Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz]

Considering the fact that GC's are allways citing the oppression they endured and suffered under the Ottoman Turks I have one question.

This whole 'issue' is bogus.

What happens is a TC tries to explain the TC perspective, tries to make people see why they think the way they do and why they hold the fears they do. In doing so they try and explain what it meant to be a TC living in a 'united' and 'democratic' and 'unoccupied' Cyprus in the period 63-74 - for this period inevitably defines the TC perspective today.

What then happens is a small set of GC start saying 'you can not justify what happen in 74 by these 11 year' - yet that is not what the orignal TC is doing. He is trying to explain the TC perspective. Our view of things based on our experiences. This small set of GC then extend the 'argument' to you sufferd a bit but we suffer 100 times more. Again this misses and distracts from the point the TC is making. Namely that if you wish to understand the TC perspective on Cyprus and why we hold the views and attitudes and fears we do today, then you have to understand what went on in 60-74 and understand it from a TC perspective.

It has nothing to do with 'justifying current illegalites'. It has nothing to do with 'who did more bad things to whom ans when'. It has everything to do with TC trying to express their perspective. For a small set of GC they have no interest in uderstanding the TC perspective and by doing so help the chances that we can find an agreement today. Their interest is only in playing the same old propaganda games, in ignoring and belittling any non GC perspective and in themselves doing the very thing the false claim the TC poster was doing in the first place, namely 'justifying' and 'excusing' any GC culpability for the mess we are in today.

[Turkey (( *]

Considering the fact that GC's are allways citing the oppression they endured and suffered under the Ottoman Turks I have one question.

This whole 'issue' is bogus.

What happens is a TC tries to explain the TC perspective, tries to make people see why they think the way they do and why they hold the fears they do. In doing so they try and explain what it meant to be a TC living in a 'united' and 'democratic' and 'unoccupied' Cyprus in the period 63-74 - for this period inevitably defines the TC perspective today.

What then happens is a small set of GC start saying 'you can not justify what happen in 74 by these 11 year' - yet that is not what the orignal TC is doing. He is trying to explain the TC perspective. Our view of things based on our experiences. This small set of GC then extend the 'argument' to you sufferd a bit but we suffer 100 times more. Again this misses and distracts from the point the TC is making. Namely that if you wish to understand the TC perspective on Cyprus and why we hold the views and attitudes and fears we do today, then you have to understand what went on in 60-74 and understand it from a TC perspective.

It has nothing to do with 'justifying current illegalites'. It has nothing to do with 'who did more bad things to whom ans when'. It has everything to do with TC trying to express their perspective. For a small set of GC they have no interest in uderstanding the TC perspective and by doing so help the chances that we can find an agreement today. Their interest is only in playing the same old propaganda games, in ignoring and belittling any non GC perspective and in themselves doing the very thing the false claim the TC poster was doing in the first place, namely 'justifying' and 'excusing' any GC culpability for the mess we are in today.

I couldn't have told better!! That post is one of the rare that cannot be put up to...

[ChomskyFan]

Denktash has admitted on numerous occasions that he was part, or at least party to Agent Provocateur actions against TC targets.

If he has done so on numerous occasions then please provide some evidence of this. It should not be hard to do so if you claims are true.

So far you credibility is severly in the 'debit' zone as far as acurracy and truth goes with me, as again by your own posts you made an allegation against me re my expressed view on the kurds, when asked to substatiate your claim you 'declined' and when given evidence in black and white that what I had actualy said about the kurds was diametricaly opposite to the lie you stated, you simply 'disapered' from the discussion. If you can lie so blantanlty about my own posts, refuse to support your claims and then ignore the hard evidence that showed you claims as a lie, then it will take more than your unsupported claims about what Denktash has admitted to convince me or I suspect many other normal or rational people

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.p ... urds#52067

Erolz, go and suck off a thieving settler. I will post tomorrow, my copy of Hostage to History is in my dad's car and he is at a federation meeting.

[erolz]

Erolz, go and suck off a thieving settler.

There is nothing like a well resoned, logicaly sound and evidence supported argument - especially from an alledged fan of one of the worlds best practicers of such (Noam Chomsky)

and what you have written is nothing like it.

I will post tomorrow, my copy of Hostage to History is in my dad's car and he is at a federation meeting.

This would be the book by the 'independent' journalist Christoper Hitchens would it? The Independent journalist who was married to a GC and has to GC / English children ?

Find the book. Find it and find me a quote of Denktash admitting the things you claim he has admitted on numerous occasions. You will not find those quotes because they do not exist. You may find allegations from this biased writer. I have read much of Mr Hitchens work btw, including this book.

The truth is simple. You make claims that are not supportable. You have done it against me personaly and you do it in general. When this is shown by reasoned argument to be the case you become increasingly abusive.

Time for a new user id perhaps?

[ChomskyFan]

This would be the book by the 'independent' journalist Christoper Hitchens would it? The Independent journalist who was married to a GC and has to GC / English children ?

Big fucking deal, you find an indirect claim of bias, if Hitchens is so bias, why resort to mud slinging? Surely you can dismember Hostage to History quite easily?

Find the book. Find it and find me a quote of Denktash admitting the things you claim he has admitted on numerous occasions. You will not find those quotes because they do not exist. You may find allegations from this biased writer. I have read much of Mr Hitchens work btw, including this book.

As stated, I will get it tomorrow, now, go and worship Ataturk and The Turkish Flag. You come from a family of thieves and most probably downright lowlives who can't build a life for themselves so they steal, what else can I say?

[erolz]

Big fucking deal, you find an indirect claim of bias, if Hitchens is so bias, why resort to mud slinging? Surely you can dismember Hostage to History quite easily?

I resport to no mud slinging. I have stated facts about the context of Mr Hitchens writings about Cyprus.

But yet again you let the point slip. You claimed that "Denktash has admitted on numerous occasions that he was part, or at least party to Agent Provocateur actions against TC targets."

If this is so then it should be easy to find an example of such. Denktash has given numerous interviews over the years. Show me a single one that supports your claim and I assure you I will consider it and modify my belief that no such admission exits.

As stated, I will get it tomorrow, now, go and worship Ataturk and The Turkish Flag. You come from a family of thieves and most probably downright lowlives who can't build a life for themselves so they steal, what else can I say?

You need say no more. You are condemed by your own words and actions.

[Main_Source]

What happens is a TC tries to explain the TC perspective, tries to make people see why they think the way they do and why they hold the fears they do. In doing so they try and explain what it meant to be a TC living in a 'united' and 'democratic' and 'unoccupied' Cyprus in the period 63-74 - for this period inevitably defines the TC perspective today.

What then happens is a small set of GC start saying 'you can not justify what happen in 74 by these 11 year' - yet that is not what the orignal TC is doing. He is trying to explain the TC perspective. Our view of things based on our experiences. This small set of GC then extend the 'argument' to you sufferd a bit but we suffer 100 times more. Again this misses and distracts from the point the TC is making. Namely that if you wish to understand the TC perspective on Cyprus and why we hold the views and attitudes and fears we do today, then you have to understand what went on in 60-74 and understand it from a TC perspective.

It has nothing to do with 'justifying current illegalites'. It has nothing to do with 'who did more bad things to whom ans when'. It has everything to do with TC trying to express their perspective. For a small set of GC they have no interest in uderstanding the TC perspective and by doing so help the chances that we can find an agreement today. Their interest is only in playing the same old propaganda games, in ignoring and belittling any non GC perspective and in themselves doing the very thing the false claim the TC poster was doing in the first place, namely 'justifying' and 'excusing' any GC culpability for the mess we are in today.

On the contrary, most TC who mention those 14 years, use it as an excuse to why the island should be segregated forever. They seem to think that Cyprus's history starts in 1960 and they paint a picture of those 14 years, where they think that TC community was completely innocent hunted down and oppressed, in order to justify 200,000 still being made refugees. We know TC have suffered...but you have to get out of this silly mind set where Turks are always innocent. The Turkish government is notorious for it's bad human rights record...but whether it is against Greeks, Armenians or Kurds...most Turks would have you believe they are the true victim of any conflict...and any suffering done by the Turkish enemy is deserved.

Most TC cannot admit that people from their community were just as guilty for intercommunal strife as people from our community...but because the problems of the past resulted in Turkey invading Cyprus and 200,000 GC were made refugees...they want to paint a false picture so it doesnt seem like Turkey is the aggressor.

In all Turkey's history throughout the 20th century, they have come into so much conflict with different nations...but because of the pompus nationalism in that country...they seem to think its a coincidence that all those nations are in the wrong and Turkey did the right thing.

[ChomskyFan]

I resport to no mud slinging. I have stated facts about the context of Mr Hitchens writings about Cyprus.

No, you made unsubstantiated comments about his writings, your justification was whom his wife was. That's not a fact. In fact I demand you retract that statement until you start providing proof.

But yet again you let the point slip. You claimed that "Denktash has admitted on numerous occasions that he was part, or at least party to Agent Provocateur actions against TC targets."

If this is so then it should be easy to find an example of such. Denktash has given numerous interviews over the years. Show me a single one that supports your claim and I assure you I will consider it and modify my belief that no such admission exits.

And I have given you my response, I will provide them tomorrow, when I get my book back.

[erolz]

No, you made unsubstantiated comments about his writings, your justification was whom his wife was. That's not a fact. In fact I demand you retract that statement until you start providing proof.

What unsubstantiated claims did I make. Care to actual quote them or is that 'too much trouble for you'?

Are you saying its a lie that Mr Hitchens was married to a GC. That he had two children by this marriage? If so then I will happily provide the proof of this.

And I have given you my response, I will provide them tomorrow, when I get my book back.

But surely if Denktash had admitted the things you claim he had on numerous occasions there would be ample evidence of this, in direct quotes from him to journalists and newspapers. These would have been propagated on the many GC sites that exist. Surely you would not need Mr Hitchens book to provide your evidence?

[ChomskyFan]

Are you saying its a lie that Mr Hitchens was married to a GC. That he had two children by this marriage? If so then I will happily provide the proof of this.

You claimed you had made factual comments on his work, as shown below:

I have stated facts about the context of Mr Hitchens writings about Cyprus.

His wife is irrelevant to this, as are his children, your personal fascination into Mr. Hitchens personal life and family are no concern of mine. What is however, is the fact that you have been caught lying again.

But surely if Denktash had admitted the things you claim he had on numerous occasions there would be ample evidence of this, in direct quotes from him to journalists and newspapers. These would have been propagated on the many GC sites that exist. Surely you would not need Mr Hitchens book to provide your evidence?

As stated before, you are an extreme Turkish Nationalist, this much is evident. But that is besides the point in this issue, my reason is the fact I cannot remember much of the quote itself, I have tried typing certain keywords in Google, but it has returned many hundreds, in some cases thousands of results, ergo, the book would be a far better tool for sourcing this particular material.