Cyprus-Forum.com

[GreekForumer]

Kurdish problem is very different than Cyprus problem:

1- Turks and Kurds fought together and founded Republic of Turkey; whereas TCs and GCs hadn't fought together to establish RoC.

2- Seperatist Kurds; demand soil from 4 countries to establish their Kurdish state whereas TCs demand soil on a part of Cyprus to establish a federative state or a seperate independent state.


http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.p ... 102#503102

Insan, Insan, Insan.....

No,No,No!

Yes, the Turks and Kurds certainly fought together. That is true. But what EXACTLY were these Kurds fighting for ?

Do you really think Kurds fought for a "Kurd-free" republic ?

Do you really think Kurds gave their lives so that the new republic would be a state where Kurdish language, publications, schools, associations, etc, etc would be prohibited ?

Do you really think Kurds gave their lives to a create a state that would criminalise Kurdishness ?


If you are honest with yourself, Insan, then of course your answer will be 'no' to all these questions.

The Kurds were awarded territory in the Sevres treaty but they rejected this for something better, not worse. What could be better ? So what exactly did the Kurds fight for ?



Here are some answers I found in Google books.

The Ankara delegation, on the other hand, asserted that "The Government of the Great National Assembly is the government of both Turks and Kurds", that "the real representatives of the Kurds sit alongside the Turks in the Assembly", that "Turks and Kurds are equal partners in the Government of Turkey'.......


A People without a country: the Kurds and Kurdistan? - Page 49
by Gérard Chaliand - Social Science - 1993 - 259 pages

In the beginning of the War of Independence, Kemal often invoked the equality of Turks and Kurds, the commonality of the struggle, and the brotherhood of the two peoples.10 In his first speech to the newly gathered parliament in April 1920, Mustafa Kemal argued that the parliament was not composed of the representative of Turks, Kurds, Circassians and the Laz, but rather the representatives of a strongly unified Islamic Community. Kemal had even envisaged, according to some accounts of his speeches and conversations with journalists, that where Kurds were in a majority they would govern themselves autonomously.11 Kemal and his rebellious forces, facing shortages of men and mate´riel, could not afford to alienate the Kurds: They needed Kurdish cooperation to carry out the war against the foreign invaders. The Kurds claim that they gave their support on the understanding that a common Muslim cause existed against Western interventionists, and that a future Turkish-Kurdish common multiethnic state would emerge. Still, some Kurds did revolt against Kemal: Among those revolts, that of the Koc¸giri in 1920 was the most significant, as it forced Kemal to divert troops from the main theater of war to deal with what could potentially have led to a serious division within Turkish/Kurdish ranks.


Turkey's Kurdish question - Google Books Result - Page 9
by Henri J. Barkey, Graham E. Fuller - 1998 - Social Science - 239 pages

Arguing that the Kurds govern Turkey as equal partners with the Turks, the Ankara nationalist authorities refused to include them among the minorities protected by the stipulation

Primitive rebels or revolutionary modernisers?: the Kurdish nationalist ...? - Page 70
by Paul J. White - Political Science - 2000 - 258 pages

One of the articles quoted Kemal Ataturk on the Kurdish issue and contained archive documents showing that Ataturk once promised autonomy to the Kurds.

Destroying ethnic identity: the Kurds of Turkey? - Page 4
by Jeri Laber, Lois Whitman - Political Science - 1988 - 73 pages

During the independence movement, before and during WW1, Kurds and Turks fought side by side. Ataturk promised autonomy to the Kurdish groups at that time....

The Middle East, abstracts and index? - Page 545
by Library Information and Research Service - History - 2003

In 1919, Ataturk had promised the Kurds equal rights in an independent Turkey.



You decide!: controversial global issues? - Page 227
by Edward R. Drachman, Alan Shank - Political Science - 2003 - 295 pages

As a result, Kemal set about recruting Kurdish leaders to his cause, emphasing Muslim (rather than Turkish) unity and promising Kurds would enjoy equality with Turks.


Turkey's policy towards northern Iraq: problems and perspectives? - Page 14
by Bill Park, International Institute for Strategic Studies - History - 2005 - 77 pages

In 1919 Mustafa Kemal had promised that Kurds and Turks would have equal rights in independent Turkey.


Faith and power: the politics of Islam? - Page 138
by Edward Mortimer - Religion - 1982 - 432 pages

There were different types of Kurds, they were a tribal people, lived over large areas with differences in language, society, etc. etc. and I am sure it would have been difficult to get the Kurdish leaders to agree on anything political. One thing I am quite sure about, however, is that members of these Kurdish groups would NEVER have given their lives to facilitate their own cultural extinction in a future state.

Kurdish problem is very different than Cyprus problem

Yes, the Kurds have been subjected to far worse injustices and crimes by the state as the betrayal outlined by the authors above show. And some Turks and TCs have the gall to portray the "13 amendments" as betrayal.

When have we betrayed you?

In 1963 when you tried to change the constitution as being "not workable" as an excuse for your ENOSIS dream.
.

Did the Turks even allow the Kurds a say in the Constitution of the new Republic ?

[zan]

The Kurds used turkey to help them fight their age old enemy the Armenians.....If the Kurds get their own country then the Armenian genocide's will have to fall on the laps as well...They were put in charge of marching the Armenians out of the empire!!!

[insan]

Kurdish problem is very different than Cyprus problem:

1- Turks and Kurds fought together and founded Republic of Turkey; whereas TCs and GCs hadn't fought together to establish RoC.

2- Seperatist Kurds; demand soil from 4 countries to establish their Kurdish state whereas TCs demand soil on a part of Cyprus to establish a federative state or a seperate independent state.


http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.p ... 102#503102

Insan, Insan, Insan.....

No,No,No!

Yes, the Turks and Kurds certainly fought together. That is true. But what EXACTLY were these Kurds fighting for ?

Do you really think Kurds fought for a "Kurd-free" republic ?

Do you really think Kurds gave their lives so that the new republic would be a state where Kurdish language, publications, schools, associations, etc, etc would be prohibited ?

Do you really think Kurds gave their lives to a create a state that would criminalise Kurdishness ?


If you are honest with yourself, Insan, then of course your answer will be 'no' to all these questions.

The Kurds were awarded territory in the Sevres treaty but they rejected this for something better, not worse. What could be better ? So what exactly did the Kurds fight for ?



Here are some answers I found in Google books.

The Ankara delegation, on the other hand, asserted that "The Government of the Great National Assembly is the government of both Turks and Kurds", that "the real representatives of the Kurds sit alongside the Turks in the Assembly", that "Turks and Kurds are equal partners in the Government of Turkey'.......


A People without a country: the Kurds and Kurdistan? - Page 49
by Gérard Chaliand - Social Science - 1993 - 259 pages

In the beginning of the War of Independence, Kemal often invoked the equality of Turks and Kurds, the commonality of the struggle, and the brotherhood of the two peoples.10 In his first speech to the newly gathered parliament in April 1920, Mustafa Kemal argued that the parliament was not composed of the representative of Turks, Kurds, Circassians and the Laz, but rather the representatives of a strongly unified Islamic Community. Kemal had even envisaged, according to some accounts of his speeches and conversations with journalists, that where Kurds were in a majority they would govern themselves autonomously.11 Kemal and his rebellious forces, facing shortages of men and mate´riel, could not afford to alienate the Kurds: They needed Kurdish cooperation to carry out the war against the foreign invaders. The Kurds claim that they gave their support on the understanding that a common Muslim cause existed against Western interventionists, and that a future Turkish-Kurdish common multiethnic state would emerge. Still, some Kurds did revolt against Kemal: Among those revolts, that of the Koc¸giri in 1920 was the most significant, as it forced Kemal to divert troops from the main theater of war to deal with what could potentially have led to a serious division within Turkish/Kurdish ranks.


Turkey's Kurdish question - Google Books Result - Page 9
by Henri J. Barkey, Graham E. Fuller - 1998 - Social Science - 239 pages

Arguing that the Kurds govern Turkey as equal partners with the Turks, the Ankara nationalist authorities refused to include them among the minorities protected by the stipulation

Primitive rebels or revolutionary modernisers?: the Kurdish nationalist ...? - Page 70
by Paul J. White - Political Science - 2000 - 258 pages

One of the articles quoted Kemal Ataturk on the Kurdish issue and contained archive documents showing that Ataturk once promised autonomy to the Kurds.

Destroying ethnic identity: the Kurds of Turkey? - Page 4
by Jeri Laber, Lois Whitman - Political Science - 1988 - 73 pages

During the independence movement, before and during WW1, Kurds and Turks fought side by side. Ataturk promised autonomy to the Kurdish groups at that time....

The Middle East, abstracts and index? - Page 545
by Library Information and Research Service - History - 2003

In 1919, Ataturk had promised the Kurds equal rights in an independent Turkey.



You decide!: controversial global issues? - Page 227
by Edward R. Drachman, Alan Shank - Political Science - 2003 - 295 pages

As a result, Kemal set about recruting Kurdish leaders to his cause, emphasing Muslim (rather than Turkish) unity and promising Kurds would enjoy equality with Turks.


Turkey's policy towards northern Iraq: problems and perspectives? - Page 14
by Bill Park, International Institute for Strategic Studies - History - 2005 - 77 pages

In 1919 Mustafa Kemal had promised that Kurds and Turks would have equal rights in independent Turkey.


Faith and power: the politics of Islam? - Page 138
by Edward Mortimer - Religion - 1982 - 432 pages

There were different types of Kurds, they were a tribal people, lived over large areas with differences in language, society, etc. etc. and I am sure it would have been difficult to get the Kurdish leaders to agree on anything political. One thing I am quite sure about, however, is that members of these Kurdish groups would NEVER have given their lives to facilitate their own cultural extinction in a future state.

Kurdish problem is very different than Cyprus problem

Yes, the Kurds have been subjected to far worse injustices and crimes by the state as the betrayal outlined by the authors above show. And some Turks and TCs have the gall to portray the "13 amendments" as betrayal.

When have we betrayed you?

In 1963 when you tried to change the constitution as being "not workable" as an excuse for your ENOSIS dream.
.

Did the Turks even allow the Kurds a say in the Constitution of the new Republic ?

Almost half of the MPs of ROT government comprise of Kurdish origin people; mostly they were elected from ruling party, AKP.

Allegations regarding Ataturk's promises to Kurds for autonomy might be true(I haven't researched much abt it) but it is a well known fact that foundation of ROT based on secularism. Therefore, most probably, if allegations regarding Kurdish autonomy was true; Ataturk couldn't keep his promises to Kurds because of not to endanger the secular spirit of ROT.

On the other hand, ROT couldn't make rational nation building policies because of various reasons mainly economic conditions that directly affected the educational matters.

Let's see what will happen now... Recently, one of the RoT's main focus point has been resolving the Kurdish problem... An autonomous Kurdish region is seen on the horizon... I don't think it would end up with an independent Kurdish state as long as secular islam unites Turks and Kurds.

[Piratis]

Almost half of the MPs of ROT government comprise of Kurdish origin people; mostly they were elected from ruling party, AKP.

What does it mean Kurdish origin? As it is well known most "Turks" are not actually real Turks since real Turks are from Central Asia and they don't even look Mediterranean or Middle Eastern. There is a number of Kurds in the parliament and those are elected by the 20% Kurdish population of Turkey, or by Turkish citizens as a whole. There is no amount of seats granted to Kurds in the constitution. In fact the Turkish constitution doesn't even recognize that a Kurdish community exists.

Those Kurdish MPs can't even speak Kurdish in the Parliament
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europ ... =hpmostpop

Allegations regarding Ataturk's promises to Kurds for autonomy might be true(I haven't researched much abt it) but it is a well known fact that foundation of ROT based on secularism. Therefore, most probably, if allegations regarding Kurdish autonomy was true; Ataturk couldn't keep his promises to Kurds because of not to endanger the secular spirit of ROT.

How is "secularism" related with this?

Kurdish problem is very different than Cyprus problem

Most definitively it is. The Kurds are the vast majority of the Kurdistan region and they have been so for 1000s of years, long before any Turks invaded their lands.

On the other hand the whole of Cyprus has been inhabited by a majority Greek Cypriots for 1000s of years and the TCs minority was created during Ottoman conquest of our island. They were never a majority in any part of Cyprus.

The case o Kurdistan is similar to the cases of Tibet and the Basque Country, while the case of TCs is almost exactly the same with the Turkish minorities in Bulgaria, Greece and other former Ottoman colonies. (the only difference being that the Turks in mainland Greece and Bulgaria have a longer history than the TCs have in Cyprus since Cyprus was one of the last places conquered by the Ottomans)

[Oracle]

.... it is a well known fact that foundation of ROT based on secularism.

That is a fallacy since Ataturk merely nationalised religion to ensure Sunni supremacy over the Shias and that's why this:

Ataturk couldn't keep his promises to Kurds because of not to endanger the secular spirit of ROT.

... is nonsense.

... I don't think it would end up with an independent Kurdish state as long as secular islam unites Turks and Kurds.

What is "secular islam"?

[insan]

Kurdish origin means someone who one way or another has ethnic ties with Kurds. Besides those who consider themselves people of 3 main ethnic branches of Kurdish nation; there r also a significant number of people that have multi-ethnic origins; i.e, Kurdish-Turkish, Kurdish-Arab etc. First prime minister of Turkey and the former prime minister of Turkey were Kurdish-Turkish origin.

The Kurdish origin people which migrated to big western cities of Turkey afterwards the foundation of RoT, almost all have multi-ethnic origins; mostly Turkish.

Ruling elite of Kurdish tribes wished a Turkish-Kurdish state based on religious principles not a secular Turkey as how Ataturk and his backers were exerting to establish... All of the early Kurdish revolts were based on religous motives... Even still today, most of the MPs of Kurdish regions elected from conservative-religous rooted AKP.

Kurdish MPs, can't speak Kurdish in parliament because put aside the Turkish MPs; vast majority of the Kurdish origin MPs even can't understand and speak Kurdish. Besides if some Kurdish MPs speak and understand one dialect of Kurdish, they can't speak and understand other dialect of Kurdish.

Cyprus since Ottomans have 2 main ethnic-groups, or if u like say 2 main national groups... Just like all other ethnic Turks who fought for independence or a federal state all around the worl; we TCs fought for our rights in Cyprus. Like it or not; the fact for TCs is either a federal state based on political equality of 2 main ethnic groups of Cyprus or an independent TC state.

[Piratis]

Like it or not; the fact for TCs is either a federal state based on political equality of 2 main ethnic groups of Cyprus or an independent TC state.

Like it or not the TCs have zero recognition and representation, and they are merely helping Turkey to illegally occupy 1/3rd of Republic of Cyprus.

If you thought you could win on our expense you were very very mistaken.

TCs in Cyprus are a minority like the Greeks in Turkey (and just like any other minority). All minorities should have the same rights and we will not accept any double standards on our expense.

We are asking for nothing less and nothing more than what it exists in all other normal democratic countries: Democracy - one person one vote without racist discrimination, and human rights for all Cypriot citizens. Beyond that, if you want to start conflicts and wars in your effort to gain more than what your minority deserves on our expense, then be sure we will fight those conflicts, wars and cold wars for as long as it takes and we will never give up because we have justice on our side.

[insan]

.... it is a well known fact that foundation of ROT based on secularism.

That is a fallacy since Ataturk merely nationalised religion to ensure Sunni supremacy over the Shias and that's why this:

Ataturk couldn't keep his promises to Kurds because of not to endanger the secular spirit of ROT.

... is nonsense.

... I don't think it would end up with an independent Kurdish state as long as secular islam unites Turks and Kurds.

What is "secular islam"?

R ur fingers too tired to google secular islam?

http://www.google.com.tr/search?hl=tr&q ... art=0&sa=N

Hope u r not too lazy to click on the link and read several articles regarding secular islam.

[Oracle]

Kurdish MPs, can't speak Kurdish in parliament because put aside the Turkish MPs; vast majority of the Kurdish origin MPs even can't understand and speak Kurdish. Besides if some Kurdish MPs speak and understand one dialect of Kurdish, they can't speak and understand other dialect of Kurdish.

So, you accept that ONE Official (administrative) language is more practical.

However, Turkey did worse than just ban Kurdish from official meetings: they banned Kurdish dialects from being taught or spoken generally, even by little children!

[insan]

Like it or not; the fact for TCs is either a federal state based on political equality of 2 main ethnic groups of Cyprus or an independent TC state.

Like it or not the TCs have zero recognition and representation, and they are merely helping Turkey to illegally occupy 1/3rd of Republic of Cyprus.

If you thought you could win on our expense you were very very mistaken.

TCs in Cyprus are a minority like the Greeks in Turkey (and just like any other minority). All minorities should have the same rights and we will not accept any double standards on our expense.

We are asking for nothing less and nothing more than what it exists in all other normal democratic countries: Democracy - one person one vote without racist discrimination, and human rights for all Cypriot citizens. Beyond that, if you want to start conflicts and wars in your effort to gain more than what your minority deserves on our expense, then be sure we will fight those conflicts, wars and cold wars for as long as it takes and we will never give up because we have justice on our side.

Is this the hidden agenda of ur government? Because they don't officially talk abt what u suggested above.