 01 Jan 01!

Simon wrote:

The fact that Australia had a Parliament does not mean independence. Scotland has a Parliament, are you now going to tell me they are independent. You seem to be mentally incapable of understanding that a territory can be semi-autonomous and self-governing, without having full independence.

Australia had what Scotland has from the 1850s to 01 Jan 01 you incompetent British Imperialist!

Simon wrote:

You then proceed to tell me the statistics of Australia. The funny thing is, you reply as if you refuted what I said, but actually you supported my statement. In every area, Australia was ranked lower than Britain. A few corrections: Australia is NOT the 6th biggest defense spender, nowhere near. It is 14th. It is also the 14th largest economy measured by GDP. PPP is not an accurate way to measure the size of an economy. The preferred method by most is GDP (nominal).

If that is the case, then Australian GDP is 40% the size of Britain's and yet Australia's population is a mere 21 million compared to Britain's 63 million. So the magnitude of the Australian Economy outstrips the magnitude of Britain's economy on a per capita basis, and this is the preferred option (per capita) of measuring GDP output when comparing different economies, and not GDP (nominal) as you would then not be comparing apples with apples.

Simon wrote:

Then you mention aircraft carriers. Firstly, can you point me to a credible link that states Australia is building 2 carriers, because I know of no such procurement programme. I suspect this is just more assumptions by you. In any event, the UK has 2 carriers, not 1 (they did have 3 but 1 has recently been decommissioned). So Australia will have an equal amount IF they do build 2 carriers. However, the UK is building 2 huge supercarriers, displacing 65,000 tons each. The Australian Navy cannot hope to compete with the Royal Navy. So don't even go there, I will rip you to shreds. Britain have recently developed the best air defence ships in the world, the Type 45 Destroyer, not even the Americans have anything like it. The Royal Navy is a bluewater navy that can project power around the globe. Only the Americans, French and possibly Russians can currently say the same thing. Australia certainly do not have this capability.

In 2007, an Australian Defence White paper was leaked, which outlined plans to procure 2 Spanish or French Aircraft Carriers. There was some political controversy about this and the Department of Defence was reeling. The Defence Minister then declared the construction of the Canberra Class, and decided that 2 ships will be commissioned by 2013.

http://www.navy.gov.au/Canberra_Class

These Ships are depicted as Helicopter Decks, but are easily modified to take Sea Harrier Jets and up to 12 F-18s. It is planned to do this down the track.

They will also be fitted with Tomahawk Cruise Missiles.

Australia too is considered a strategic power due to the Collins Class(most advance conventional subs) and F-111 etc. And we have been projecting our power for decades now. In fact, it is well and trully proven that the ADF is far more competent than both you and the US.

If you want to now how to really fight a war, then mimmick the ADF and what it did in East Timor. I believe that only the Israeli's are capable to match or even outperform the Aussies with clever no nonsense strategy and psychological warfare.

Simon wrote:

Australia the next permanent member of the Security Council?
THE LINK YOU GAVE ME IS ABOUT AUSTRALIA APPLYING FOR A SEAT FOR 2013-14. 1 YEAR YOU FOOL. NOT A PERMANENT MEMBER! DO YOU EVEN READ YOUR LINKS? This is rubbish. Australia does not have a hope of a permanent seat. India and Brazil will be well before Australia. Britain on the other hand has been a permanent member from the start, and you think Australia spits on Britain? You're a joke man. You call Britain an irrelevant minnow? It has 3 times as many people as Australia! I think you're taking the piss, you must be.

Sorry, but I got confused with Alexander Downer's (former Foreign Affairs Minister) proposal for Australia to gain permanent security council membership - a proposal which was rebuked by Australian Prime minister John Howard, who basically said something like "fuck the UN".

The idea was that Australia contributes far more personnel and money than most countries, for its size, and that Australia should play a greater formal role or cease contributions to all UN Peacekeeping Roles. If John Howard had it his way, he would have had Australia withdraw from the UN completely.

Simon wrote:

There are many Brits in Australia, and there are also many Australians in Britain also. I know a few myself. They sometimes still regard Britain as the motherland. Now that must really piss you off.

There are many Aussies in Britain, but they always come back and say "what a miserable country Britain is".

There are no Aussies that regard Britain as a mother country. People who fantasise about "mother countries" are immature fucks (apart from those that only recognise cultural similarities). There are many Cypriots like that and you maybe one of them.

But you have definitely proven yourself to be a great Imperialist, so well done sunshine!

Simon wrote:

Finally, you refer to the reputation of ANZAC. I have a great respect for them.

So you should!

They are legends in their own right, and are highly regarded by many nations, including former foes.

Simon wrote:

I also have a great respect for the British Armed Forces, which has a fantastic military history and has conquered a quarter of the globe.

The ADF doesn't oblige I'm afraid. We have had far too many bad experiences.

Simon wrote:

The British today are still regarded by many as the best trained armed forces in the world.

.

Everyone regards the ADF equally so.

Simon wrote:

The Royal Marines undertake the longest period of training in NATO. The Paras are legendary. The SAS are regarded as the best on earth. The Gurkhas bravery is the stuff of legend.

OUR SAS is regarded as the best as well. So who is the best then?

Then why have you lost every war apart from the Falklands?

The British and American Armed Forces can stay right away from the superior ADF, because unlike you lot, we don't like you guy's behaving like Hollywood Rambo's endangering our men and women in suicide missions and futile wars!

Your incompetence throughout history is legendary, apart from a few isolated instances.

Simon wrote:

So Britain don't need your ANZACS you prat so shut the hell up.

We don't want their memory tarnished through associations with the wrong crowds...Britain needs help, so may God save the Queen, because Australia sure as hell won't from now on!