Cyprus-Forum.com

[YFred]

Kikapu

What are you saying, Bananiot, that the "Turks" behaved badly in Cyprus since 1571.??

No my friend, I did not say this. I could have said it however, but in this case you know very well, I am sure, that my response was to a baseless theoretical question of DT which had an ulterior motive, just like yours I am afraid, but I get your drift. Just to set your mind to rest, I would have been much happier, just like everybody I guess, if there were no invasions and occupations. However, the history of mankind is one of mass movement and given the legacy of globalisation, things will be no different in the future, simply "occupations" will take many different forms, more subtle perhaps but equally effective (look at poor old Greece).

That is a ridiculous question. It does not befit an answer. You cannot erase historical events. You merely face them rationally. Christ, if it were not the Turks, it could have been the Arabs or some other muscleman of the area. What were the guarantees that they would have behaved better?

But your quote above most definitely implies that the "Turks" behaved badly in Cyprus, only perhaps not as badly as the Arabs or other "muscleman" of the area, had they invaded and occupied instead of the "Turks", as being the one of the latest invaders and occupiers of Cyprus in the chain of Invasions and occupations going back centuries in the history of Cyprus, but since you do not want to rewrite history by imagining what it would have been like under the Arabs and others, then we are only left with history that has been written, which is the invasion and occupation by the "Turks" going back to 1571 and as recently as 1974, which according to your implied answer, they have behaved badly in your above quote. But if you now claim that you did not imply that the "Turks" did in fact behaved badly, are you saying then that the invasion and occupation by the "Turks", be it be in 1571 or 1974, does not constitute as being bad, even though you yourself wished no such invasion and occupation had taken place, even though it may be part of Human Nature to do so, according to your beliefs, and if it's only Human Nature to do so, then you must accept such Invasions & Occupations as not being bad at all, just because it is Human Nature. Is this how you see things, Bananiot.??

If YFred wrote the above quote that you wrote, I would have dismissed it in a second as being a worthless response, but coming from someone as intellectual as yourself, it warranted for me to explore what was it that you were trying to say exactly to DT. I do not have an ulterior motive as you have stated, Bananiot, but only seeking clarification.!

For a moment with your response to DT sounded as if you were in agreement with Piratis, that the "Turks" have behaved badly in Cyprus going back as far as 1571. Now, that would have been an historic event if such agreement between you two did take place.!

I did warn you Bananiot about certain shylock tendencies. Every word you type will be scrutenised recorded and documented.

[Get Real!]

Kikapu

What are you saying, Bananiot, that the "Turks" behaved badly in Cyprus since 1571.??

No my friend, I did not say this. I could have said it however, but in this case you know very well, I am sure, that my response was to a baseless theoretical question of DT which had an ulterior motive, just like yours I am afraid, but I get your drift. Just to set your mind to rest, I would have been much happier, just like everybody I guess, if there were no invasions and occupations. However, the history of mankind is one of mass movement and given the legacy of globalisation, things will be no different in the future, simply "occupations" will take many different forms, more subtle perhaps but equally effective (look at poor old Greece).

That is a ridiculous question. It does not befit an answer. You cannot erase historical events. You merely face them rationally. Christ, if it were not the Turks, it could have been the Arabs or some other muscleman of the area. What were the guarantees that they would have behaved better?

But your quote above most definitely implies that the "Turks" behaved badly in Cyprus, only perhaps not as badly as the Arabs or other "muscleman" of the area, had they invaded and occupied instead of the "Turks", as being the one of the latest invaders and occupiers of Cyprus in the chain of Invasions and occupations going back centuries in the history of Cyprus, but since you do not want to rewrite history by imagining what it would have been like under the Arabs and others, then we are only left with history that has been written, which is the invasion and occupation by the "Turks" going back to 1571 and as recently as 1974, which according to your implied answer, they have behaved badly in your above quote. But if you now claim that you did not imply that the "Turks" did in fact behaved badly, are you saying then that the invasion and occupation by the "Turks", be it be in 1571 or 1974, does not constitute as being bad, even though you yourself wished no such invasion and occupation had taken place, even though it may be part of Human Nature to do so, according to your beliefs, and if it's only Human Nature to do so, then you must accept such Invasions & Occupations as not being bad at all, just because it is Human Nature. Is this how you see things, Bananiot.??

If YFred wrote the above quote that you wrote, I would have dismissed it in a second as being a worthless response, but coming from someone as intellectual as yourself, it warranted for me to explore what was it that you were trying to say exactly to DT. I do not have an ulterior motive as you have stated, Bananiot, but only seeking clarification.!

For a moment with your response to DT sounded as if you were in agreement with Piratis, that the "Turks" have behaved badly in Cyprus going back as far as 1571. Now, that would have been an historic event if such agreement between you two did take place.!

I did warn you Bananiot about certain shylock tendencies. Every word you type will be scrutenised recorded and documented.

He makes a fool of you every time and all you can do is take it!

[YFred]

Kikapu

What are you saying, Bananiot, that the "Turks" behaved badly in Cyprus since 1571.??

No my friend, I did not say this. I could have said it however, but in this case you know very well, I am sure, that my response was to a baseless theoretical question of DT which had an ulterior motive, just like yours I am afraid, but I get your drift. Just to set your mind to rest, I would have been much happier, just like everybody I guess, if there were no invasions and occupations. However, the history of mankind is one of mass movement and given the legacy of globalisation, things will be no different in the future, simply "occupations" will take many different forms, more subtle perhaps but equally effective (look at poor old Greece).

That is a ridiculous question. It does not befit an answer. You cannot erase historical events. You merely face them rationally. Christ, if it were not the Turks, it could have been the Arabs or some other muscleman of the area. What were the guarantees that they would have behaved better?

But your quote above most definitely implies that the "Turks" behaved badly in Cyprus, only perhaps not as badly as the Arabs or other "muscleman" of the area, had they invaded and occupied instead of the "Turks", as being the one of the latest invaders and occupiers of Cyprus in the chain of Invasions and occupations going back centuries in the history of Cyprus, but since you do not want to rewrite history by imagining what it would have been like under the Arabs and others, then we are only left with history that has been written, which is the invasion and occupation by the "Turks" going back to 1571 and as recently as 1974, which according to your implied answer, they have behaved badly in your above quote. But if you now claim that you did not imply that the "Turks" did in fact behaved badly, are you saying then that the invasion and occupation by the "Turks", be it be in 1571 or 1974, does not constitute as being bad, even though you yourself wished no such invasion and occupation had taken place, even though it may be part of Human Nature to do so, according to your beliefs, and if it's only Human Nature to do so, then you must accept such Invasions & Occupations as not being bad at all, just because it is Human Nature. Is this how you see things, Bananiot.??

If YFred wrote the above quote that you wrote, I would have dismissed it in a second as being a worthless response, but coming from someone as intellectual as yourself, it warranted for me to explore what was it that you were trying to say exactly to DT. I do not have an ulterior motive as you have stated, Bananiot, but only seeking clarification.!

For a moment with your response to DT sounded as if you were in agreement with Piratis, that the "Turks" have behaved badly in Cyprus going back as far as 1571. Now, that would have been an historic event if such agreement between you two did take place.!

I did warn you Bananiot about certain shylock tendencies. Every word you type will be scrutenised recorded and documented.

He makes a fool of you every time and all you can do is take it!

The real question is who is the hunter and who is the hunted and when do the roles switch. When does the hunter become the hunted. Work it out, you are a clever boy are you not?
If he had an ounce of decency he would have taken my challenge and he would have learned the most valuable lesson in his life but it would have cost him everything he owned. Chickens eventually come home to roost.

[Get Real!]

The real question is who is the hunter and who is the hunted and when do the roles switch. When does the hunter become the hunted. Work it out, you are a clever boy are you not?
If he had an ounce of decency he would have taken my challenge and he would have learned the most valuable lesson in his life but it would have cost him everything he owned. Chickens eventually come home to roost.

I wouldn't brag about your “challenges”, “word of honor”, or “knowledge” if I were you…

[YFred]

The real question is who is the hunter and who is the hunted and when do the roles switch. When does the hunter become the hunted. Work it out, you are a clever boy are you not?
If he had an ounce of decency he would have taken my challenge and he would have learned the most valuable lesson in his life but it would have cost him everything he owned. Chickens eventually come home to roost.

I wouldn't brag about your “challenges”, “word of honor”, or “knowledge” if I were you…

The challenge is open to you too if you wish to take it on the same conditions for the same lesson at the same cost. Are you man enough?
I suspect no.

[Bananiot]

Kikapu

But your quote above most definitely implies that the "Turks" behaved badly in Cyprus, only perhaps not as badly as the Arabs or other "muscleman" of the area, had they invaded and occupied instead of the "Turks", as being the one of the latest invaders and occupiers of Cyprus in the chain of Invasions and occupations going back centuries in the history of Cyprus, but since you do not want to rewrite history by imagining what it would have been like under the Arabs and others, then we are only left with history that has been written, which is the invasion and occupation by the "Turks" going back to 1571 and as recently as 1974, which according to your implied answer, they have behaved badly in your above quote. But if you now claim that you did not imply that the "Turks" did in fact behaved badly, are you saying then that the invasion and occupation by the "Turks", be it be in 1571 or 1974, does not constitute as being bad, even though you yourself wished no such invasion and occupation had taken place, even though it may be part of Human Nature to do so, according to your beliefs, and if it's only Human Nature to do so, then you must accept such Invasions & Occupations as not being bad at all, just because it is Human Nature. Is this how you see things, Bananiot.??

If YFred wrote the above quote that you wrote, I would have dismissed it in a second as being a worthless response, but coming from someone as intellectual as yourself, it warranted for me to explore what was it that you were trying to say exactly to DT. I do not have an ulterior motive as you have stated, Bananiot, but only seeking clarification.!

For a moment with your response to DT sounded as if you were in agreement with Piratis, that the "Turks" have behaved badly in Cyprus going back as far as 1571. Now, that would have been an historic event if such agreement between you two did take place.!

I do not what is the state of your mood these days Kikapu, I suppose you are just using this as an opportunity to do some mental exercising. I can understand this and I take no offense. However, I am sure that you are simply attempting to cheat reason while appealing to reason. I hope you agree with this because otherwise you would have me worrying.

[YFred]

Kikapu

But your quote above most definitely implies that the "Turks" behaved badly in Cyprus, only perhaps not as badly as the Arabs or other "muscleman" of the area, had they invaded and occupied instead of the "Turks", as being the one of the latest invaders and occupiers of Cyprus in the chain of Invasions and occupations going back centuries in the history of Cyprus, but since you do not want to rewrite history by imagining what it would have been like under the Arabs and others, then we are only left with history that has been written, which is the invasion and occupation by the "Turks" going back to 1571 and as recently as 1974, which according to your implied answer, they have behaved badly in your above quote. But if you now claim that you did not imply that the "Turks" did in fact behaved badly, are you saying then that the invasion and occupation by the "Turks", be it be in 1571 or 1974, does not constitute as being bad, even though you yourself wished no such invasion and occupation had taken place, even though it may be part of Human Nature to do so, according to your beliefs, and if it's only Human Nature to do so, then you must accept such Invasions & Occupations as not being bad at all, just because it is Human Nature. Is this how you see things, Bananiot.??

If YFred wrote the above quote that you wrote, I would have dismissed it in a second as being a worthless response, but coming from someone as intellectual as yourself, it warranted for me to explore what was it that you were trying to say exactly to DT. I do not have an ulterior motive as you have stated, Bananiot, but only seeking clarification.!

For a moment with your response to DT sounded as if you were in agreement with Piratis, that the "Turks" have behaved badly in Cyprus going back as far as 1571. Now, that would have been an historic event if such agreement between you two did take place.!

I do not what is the state of your mood these days Kikapu, I suppose you are just using this as an opportunity to do some mental exercising. I can understand this and I take no offense. However, I am sure that you are simply attempting to cheat reason while appealing to reason. I hope you agree with this because otherwise you would have me worrying.

If I was you Bananiot, I would have started worrying about our Kicks baby about 12 months ago.

[Get Real!]

I do not what is the state of your mood these days Kikapu, I suppose you are just using this as an opportunity to do some mental exercising. I can understand this and I take no offense. However, I am sure that you are simply attempting to cheat reason while appealing to reason. I hope you agree with this because otherwise you would have me worrying.

Either that or others have started to worry about your posts...

[YFred]

I do not what is the state of your mood these days Kikapu, I suppose you are just using this as an opportunity to do some mental exercising. I can understand this and I take no offense. However, I am sure that you are simply attempting to cheat reason while appealing to reason. I hope you agree with this because otherwise you would have me worrying.

Either that or others have started to worry about your posts...

Well Kickapoo does not seem to be unduly worried about Bananiot's posts he was simply seeking clarification on some between the lines type thought. You would do well to follow your leader, what?

[BirKibrisli]

We often make the mistake of judging historical events by our own standards today...It is simple really,in 1571 it was natural for an Empire to expand her borders by conquering all they could...In 2010 unprovoked acts of aggression are not acceptable...It is pointless now to talk about what was right or wrong back in 1571...It is an intellectually interesting exercise to wonder what would have happened had a certain event not happened in history...What would've happened to Cyprus had the Ottomans not invaded??? What would the effect on Cyprus Orthodox Church have been had the Venetian rule continued for example...???

I would speculate and say that the Cyprus Orthodox Church owes its existance to the Ottoman invasion...Had the Catholic oppression continued much longer,it wouldve' been very difficult for Cypriots to maintain their faith...Does this justify the Ottoman invasion back in 1571???Of course not...Were Cypriots at the time happy to be saved from the Venetians?? I doubt it..."The devil you know" theory was valid in those days too...Was the Ottoman rule the worst or the most merciless of its time??? I would think not...Should we expect present day Cypriots to appreciate that and thank us for our ancestors past deeds? Certainly not...
Should we expect them at least not to blame us for what happened in 1571??? Definitely YES...Is that a realistic expectation??? That I leave for YOU to think about...