67impblack

Exorcizamus te, omnis immundus spiritus, omnis satanica potestas, omnis incursio infernalis adversarii, omnis legio, omnis congregatio et secta diabolica...

[67impblack @67impblack]

@HayAghchig Extraordinary claims require evidence, not propaganda graphics.

[67impblack @67impblack]

@HayAghchig This is not a historical source.
It is a political poster that labels dozens of different wars, rebellions, massacres, civil conflicts and disputed events as "genocides" without providing a single source.
History is not established by putting large numbers on an image.

[67impblack @67impblack]

@HistoryCyprus The existence of both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots today is proof that Cyprus cannot be explained by only one identity.

[67impblack @67impblack]

@HistoryCyprus Cyprus is part of Greek history, Turkish history, Roman history, Byzantine history, Venetian history, Ottoman history and British history.
Reducing 11,000 years of history to a single national narrative is not history. It is nationalism.

[67impblack @67impblack]

@EretzIsrael If the goal is historical accuracy, start with accurate figures.

If the goal is political propaganda, then accuracy was never the point.

[67impblack @67impblack]

@EretzIsrael Your post mixes established facts, disputed claims and highly questionable numbers.

The displacement of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots after 1974 is well documented. The claim of "500,000 Turkish settlers displacing the natives" is not.

[67impblack @67impblack]

@fdevedjian No, very legal.

[67impblack @67impblack]

@YossiGoldstein8 You are presenting a disputed historical and legal claim as if it were an established fact.

The disagreement begins there.

[67impblack @67impblack]

@veguigui Your post presents disputed claims as established facts while omitting half the historical context.

History in Cyprus did not begin in 1974.

And discussing Cyprus does not exempt anyone from discussing present-day conflicts elsewhere.

Like Gazza.

[67impblack @67impblack]

@Mish_K_ The real question is not who owned Cyprus centuries ago, but how Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots can coexist on the island today.

[67impblack @67impblack]

@Mish_K_ Neither claim is serious history.

Cyprus was not exclusively Greek for 3000 years, nor exclusively Turkish for 500 years.

It was ruled by Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Crusaders, Venetians, Ottomans and the British.

[67impblack @67impblack]

@IsraelMFA Interesting.

Whenever questions about Gaza, settlements or civilian deaths arise, the conversation suddenly becomes about the Ottoman Empire.

The Ottoman Empire ended over a century ago.

The questions being asked are about events happening today.

[67impblack @67impblack]

@meralhece Interesting.

Whenever questions about Gaza, settlements or civilian deaths arise, the conversation suddenly becomes about the Ottoman Empire.

The Ottoman Empire ended over a century ago.

The questions being asked are about events happening today.

[67impblack @67impblack]

@strucom @meralhece Interesting.

Whenever questions about Gaza, settlements or civilian deaths arise, the conversation suddenly becomes about the Ottoman Empire.

The Ottoman Empire ended over a century ago.

The questions being asked are about events happening today.

[67impblack @67impblack]

@JSchanzer You may disagree with Turkey's position on Cyprus, but simply declaring two entirely different disputes to be the same is not an argument.

It is ignorance.

[67impblack @67impblack]

@JSchanzer The argument assumes the two situations are legally and historically identical. They are not.

One involves the aftermath of the 1974 Greek-backed coup and the Treaty of Guarantee. The other involves a different conflict, different treaties and different legal circumstances.

[67impblack @67impblack]

@12345678910rsm @KPehlivano85093 It is majority rule without consent.

It is tyranny of the majority.

[67impblack @67impblack]

@12345678910rsm @KPehlivano85093 That is not an argument about democracy. It is an argument that one community's political wishes mattered and the other's did not.

A democracy that allows 80% of the population to decide the national future of the remaining 20% against their will is not democracy.

[67impblack @67impblack]

@12345678910rsm @KPehlivano85093 That is precisely why the 1960 Republic was founded with power-sharing, veto rights and guarantor provisions rather than simple majority rule.

[67impblack @67impblack]

@12345678910rsm @KPehlivano85093 If your answer is "no", then you're arguing that a minority can be absorbed into another state against its will.
If your answer is "yes", then you already understand why Enosis was opposed.