Turkey : The Turkish Army is reportedly being prepared for creating a crisis in Cyprus

http://www.hri.org/news/cyprus/tcpr/2002/02-03-01.tcpr.html ^ | 02-03-01 | KIBRISLI

[pkpjamestown]

Under the banner front-page title "Media war by the EU against the Turkish Army!", KIBRISLI (1.3.02) reports that the Turkish Ministry of Justice has confiscated the "Idea Politika" magazine because it had written that Turkey is being prepared to create a crisis in Cyprus.

The paper argues that the article of the above-mentioned magazine has been published within the framework of the efforts exerted by the European Union to create "a Turkey where the power of money will rule and everything will be sold and bought like a merchandise". The EU, alleges KIBRISLI, "escalates the media war against the Turkish army which it considers as the biggest obstacle to this".

"According to the magazine", writes the paper, "the Turkish Armed Forces will create a crisis in Cyprus and will be absolutely isolated from the EU".

According to KIBRISLI the EU " is buying off journalists" within the framework of its psychological struggle and the campaign against the Turkish army.

The magazine wrote that Greece and the Greek Cypriots must not be considered as Turkey's enemies. It also argued that the reason for which Turkey wants to join the European Army is the fact that it sees from now that it could come to a conflict with the European Army because of the accession of the Republic of Cyprus to the EU.

[Aric2000]

Yeah, look at Elinil, the Turks are satan spawn as far as she/he/it are concerned. Clueless, totally and absolutely clueless.

[Aric2000]

Like I said, Bigoted and closeminded, that post is the BIGGEST piece of tripe and lack of knowledge that I have ever seen. I baited the trap, and you WALKED right into it. Turk2 caught you first though, Good Job Turk2!! ROFLMAO!!

Belly dancer with no historical or personal experience, OMG, Clueless, totally and absolutley clueless.

[mamelukesabre]

saying that turkey is the bad guy is not the same thing as saying turks are bad guys. I have met turks in america and they seem like good people. The only bad things I have ever heard about turks in america is that they aren't much for personal heigene. But individuals in america has nothing to do with turkey and the sins of its government and military.

[eleni121]

You are the hopeless one Turk! Alexius asked Pope Urban to help rid Byzantium of Turkish invaders thus initiating the Crusades. Go read some history you ignorant Turk.

[eleni121]

What trap simpleton? There are no traps to be set by the ignorant like you, baklava. I repeat: read some history...my son's seventh grade reader perhaps?

[eleni121]

Actually Turks may be redeeable if they would only admit to their barbarities and begin restitution to their victims.

Unlike Mohameddans, Christians can forgive.

[Verginius Rufus]

History of Cyprus:

58 B.C.-A.D. 395: part of the Roman Empire.

A.D. 395 to 688: part of the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire.

A.D. 688 to 965: Arab-Byzantine joint rule

A.D. 965 to 1191: Byzantine rule.

A.D. 1191: conquered by Richard the Lion-hearted of England.

A.D. 1192-1489: ruled by Lusignan dynasty.

A.D. 1489 to 1571: ruled by Venice.

A.D. 1571 to 1878: part of the Ottoman Empire.

A.D. 1878 to 1960: part of the British Empire.

A.D. 1960: independence.

[eleni121]

I am neither turk nor greek and to me it seems pretty obvious that turkey is the bad guy

Turkey's millions of victims would agree with that assessment.

[Mortimer Snavely]

U.S. Department of State Cyprus Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1997

This is the most recent I could find.

[Aric2000]

Elinil, you need to pull your pompous head out of your nether regions.

The Ottoman empire had just begun at the LAST crusade, the Ottomans are the ones that STOPPED that barbaric Christian practice. The Christians tried hard to beat the Ottomans back in the last crusade, but gave it up. The last crusade had already begun when the Ottomans showed up and pushed them back to thier proper borders.

Have you ever heard the phrase "kill them all, let God sort them out." This was uttered by a pope, when he was asked if the women and children of the villages they were razing should be spared. The Crusaders murdered in cold blood well over 5 million people in a spread of about 200 years. The Crusaders were forgiven of all sins, were guaranteed a place in heaven, and would get all but 10% of the bounty from conquering heresy and pagans. This sound civilized to you?

What about the US, we wiped out well over 2 million Indians in the stretch of about 200 years, through introducing Small pox, ON PURPOSE, with bedding and blankets that were infected. As well as just PLAIN old murder and death marches.

Oh yeah, the Ottomans were the WORST!! UH, HUH, sure you betcha!! How about the 518,000 Turks that were killed by Armenians? over a million Armenians, but they got about half that number in Turks. Sounds like it was intense fighting and destruction by both sides, the Ottoman Turks were just better fighters then the Armenians and so didn't lose as many people.

The Ottoman got NOTHING on the Christians, the Christians slaughtered to the last man, woman and child, maybe you NEED to apologize!! Oh, Arrogant, twisted, and bitter one.

Read your history Elinil, and don't throw rocks when you live in a glass house. If you are going to blame Turkey for something that was done by the Ottoman Empire, then you should be held accountable for the actions of your ancestors as well. The Christians, the US, oh it just goes ON AND ON AND ON!!

[eleni121]

So now the truth about you is revealed. You are nothing but an anti Christian bigot, baklava! I have a suggestion: There is an organization that may suit you perfectly called Al Quaeda. Or if you prefer state sponsored butchery try the Turkish state.

The Ottoman got NOTHING on the Christians, the Christians slaughtered to the last man, woman and child, maybe you NEED to apologize!! Oh, Arrogant, twisted, and bitter one.

Whoa!!!Not even Farakkhan would be so delusional. Your reaction reveals that you are the one who is bitter not to mention perverted as in a basic lack of understading of history?

[Aric2000]

I don't have a basic understanding of HISTORY? You were the one that stated that the Crusades were for beating back the Ottoman Turks, NOT I, oh knowledgable one.

I am FAR from bitter, I just hate arrogant bigoted, unknowledgable idiots that make blatantly false statements that have nothing to do with history. I just point them out and let the chips fall where they may.

YOU are a hypocrtie, because if the Turkish need to apologize for the actions of thier ancestors, then you DEFINITELY need to apologize for the actions of yours. You live here in the US, so YOU have the Indians to apologize for, Slavery to apologize for, you are obviously a Christian, so YOU need to apologize for the Crusades and the senseless slaughter of over 5 million UNARMED men women and children and the total destruction of thier homes.

If you are NOT willing to do that, then you should not be telling the Turks that they need to, Otherwise you are nothing more then a hypocrite. If they need to answer for thier ancestors, then you need to as well.

[eleni121]

I may be somewhat bitter about what the butchering Turks have done to so many over so many years but I have nothing to apologize for in America. You, on the other hand, are an apologist for the true savages of the world and all because of your hatred for Christians.

As for your ignorance about the Crusades... I suggested to you a look at the history of the Muslim invasions including that of the Ottoman Turks and the response by the west - the Christians. You won't do it though because you are blinded by your hatred of anything Christian. Anything you write therefore is marked by your ignorance.

[Aric2000]

Let's go over this ONE more time shall we, because you just aren't getting it, or DO NOT want to get it, which shows me what a bigot and hypocrite you are.

And I was born and raised a christian you arrogant twit, I have NO animosity towards the Christian faith at all.

Let's go over the crusades one more time, I have studied the crusades, thoroughly, I took a class on them in College, have you?

In one of the first crusades, the region in france known as the Languaduc, spelling is probably wrong, was one of the MOST advanced in Europe, art, literature, literacy, government. It was one of Europes MOST advanced cultures, but they would NOT recognize the pope's authority. The Pope therefore declared a crusade against them. One of his knights came to the pope with a question, he asked how the crusaders would tell the difference between a Christian and a heretic, the pope said " Kill them all, to the last man, woman, and child, god will claim his own."

The crusaders went into that region and killed every last man, woman and child, burned down the entire region and took everything of value. They burned the books, the art, every bit of knowledge that these people had, and put over 250,000 people to the sword in a little over a week. Then, just to make sure that ANY survivors would die, they salted the fields, so that crops WOULD NOT grow and they would starve.

This sounds civilized doesn't it?

Over a 200 year period the crusades sent out by the popes killed over 5 million people, 5 million, and probably more.

Now then, on to the "crusade against the Ottomans" as you like to think of it, but in fact it was NEVER considered a crusade. Here let me give you some info.

From the sixteenth century European policy was swayed exclusively by state interests; hence to statesmen the idea of a crusade seemed antiquated. Egypt and Jerusalem having been conquered by Sultan Selim, in 1517, Pope Leo X made a supreme effort to re-establish the peace essential to the organization of a crusade. The King of France and Emperor Charles V promised their co-operation; the King of Portugal was to besiege Constantinople with 300 ships, and the pope himself was to conduct the expedition. Just at this time trouble broke out between Francis I and Charles V; these plans therefore failed completely. The leaders of the Reformation were unfavourable to the crusade, and Luther declared that it was a sin to make war upon the Turks because God had made them His instruments in punishing the sins of His people. Therefore, although the idea of the crusade was not wholly lost sight of, it took a new form and adapted itself to the new conditions.

It was NEVER a true crusade, so check your history and try again...

Your arrogance, hyposcrisy, and bigotry, know NO bounds.

If the Turks are answerable to the actions of thier ancestors the Ottomans, then so are the christians for the crusades, and so is the US for the indians and slavery.

If the Turks are answerable, then in order NOT to be a hypocrite, you MUST admit the christians are answerable and the US is answerable. YOU HAVE TO, or you are indeed arrogant, bigoted, and hypocritical.

Go ahead, squirm out of that one, go ahead. If you try, then you are indeed just what I think you are.

[TheEnd]

Aric,
First thanks for your message. You have understand my position.
However, there are some important issues that must be clarified:
It looks that you live in the US ( as I do) . Your basic point of view is generous, that people should go over such tragedies in their history, and do not use past experiences to build future conflicts.

The truth is that the view from the US does not reflect at all the sesibilities on the ground, sensibilities that are build after hundred and thousand of years of conflict and occupation. US, and the 'politically correct" policy here is just not working applied anywhere else ( and not even in the US I think).

It's easy to be cool about all the hatred in the Balkans against Ottoman Empire, while living in a quiet subdivision of a new ( less than 100 years old ) American city, and something else to grow in a country where the folklore is impregnated with horror stories about hundreds of years of terror.

I give Turkey the credit it deserves being a modern secular state, where the fundamentalism is subdued not by a ruthless police ( like in some other Muslim nations) , but by a population that is genuinely more interested in Western life style than in Bin Laden rants.

I have not been in Turkey, but my parents were, and they were delighted by the scenery and by Istanbul's animated streets. Being Christians they had no problems, and they never felt threatened. We also had a Turkish friend, a very interesting and pleasant person. And I do remember also the cool guy at David Letterman show ( I am not sure how many remember about the Turkish guy that was using funny English on the net to get chicks in a very special way ).
Anyway, be sure that I am trying to get Turkey the credit it does deserve.
But here is where I stop completely agreeing with you.
Like many Muslim apologists, you put the equal sign between the Crusades and the Ottoman thousand year siege of Europe, and maybe more serious, you are trying to imply that somehow all Christians were to blame ( and be ashamed) about the innocent bloodshed that came from the Crusades.

This is just wrong.
Crusades were about liberating a place considered sacred, while the Muslim push in Europe was about obliteration of civilization the way we know it. It's a big difference that you should be aware of.

Most of the clashes between European Christian armies and the Ottoman armies were happening actually in Europe, and not on Turkey proper .  The battles of Vienna, Belgrade, etc, etc etc etc, were against marauding Ottoman hordes pushing as far as possible into Europe proper.

It is not the time and the place to tell you about thousands of real martyrs ( not the sexual perverts that dream about scores of virgins in heaven while taking others lives) that were burned alive or beheaded just because they refused to convert to islam.

Ottoman empire needed though enslaving populations as a source of military manpower ( remember the earlier story) and also for the taxes they extorted from them. Oh yes, and from time to time they needed to replenish their hundreds of sex slaves with fresh virgins from the 'ruled' territories. Remember that you do not have such equivalent in the behavior of any Christian nation/army.
While marauding the losing side/nation was a common act in the Middle ages, there were no equivalent for the atrocities where children were abducted for conversion into fanatical soldiers, nor the institutionalized sex slavery that was the norm in the Ottoman Empire.

You cannot compare the liability of say England or Greece in the fight of any Christian cause, but there is only one side to represent the Ottoman Empire, and that is Turkey. Do not get me wrong, I am not sure that this is about material extortion ( $$$$ for damages), but about getting the right words. I would not support any repayment for the victims ( for their grandsons actually) , but I do support the word 'genocide', because it looks that the Ottomans are the one most able to do it.


And also do not forget that Christianity is not represented by the Pope alone. Orthodox ( Eastern) Cristians never recognised the idea that a man should have the absolute power the Pope claimed. Funny that Constantiople had to pay a price for that (!!!!)

Turkey is actually taking pride in being the successor of the Ottoman Empire, but , you know, without the liabilities of a thousand years of bloodletting .

And if you follow the postings of the Turks on FR forums you will notice how much bigotry is involved. Their hatred against the Greeks is almost pathologic, and if you follow closely they are trying to discredit everything, from the merits of Greek civilization to all sorts of archaeological rants .

Again, from the US this looks less interesting than a BigMac, but I think that is above audacity for any Turk to rant about the role of Greece in shaping the civilization the way we know it.

European culture ( "The West' if you want) that -ironically- Turkey wants to be part of- is defined by several major terms:

1. Greek culture
2. Roman Culture
3. Christianity

You will find this in common roots in all European nations , from Ireland to Moscow. Look even at the dollar bills and see the Greek architecture imitated after thousands of years, look at the Roman law code, an so and so.
And those fundaments are infinite deeper than architectural influences. Aristotle, Pythagoras, Julius Caesar, Plato, Homer, and then DaVinci, etc, etc, etc.
The Renaissance "manifesto" was a return to the vibrant period of Greek culture , and a liberation from the dark ages of Catholic bigotry, and all this while the Turkish armies were pounding the eastern borders of Europe, and the Ottoman empire being the same colorless battle machine that was busy collecting virgins from Romania, Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, etc ettc etc.
Should I repeat that 1000 years of Ottoman traces in European civilisation ammounts to NOTHING, actually it should have a minus sign ?
So giving the alternative of supporting the Turks in their claim that the Ottoman empire, and that their forefathers were a glory to civilization, and that Greece ( and Russia, and Serbia, etc) are some worthless nations, please understand why I will always side with the Greeks here.
And Turkey itself was instrumental in influencing US in giving the upper hand to islam factions in Bosnia, Kosovo and montenegro,sending that part of Europe into chaos which is another reason I do not see that country with very good eyes.
Guess who was cheering while Christians were bombed in Kosovo and Bosnia ( other than Albright/Clinton, etc) ?
And to make my background clear, I am not a Greek ( I haven't met any in my life) , I am coming from country mostly known for Dracula...

[Turk2]

Hello Vlad. No wonder you are so clueless about Ottoman history. Your national hero is a guy that is revered for having butchered 65,000 Turkish soldiers by forcing then on poles. It is your bigotry against the Turks that I despise and I have nothing against the Greeks (in fact I find them to be very similar in culture to me and quite like them). If the Ottomans had been such genocidal maniacs how have the Christians under their rule managed to survive for 500+ years? Would the Greeks have survived under Catholic rule? Would the Patriarch been allowed to live in Rome? Would the Sephardic Jews have been able live to see the founding of Israel if they had been under Romanian rule?

[Turk2]

History of Cyprus:

58 B.C.-A.D. 395: part of the Roman Empire. - 337 years

A.D. 395 to 688: part of the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire. - 293 years

A.D. 688 to 965: Arab-Byzantine joint rule - 278 years

A.D. 965 to 1191: Byzantine rule. - 226 years

A.D. 1191: conquered by Richard the Lion-hearted of England.

A.D. 1192-1489: ruled by Lusignan dynasty. - 297 years

A.D. 1489 to 1571: ruled by Venice. - 82 years

A.D. 1571 to 1878: part of the Ottoman Empire. - 307 years

A.D. 1878 to 1960: part of the British Empire. - 82 years

A.D. 1960: independence.

[Aric2000]

Well, I guess we will disagree then, the Crusades were mostly about power, some of them were to defend against Muslims, but mostly it was about the popes consolidating their power and wiping out those that disagreed with them.

History is just that, HISTORY, Turkey is modernising, westernizing and it is the only Muslim country that is an ALLY OF ISRAEL and the US. THIS IS IMPORTANT, whether most Turk haters understand that or not.

I have NEVER said that the Turks are lily white innocent babes in the woods, but if they are to blamed for thier history, then other cultures should be blamed for thiers, fair is fair. As a Christian you believe the Crusades were for protection, when in fact a lot of them were not. study up a bit, and admit to the fact that a lot of the crusades were cruel, unusual, and innocent and unarmed people were destroyed for disagreeing or ignoring the Roman Catholic Church. Over 5 million in a stretch of 200 years.

I will have to disagree with you, when I lived in Turkey, I made MANY friends, and I enjoyed the culture, the ancient sites, and of course the people. Turkey has much to be proud of, and they are working hard to become a major contributor to the west.

They are our allies, and deserve to be, in my opinion. I tire of cultures being blamed for thier past, I look to the future, and that is where Turkey looks as well.

I have to make a trip to Seattle, so will not post again until Monday night or Tuesday morning. I will respond then if I feel that it is worth the effort.

[FITZ]

I have studied the crusades, thoroughly, I took a class on them in College

If you went to a liberal college which most are, you should throw out everything you learned about the Crusades and Christianity.

[eleni121]

Hey pilgrim, so you took a class in college...like Wow! Have you done any I repeat any independent reading about the Crusades or the history of the Mediterranean region at all? I DOUBT IT VERY MUCH judging from you ill informed and very "imaginative" posts. The leftist revisionist slant on most campuses especially in the history departments is well known. You have obviously swallowed hook line and sinker all the garbage they fed you. (I will be happy to supply you with a short but effective bibliography to help enlighten you but I cannot promise you that you will comprehend it). Then you went to Turkey at some point and after some belly dancing and kebabs and some laughs and stuff...swallowed the whole Turkish myth of modernization and westernization and victimization as well.

Unless you are willing to look at the facts of Turkish terror in the 20th century not to mention the 21st, you are just shi****g in the wind.