Cyprus-Forum.com

[bg_turk]

You ethnically cleansed these lands in order to revive the Byzantine empire and to regain your lost honor?

[ChomskyFan]

You ethnically cleansed these lands in order to revive the Byzantine empire and to regain your lost honor?

I think you need to read what I wrote again, such actions need to be viewed in The Political Context of the time, as well as the Historical Context as well (see my comments about the eventual road leading to the 'Turkish Republic').

[magikthrill]

You ethnically cleansed these lands in order to revive the Byzantine empire and to regain your lost honor?

this was a revolution where the ABORIGINAL inhabitants of the land were granted independence in their HOMELAND. the people that were removed were the conquerors and they were sent back to THEIR homeland.

[bg_turk]

in the same way TC are conquerors in Cyprus?

[2fan]

So according to your logic, north Greece and the Greek islands were not liberated either because they were liberated after south Greece?

Aegean macedonia and west thrace were "liberated" by ethnically clansing all slavs and turks from those territories by the Greek state. Yes you were liberated, you were given the freedom to steal lands that did not belong to you and kill people that have done no harm to you! THIEVES! KILLERS! RAPISTS!

Unfortunately for your expansionism is the pattern of the Modern Nation State, The Byzantine Empire begat the Hellenic Republic (as frequently noted as 'The Empire that became a Nation'). The Modern Hellenic Republic as formed post-Revolution, was a small portion of The ever weakening Ottoman Empire, and thus, opportunism was rife - The Greeks considered such lands to be their ancestral homes, in keeping with what was to become The Megali i8ea which promoted expanisionism to restore the lost honour of Byzantium to Greece. Such expanisionism was justifiable in a Historical context, namely because they were Greek Ancestral lands, but it is important to note that such themes where common allthroughout the Ancient World, the president day Turkish Republic is founded on the blood of hundreds of Thousands, perhaps Millions, of those displaced and killed by the Seljuks in the farmlands and Towns to the East of Constantinopoli, not to mention the sack of the great city itself, regarded by most Historians as one of the greatest exercises of mass genocide in Human History.

However, it is interesting you should note expansionism in the Balkans, after all, it was Turkish settlers who began a gradual process of Islamization of the lands they inhabited (through repressive measures such as the Jizyah tax and frequent Town to Town raids, common in Albania), which drove out the largely Slavic Christian Orthodox population into present day Serbia, which begat the troubles that the Muslim extremists began to rile up their all throughout the nineties. The dream of the KLA's 'ethnically pure' Greater Albania for example, as one NATO General put it, "We don't have to worry about a Greater Serbia anymore, we have to worry about a Greater Albania." This is a common recurring theme among Muslim Expansionism though, you have to remember that Mohammed's message was brought by the Sword, and this is something that is indisputable, the Arabian Peninsula was united (albeit not willingly) by merciless Islam Imperialism after the capture of Medina, littered with countless examples of War Crimes, for example, when The prophet raided the 2000 year old Jewish communities of Medina, killed their men, confiscated their properties, enslaved their wives and children and banished the unwanted with no provocation on the part of he Jews. His sole motive was probably greed for their wealth (they were a wealthy tribe at the time) and lust for their women. It is intersting to note in earlier Arabic History however, that Mohammed only came to fame after the incident of Badr when Muhammad’s men ambushed a merchant caravan, and brought the booty (a very large sum) his fortunes changed. He was enriched by the stolen booty, and his popularity grew. He promised wealth and slave girls to those how took part in his armed robberies and paradise with houries and rivers of wine to those who were killed. After the Badr incident, it is no surprise that lots of people, mostly mercenaries and people looking for a quick buck, began to flock to his side. Money brings power as they say, and at a time of relative turmoil in the Arabic World, the conquest of the Peninsula followed soon after.

So as we can see, the beginning of Islam, right up until the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, is built on blood, thievery and in some cases (such as the Jews of Medina) genocide. Does this give me a right to question the territorial integrity of the Turkish Republic?

Your post leaves a lot to be desired. It begs to answer the question of how many poor souls were massacred in causes in the name of Christ. The spanish inquisition, the crusades are a few spring to mind.

The European states Britain, France, Spain, Italy etc... etc.. are the biggest Empire building entities in the history of the planet. They were up to their tricks and intrigue up to WW2. How many people perished in WW2? Or do you want to blame that on Islam as well. Whose nations soils are soaked with blood?

After the Ottoman Empire died the Brits and the French carved up the carcass into states that would become lapdogs for the Europeans. They used these countries and bled them dry. After they finished they pulled out and left those countries in shambles creating the terrorism that we have to deal with today.

So please refrain from coming into this forum with your psuedo-intellectual ramblings quoting Chompsky and try to pull the wool over my eyes. Your hands are just as bloody perhaps even bloodier than that of Islam.

EDITEDby MicAtCyp for reason 3
http://www.cyprus-forum.com/cyprus1566.html

[ChomskyFan]

Your post leaves a lot to be desired. It begs to answer the question of how many poor souls were massacred in causes in the name of Christ. The spanish inquisition, the crusades are a few spring to mind.

Indeed, the point is, is that Christianity was not actually BUILT on this, in the sense that Christ didn't conquer lands for his own personal gain et al, and I you would have trouble using the New Testament to justify this, in regards to the Crusades - They were most likely a defensive War fought against the Arab Khalifat, which had succeeded in taking Jerusalem and had proceeded to burn the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to the ground and was killing pilgrims in the thousands, and had started to make frequent incursions onto Byzantine Territory, mostly to take local women back to their camps on the outskirts of the Empire at the time.

The European states Britain, France, Spain, Italy etc... etc.. are the biggest Empire building entities in the history of the planet. They were up to their tricks and intrigue up to WW2. How many people perished in WW2? Or do you want to blame that on Islam as well. Whose nations soils are soaked with blood?

Of course, all countries have a bloody past, just as Islam has a bloody past, I am not adopting Moral Relativism here like you. I am simply stating that The Arab Khalifat, which begat the expansion of Islam as a faith, was built primarily by the sword.

After the Ottoman Empire died the Brits and the French carved up the carcass into states that would become lapdogs for the Europeans. They used these countries and bled them dry. After they finished they pulled out and left those countries in shambles creating the terrorism that we have to deal with today.

Yes true, but it's no better than being a lapdog of the Ottoman Empire under some perverse form of 'Law' described as 'Divinely Ordained'.

So please refrain from coming into this forum with your psuedo-intellectual ramblings quoting Chompsky and try to pull the wool over my eyes. Your hands are just as bloody perhaps even bloodier than that of Islam.

My own hands are certainly not as bloody as Mohammed's would have been, for example, I have never taken part in the ritualistic beheading of 1000 Jews because they didn't fully honour an 'agreement' with me, even though I broke it first. You are quite clearly American in the way you approach problems, your own nation of citizenship, America, is the World's leading Terrorist State.

EDITEDby MicAtCyp for reason:quoted parts only
http://www.cyprus-forum.com/cyprus1566.html

[2fan]

Your post leaves a lot to be desired. It begs to answer the question of how many poor souls were massacred in causes in the name of Christ. The spanish inquisition, the crusades are a few spring to mind.

Indeed, the point is, is that Christianity was not actually BUILT on this, in the sense that Christ didn't conquer lands for his own personal gain et al, and I you would have trouble using the New Testament to justify this, in regards to the Crusades - They were most likely a defensive War fought against the Arab Khalifat, which had succeeded in taking Jerusalem and had proceeded to burn the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to the ground and was killing pilgrims in the thousands, and had started to make frequent incursions onto Byzantine Territory, mostly to take local women back to their camps on the outskirts of the Empire at the time.

MOST LIKELY A DEFENSIVE WAR????? Please find me sources that claim the crusades were a defensive war. The crusaders were making incursions into muslim territories to rape, pillage and plunder in the name of Christ. It does not matter that Christ did not conquer by the sword. What matters is that christianity and the crusaders degenerated into a force of briggants.

The European states Britain, France, Spain, Italy etc... etc.. are the biggest Empire building entities in the history of the planet. They were up to their tricks and intrigue up to WW2. How many people perished in WW2? Or do you want to blame that on Islam as well. Whose nations soils are soaked with blood?

Of course, all countries have a bloody past, just as Islam has a bloody past, I am not adopting Moral Relativism here like you. I am simply stating that The Arab Khalifat, which begat the expansion of Islam as a faith, was built primarily by the sword.

Just as later Christian expansion was was begotten by the lance, sword and arrow in the holy land. If you believe that christianity was spread peacefully then you are mistaking.

After the Ottoman Empire died the Brits and the French carved up the carcass into states that would become lapdogs for the Europeans. They used these countries and bled them dry. After they finished they pulled out and left those countries in shambles creating the terrorism that we have to deal with today.

Yes true, but it's no better than being a lapdog of the Ottoman Empire under some perverse form of 'Law' described as 'Divinely Ordained'.

During WW1 the Turks already cut their losses with their backstabbing arab neighbors and most Turks had abbandoned the notion "Law described as Divinely Ordained" by at least 100 years.

So please refrain from coming into this forum with your psuedo-intellectual ramblings quoting Chompsky and try to pull the wool over my eyes. Your hands are just as bloody perhaps even bloodier than that of Islam. Your post is BULLSHIT!

My own hands are certainly not as bloody as Mohammed's would have been, for example, I have never taken part in the ritualistic beheading of 1000 Jews because they didn't fully honour an 'agreement' with me, even though I broke it first.


What did most christians do while Jews were being deported to death camps? Nothing! You mobilized once your territorial borders were compromised. You sat around and watched.

You are quite clearly American in the way you approach problems, your own nation of citizenship, America, is the World's leading Terrorist State.

That's quite an indictment coming from a person that most likely sanctioned his government's participation in harbouring the known terrorist Ocalan. In case you don't know the PKK is listed as a terrorist organisation by the EU and the United States. If you support terrorism that makes you a terrorist in my book. Moreover, if cloak & dagger diplomacy/democracy is your notion of "Athenian glory" you can keep it.

[ChomskyFan]

MOST LIKELY A DEFENSIVE WAR????? Please find me sources that claim the crusades were a defensive war. The crusaders were making incursions into muslim territories to rape, pillage and plunder in the name of Christ. It does not matter that Christ did not conquer by the sword. What matters is that christianity and the crusaders degenerated into a force of briggants.

The Real History of the Crusades

Cut and past article replaced with a link by erolz
Please do not cut and paste such articles as per the rules

http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm


Now, I have no love for the 4th Crusade, it sacked the greatest City the World had ever seen and reduced it to a shadow of it's former self. But, from the 1st Crusade the idea was alright, it was an idea of defending Christians in the Holy Land, to put it into perspective, do you not think if Christians had invaded and occupied Mecca that there would have been a Jihad launched against them? Think about it, of course there would.

Just as later Christian expansion was was begotten by the lance, sword and arrow in the holy land. If you believe that christianity was spread peacefully then you are mistaking.

Christianity was adopted by Emperor Constantine of The original Roman Empire, it gradually began to spread around these lands. Islam itself was spread by the sword, there is no amount of intellectual acrobatics that can disguise this, it's simply historical fact.

Take the example of his largesse to the Meccans. He raided the big tribe of Hawazin, killed many of them, took away all their belongings and captured their wives and children. Their elders came to him supplicating for mercy. They brought along Shima, his milk-sister, the daughter of Halima who had nursed him for five years when he was a child to tell him about his childhood among them and to soften his heart. She reminded him how she used to carry him on her back and how tenderly her people took care of him. He told them if they convert to Islam they can choose between their loved ones and their property. Is that a choice? They chose their loved ones. Then Muhammad gave all the booty stolen from these nomads to the potentates of Mecca . Those higher in rank received more. Other tribes who had taken part in the war and had helped him win, protested. They asked for their share and were about to start a mutiny. He made a “moving” speech and said "I want to soften the hearts of the Meccans towards Islam” and told those who had received nothing; “You take the Prophet of God with you instead. Which you prefer? The wealth of this world or the messenger of Allah?”

This cunning man was a master of deceptions and manipulations. He ruined the lives of thousands of Hawazin, killed them and stole all their herds, camels, and properties and gave them to the wealthy Meccans to “soften their hearts towards Islam”. There is not a single episode in this man’s life that was done out of the goodness of his heart. Every act he performed was calculated and manipulative. He was a psychopath narcissist much worse than Hitler.

The difference between Christianity and Islam is in Jesus and Muhammad. This is the difference between day and night. Jesus was the insignia of goodness and Muhammad was the incarnation of everything that is abhorrent and evil.

During WW1 the Turks already cut their losses with their backstabbing arab neighbors and most Turks had abbandoned the notion "Law described as Divinely Ordained" by at least 100 years.

Indeed, it doesn't rule out the fact Shariah Law itself is probably one of the most disgusting legal codes ever concieved.

A good example of this collective psychopathology was observed in Iran during the revolution of 1979. Everyone was shocked to see the mass hysteria and savagery of an entire nation. Most of those who acted psychopathically, later came to their senses and regretted their folly. Even they agree that they acted psychopathically.

Psychopaths are generally smart people who lack conscience. Muslims are conscientious people when religion is not a factor. They can be just as kind and loving as any other person. But they willingly submit their conscience to their faith and accept any crime if it is dictated by their religion. Say for example a women is accused of adultery and she is sentenced to be stoned to death. Muslims generally keep silence. They blame the adulterer and not the draconian law. These people could be caring and loving people, yet their conscience can never overcome their faith.

When you follow a psychopath, when you give up your intelligence and surrender your conscience to a deranged loon, you act and think like him and become the extension of his psychopathic mind.

900 seemingly sane people committed mass suicide because they believed in Jim Jones who was a psychopath. Since then several hundred others, mostly university graduated intelligent people, have done the same by believing in psychopath cult leaders. The followers of Shoko Asahara, the blind Japanese messiah, went on a killing spree in the subways of Japanese cities, killing and injuring hundreds of people to “set them free from their bad karma”. According to Asahara's twisted doomsday teachings a "poa" killing releases victims from everyday life and the inevitable accumulation of bad karma. “One can only save their soul through killing”, he taught his followers. “Wise people would see that both the killer and the person killed would benefit from this”, said Asahara. Hundreds of his followers turned psychopathic murderers because they followed a psychopath.

What did most christians do while Jews were being deported to death camps? Nothing! You mobilized once your territorial borders were compromised. You sat around and watched.

People where scared, and people DID do things, but we are talking about the basics of each religion here, The Holocaust was not divinely inspired, it was Hitler's racial mania and belief in pan-aryanism. The massacre of the Jews of Medina however, was, or Mohammed believed it to be, divinely ordained act, nothing can escape this fact. Two thousand were killed because they refused to submit to Islam, the same is true of all the other various Arabic Tribes.

Many Muslims follow a psychopath and as the result think like him. Just as millions of Germans became psychopaths during the WWII and millions of Japanese became psychopaths at the same time - due to mass ultra-nationalist Hysteria, a billion people can become psychopaths collectively. Luckily there is a great percentage of them that do not know much about the real Islam and do not practice it. This is our saving grace, the inherent goodness of these people overcoming what Mohammed taught them to do.

That's quite an indictment coming from a person that most likely sanctioned his government's participation in harbouring the known terrorist Ocalan. In case you don't know the PKK is listed as a terrorist organisation by the EU and the United States. If you support terrorism that makes you a terrorist in my book. Moreover, if cloak & dagger diplomacy/democracy is your notion of "Athenian glory" you can keep it.

Is it? I support all actions of Abdullah Ocalan, he wants a state for his people, a people repeatedly treated like utter shit in the Muslim World. As for America, it's the World's leading terrorist state. America during the Cold War murdered Millions and STILL no one has been brought to justice, why is not Henry Kissinger in the Haig?

[Viewpoint]

ChomskyFan

I support all actions of Abdullah Ocalan,

Do you realize what you are saying??? as you support a terrorist you support his actions murdering 40.000 innocent people, men, women and children.

Your above statement is a reflection of your warped and disturbed mind and any arguements you put forward in future should just be disregarded as utter rubbish.

[ChomskyFan]

ChomskyFan

I support all actions of Abdullah Ocalan,

Do you realize what you are saying??? as you support a terrorist you support his actions murdering 40.000 innocent people, men, women and children.

Your above statement is a reflection of your warped and disturbed mind and any arguements you put forward in future should just be disregarded as utter rubbish.

No, Abdullah Ocalan is a freedom fighter, in the 90's alone it is estimated by Amnesty International that anywhere from 30,000 to over 55,000 Kurds have been killed. Another HRW report stated that Turkish 'Security Forces' had depopulated 3000 Villages in the years '91-'97.

Those are war Crimes Mr. Viewpoint, plain and simple.