Mankurts or how Turks try to control their victims by depriving them of their memory.

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Sep 12, 2010 at 07:08

Caleb writes :

> The Canadian historian Gwyn Dyer observed that the trouble with history is that there is too much of it. <

If he really thinks as a historian that there is "too much history" around , then I suggest he should change his profession as quickly as possible and embark upon the study of something rarer like e.g "Turkish humanism" or "Turkish contributions to science".

> Nowhere is this more true than in the intertwined histories of Greece and Turkey.<

There is an interesting ancient Turkic myth about Mankurt that tells us how the Turks manipulate their slaves and victims by depriving them of their memory . A new slave is bound and a camel hide is tied around his head. He's exposed for a few days to the sun. The hide shrinks and presses the skull and with time damages the brain. The slave loses his memory and forgets his name , his parents and becomes like a dog to his Turkish master. There is deep symbolism and realism in the Turkic myth .

It's what you're trying to achieve with your perfidious and outrageous suggestion that history should be forgotten. Forget your history and you're a mankurt at the mercy of any vulgar and violent Turk ! By the way, today's Turks -all descandants of islamized Greeks, Armenians, Slavs - are a nation of mankurts , former Greeks, Armenians, Bulgarians who have forgotten their past.

> On Cyprus, each side can point a finger at the other and shout "You started it!",

Dear Turkish mankurt, just to remind you of your own words, you wrote on 5.09. 2010 :

"The principle is generally held in law that an original tortfeasor is liable for all resulting injuries such as any malpractice occurring when the injured party is treated in hospital for the original injury. The same holds true here. It is Sampson, Gizikis, Ioannides and EOKA-B who are to blame for the damage and losses about which Ianus now whines so plaintively."

Against your big-mouthed claims and insinuendo I quoted the British sources from 17th June 1958 which spoke expressis verbis of who is the original tortfeasor , i.e. " the incitement to murder and civil war of the Turkish Cypriot population by means of radio broadcasts and newspapers from Turkey."

The only comment I see on that and other sources that contradict your inventions and lies is your consistent avoidance to face them and your infantile and escapist statement : "On Cyprus, each side can point a finger at the other and shout "You started it!" ".

Definitely, each side can do that but it is the Turkish side that is lying as the relevant neutral sources do reveal .

> BUT... Cyprus has never been part of Greece.<

You Turks have plundered and wontonly destroyed most archaeological sites in Northern Cyprus as you have done with the rest of the kafiri cultural heritage you seized. But still it is a well know gfact of history that the first Hellenic settlements date back to c. 1700 BC in the Mycaenean period. From that momemt until now there has been an uninterrupted history of Hellenism on Cyprus, i.e. for 3700 years. Now as to Turks they have always been alien and destructive occupiers on the island just like anywhere the Turks popped up . Their hordes conquered and devastated the island in 1570-1571. After the conquest the island had 150 000 inhabitants including 30 000 jihadist army of occupation and Moslem colonizers.

> Lying only forty miles off the Turkish coast, it was part of Ottoman Turkey for 350 years. <

And for 3700 years a glorious part of the Hellenic world. By the way, the conquest of Cyprus meant its economic and cultural regress and decline that persisted until 1878.

> It became a British Crown Colony in 1925.<

What is more interesting than that is that in 1923 Kemalist Turkey renounced ALL rights and claims whatsoever to Cyprus by the Treaty of Lausanne. Our Turkish mankurt has already forgotten that , hasn't he ?

> Even after independence, Britain retains its Sovereign Base Areas on the island. The purpose of the London and Lausanne Agreements of 1960 was to create an independent and unitary Republic of Cyprus under British guarantees, draw a line on past communal conflicts and start fresh.<

You can't even distinguish between Zurich and Lausanne , Turkish mankurt , and yet keep pontificating here on history as if you knew or cared anything about it!

Now if the British were at any time serious about the Zurich-London Agreements , then why didn't they decalre war on Turkey the moment the latter proceeded to occupy the island militarily carrying out thereby the destruction of all the provisions of the afrementioned agreements ? According to its provisions after all no country had any right to invade and conquer any part of the island, expell its population and commit crimes against humanity as the Turks did in 1974.

> It is regrettable that some on each side cannot allow the memories of what happened before 1960 to die. <

It is regretabble that no Turk and not just a pedestrian Turkish liar like you can face any negative evidence about Turkey and further that although their never ending lies are exposed again and again they act as if nothing had happened. Turkish lies are not meant to be discussed but to be repeated, aren't they ? Turkish mankurts are ideal transmission media for these lies .

But again , Turkish mankurt , have you never been told any relevant lie by your masters as to what right the Turkish barbarians had to conquer 40% of the land for 18% of its population ?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".