| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pbowles@aol.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:02 pm Post subject: Re: And the final piece of the puzzle is put in place. Daois |
 |
|
On 19 Nov, 12:40, choro <ch...@tvco.net> wrote:
| Quote: | pbow...@aol.com wrote:
On 19 Nov, 09:47, "gogu" <RuminiiSugPu...@Greci.com> wrote:
"Martin Edwards" <big_mart...@yahoo.com> news:TRPUk.152688$yK5.126632@newsfe24.ams2...
imipak wrote:
It has become fashionable now among Greek Cypriots to blame Makarios for
everything. They still cannot see how they did their "cause" no good by
succumbing to the enticing siren call of extreme nationalism.
|
How much choice are they likely to have had, especially if EOKA was
engaged in the tactics you suggest? You won't find a Tamil outside the
Tamil Tigers who supports continued violence in Sri Lanka, but the
Tigers don't give a damn about the people they claim to represent,
with the result that they've torn up peace treaties time and again -
even now, when they don't have a hope in hell of getting what they
want. In doing that, they've forced a situation in which the only
resolution to the war will be the complete annihilation of the Tamil
Tigers by government forces (going by the current rate of progress,
likely within a year or two at the outside), which will do nothing at
all for Tamil rights - on the other hand, Colonel Karuna's defection a
couple of years ago to the government side may do a lot more to help
the Tamil cause in the long run. In 20 years someone might look back
and claim the war was the Tamils' fault for giving into extreme
nationalism, but the truth is the Tamils never strongly supported the
Tigers - who are notorious for kidnapping children from Tamil villages
to turn into fighters.
Cyprus,
| Quote: | which had been part of the Ottoman Empire for four centuries before it
was leased to the British at the end of the 19th century, with its
sizable Turkish Cypriot minority was after all only 40 miles from
Turkey's southern coast. In fact one can see the Turkish mountains on
the horizon from the northern shores of Cyprus. They still cannot grasp
the significance and importance of the existence of the Turkish mainland
a stone's throw from Cyprus with its land mass and population seven
times that of Greece which lies some 600 miles west of Cyprus.
|
Being able to see Turkey from Cyprus must give Cypriots a keen insight
into foreign affairs....
Phil |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
gogu
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:21 pm Post subject: Re: And the final piece of the puzzle is put in place. Daois |
|
|
Ο "Martin Edwards" <big_mart_98@yahoo.com> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:mMPUk.152602$yK5.37639@newsfe24.ams2...
| Quote: | gogu wrote:
thus Christians who by that time spoke Turkish were washed up in a
country where they did not speak the language.
|
| Quote: | Again, partially true and inaccurate.
People who came in Greece were *all* of Greek ethnic background except
some Armenians who came in Greece as...Armenians and not disguised as
Greeks!
What you are probably referring to is that some immigrants didn't speak
Greek but only Turkish.
Just so.
|
This is correct.
After centuries of Ottoman yoke, some Greeks lost their language, some out
of fear/oppression others out of the need to do business with the Ottomans
thus the need to learn the language of the state.
Some of them lost their language completely, others became bilingual.
Strange enough there were nucleus/villages which remained purely Grecophone,
without speaking the official language of the country, as it was the case of
the village of my wife (Epivat/Selim Pasa) and people in some cities in the
Pontus area! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Agamemnon
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:33 pm Post subject: Re: And the final piece of the puzzle is put in place. Daois |
|
|
"imipak" <imipak@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37695dc6-bfb2-4433-b8ed-e6171ce0953b@b31g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 18, 9:20 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
| Quote: | "imipak" <imi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ad9e76ea-ba06-4216-80be-ebff788acfd4@c36g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 18, 12:10 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.com> wrote:
imipak wrote:
On Nov 17, 12:20 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
"Martin Edwards" <big_mart...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mG9Uk.102646$i%.71862@newsfe25.ams2...
Agamemnon wrote:
We have already seen that the whole of Europe, Egypt, Palestine and
even
India was once ruled by the same body of indo-European or Minoan or
Hyksos God Kings who lived at the time just prior to the Thera
Eruption
Mega Tsunami which caused the Ogygian Deluge which in Norse
tradition
is
referred to as Ragnorok and in the Bible is called Noah's Flood and
by
the Hindus occurred in the time of Manu Vaivasvata and is also the
basis
of the Babylonian account of the Flood of Xisuthrus which was
appended to
the Gilgamesh Epic on an 11th tablet in 1600 BC, so it's now time
to
fit
in the final piece of the puzzle.
Actually very few have had that hallucination. What are you on at
George
Grivas University?
Imbecile!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kIJ-1KjU2M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RKCFJrE-6g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGhRvMYQrEc
So all of your inane posts are somehow to assert Greece's superiority
in the world in some misguided effort to salve the pain of one
independence war? You understand that throughout history, all
countries - Greece included - have been guilty of imperialism and have
had rebellions against such imperialism waged against them? That no
hands are clean? Indeed, modern Greece formed out of nothing less than
the military imposition of one tribe's will over and above the will of
all other tribes on the mainland and islands.
I have to say that you are stretching a point here. There were no
tribes by 1821. The population transfers of 1923 were on the basis of
religion, thus Christians who by that time spoke Turkish were washed up
in a country where they did not speak the language. This did not apply
only to Greece. Ildr, ancient Erythrai, was settled by Macedonian
Slavs, and the old people speak it to this day.
--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From "Rollerball"
Well, I -did- note that I was talking about all through history, so
I'm not just talking the past couple of hundred years or even as far
back as the birth of Christianity. Aggy goes back for the bulk of his
discussion to beyond 3,600 BC and his use of the links to recent
BOLLOCKS!
events as part of a justification of his claims cannot be allowed to
stand unanswered. Turkey has done many evil things over the millennia,
but so has every other nation, Greece included. (If you want to use
recent examples, then in recent war crimes investigations, there is
evidence that a comparable number of innocent Turks were murdered by
Greek Cypriots after the division as there were innocent Greeks who
were murdered by Turkish Cypriots. No hands are clean.) If Aggy wishes
ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT!!!! There is NO SUCH EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER! Over 5000
Greek
Cypriots were murdered by the Turks in 1974, and on top of that another
1600
held in Turkish concentration camps including women and children are still
missing. There is NO COMPARISON WHATSOEVER with the number of Turks who
were
murdering Greek Cypriot who were killed in justifiably provoked reprisals,
who number less than 100. Read the reports of the European Commission of
Human Rights which state the crimes were all committed by the Turks
against
the Greek Cypriots.
"" The Commission has found violations of a number of Articles of the
Convention. It notes that the acts violating the Convention were
exclusively
directed against members of one of the two communities in Cyprus, namely
the
Greek Cypriot community. The Commission concludes by eleven votes to three
that Turkey has thus failed to secure the rights and freedoms set forth in
these Articles without discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin,
race
and religion as required by Art.14 of the Convention (Report, para. 503) "
Turkey's invasion in Cyprus and aftermath (20 JULY 1974 - 18 MAY 1976)
to use the atrocities of the past against Greece to fuel his fervor in
proving that the innocent Greeks were wrongly disinherited of their
global dominion by a conspiracy of world powers and academics, he
should be prepared to be confronted with evidence that the Greeks were
never innocent and also with anger that he dare abuse the memories of
all who have been wrongfully killed (by whomever, whenever) to further
his propaganda.
|
<<<"Justifiably provoked reprisals"... What a wonderfully violent>>>
Like over 1000 women who were barbarically raped by Turkish soldiers,
members of NATO. Thousands of civilians were tortured and deliberately
maimed. 200,000 people were beaten at gun point and forced to leave their
homes, and so on. The reprisals against the perpetrators were completely
justified given the barbarity of their crimes.
<<<Also, you're working off old data. Mass graves have been uncovered and
documented as recently as this year. If you've a report that's older>>>
OF GREEK CYPRIOT CIVILIANS YOU IGNORANT FOOL! The were no Turkish Cypriot
civilians buried in mass graves. Only Turkish Cypriots engaged in the
fighting as illegal combatants and murdering and raping Greek Cypriots were
killed in reprisals along with the savage barbaric Turkish soldiers
responsible for these crimes.
Get it into you thick moronic head, that IT WAS TURKEY WHICH ILLEGALLY
INVADED CYPRUS not Cyprus which invaded Turkey.
"The Sunday Times" on 23 January 1977:
"KILLING Relevant Article of Human Rights Convention:- Everyone's right to
life shall be protected by law.
Charge made by Greek Cypriots: The Turkey army embarked on a systematic
course of mass killings of civilians unconnected with any war activity.
Evidence given to the Commission: Witness Mrs K said that on 21 July 1974,
the second day of the Turkish invasion, she and a group of villages from
Elia were captured when, fleeing from bombardment, they tried to reach a
range of mountains. All 12 men arrested were civilians. They were separated
from the women and shot in front of the women, under orders of a Turkish
officer. Some of the men were holding children, three of whom were wounded.
Written statements referred to two more group killings: at Trimithi,
eye-witnesses told of the deaths of five men (two shepherds aged 60 and 70,
two masons of 20 and 60, and a 19 year-old plumber). At Palekythron 30 Greek
Cypriot soldiers being held prisoner were killed by their captors, according
to the second statement.
Witness S gave evidence of two other mass killings at Palekythron. In each
case, between 30 and 40 soldiers who had surrendered to the advancing Turks
were shot. In the second case, the witness said: "the soldiers were
transferred to the kilns of the village where they were shot dead and burnt
in order not to leave details of what had happened".
Seventeen members of two neighbouring families, including 10 women and five
children aged between two and nine were also killed in cold blood at
Palekythron, reported witness H, a doctor. Further killings described in the
doctor's notes, recording evidence related to him by patients (either
eye-witnesses or victims), included;
Execution of eight civilians taken prisoner by Turkish soldiers in
the area of Prastio, one day after the cease-fire on 16 August 1974.
Killing by Turkish soldiers of five unarmed Greek Cypriot soldiers
who had sought refuge in a house at Voni.
Shooting of four women, one of whom survived by pretending she was
dead.
Further evidence, taken in refugee camps and in the form of written
statements, described killings of civilians in homes, streets or fields, as
well as the killing of people under arrest or in detention. Eight statements
described the killing of soldiers not in combat; five statements referred to
a mass grave found in Dherynia.
Commission's verdict: By 14 votes to one, the Commission considered there
were "very strong indications" of violation of Article 2 and killings
"committed on a substantial scale".
RAPE Relevant Article:- No one shall be subjected to torture or to in-human
or degrading treatment or punishment.
Charge:- Turkish troops were responsible for wholesale and repeated rapes of
women of all ages from 12 to 71. Sometimes to such an extent that the
victims suffered haemorrhages or became mental wrecks. In some areas,
enforced prostitution was practised, all women and girls of a village being
collected and put into separate rooms in empty houses where they were raped
repeatedly.
In certain cases members of the same family were repeatedly raped, some of
them in front of their own children. In other cases women were brutally
raped in public.
Rapes were on many occasions accompanied by brutality such as violent biting
of the victims, causing severe wounding, banging their heads on the floor
and wringing their throats almost to the point of suffocation. In some cases
attempts to rape were followed by the stabbing or killing of the victims,
including pregnant and mentally-retarded women.
Evidence given to Commission:- Testimony of doctors C and H, who examined
the victims. Eye-witnesses and hearsay witnesses also gave evidence, and the
Commission had before it written statements from 41 alleged victims.
Dr H said he had confirmed rape in 70 cases, including:-
A mentally-retarded girl of 24 was raped in her house by 20
soldiers. When she started screaming they threw her from the second floor
window. She fractured her spine and was paralysed.
One day after their arrival at Voni, Turks took girls to a nearby
house and raped them. ? One woman from Voni was raped on three occasions by
four persons each time. She became pregnant.
One girl, from Palekythrou, who was held with others in a house,
was taken out at gun point and raped.
At Tanvu, Turkish soldiers tried to rape a 17 year-old girl. She
resisted and was shot dead.
A woman from Gypsou told Dr H that 25 girls were kept by Turks at
Marathouvouno as prostitutes.
Another witness said his wife was raped in front of their children. Witness
S told of 25 girls who complained to Turkish officers about being raped and
were raped again by the officers. A man (name withheld) reported that his
wife was stabbed in the neck while resisting rape. His grand-daughter, aged
six, had been stabbed and killed by Turkish soldiers attempting to rape her.
A Red Cross witness said that in August 1974, while the island's telephones
were still working, the Red Cross Society received calls from Palekythrou
and Kaponti reporting rapes. The Red Cross also took care of 38 women
released from Voni and Gypsou detention camps; all had been raped, some in
front of their husbands and children. Others had been raped repeatedly, or
put in houses frequented with Turkish soldiers.
These women were taken to Akrotiri hospital, in the British Sovereign Base
Area, where they were treated. Three were found to be pregnant. Reference
was also made to several abortions performed at the base.
Commission's verdict:- By 12 votes to one the Commission found "that the
incidents of rape described in the cases referred to and regarded as
established constitute "in-human treatment" and thus violations of Article 3
for which Turkey is responsible under the Convention."
TORTURE Relevant article:- see above under Rape.
Charge: Hundreds of people, including children, women and pensioners, were
victims of systematic torture and savage and humiliating treatment during
their detention by the Turkish army. They were beaten, according to the
allegations, sometimes to the extent of being incapacitated. Many were
subjected to whipping, breaking of their teeth, knocking their heads against
walls, beating with electrified clubs, stubbing of cigarettes on their skin,
jumping and stepping on their chests and hands, pouring dirty liquids on
them, piercing them with bayonets, etc.
Many, it was said, were ill-treated to such an extent that they became
mental and physical wrecks. The brutalities complained of reached their
climax after the cease-fire agreements; in fact, most of the acts described
were committed at a time when Turkish armed forces were not engaged in any
war activities.
Evidence to Commission: Main witness was a school teacher, one of 2,000
Greek Cypriot men deported to Turkey. He stated that he and his fellow
detainees were repeatedly beaten after their arrest, on their way to Adana
(in Turkey), in jail at Adana and in prison camp at Amasya.
On ship to Turkey:- "That was another moment of terrible beating again. We
were tied all the time. I lost the sense of touch. I could not feel anything
for about two or three months. Every time we asked for water or spoke we
were beaten."
Arriving at Adana:- "... then, one by one, they led us to prisons, through a
long corridor .. Going through that corridor was another terrible
experience. There were about 100 soldiers from both sides with sticks, clubs
and with their fists beating every one of us while going to the other end of
the corridor. I was beaten at least 50 times until I reached the other end.
"In Adana anyone who said he wanted to see a doctor was beaten.
"Beating was on the agenda every day. There were one or two very good, very
nice people, but they were afraid to show their kindness, as they told us."
Witness P spoke of:-
A fellow prisoner who was kicked in the mouth. He lost several
teeth "and his lower jaw came off in pieces".
A Turkish officer, a karate student, who exercised every day by
hitting prisoners.
Fellow prisoners who were hung by the feet over the hole of a
lavatory for hours.
A Turkish second lieutenant who used to prick all prisoners with a
pin when they were taken into a yard.
Evidence from Dr H said that prisoners were in an emaciated condition on
their return to Cyprus. On nine occasions he had found signs of wounds.
The doctor gave a general description of conditions in Adana and in
detention camps in Cyprus (at Pavlides Garage and the Saray Prison in the
Turkish quarter of Nicosia) as reported to him by former detainees. Food, he
said, consisted of one-eight of a loaf of bread a day, with occasional
olives; there were about two buckets of water and two mugs which were never
cleaned, from which about 1,000 people had to drink; toilets were filthy,
with faeces rising over the basins; floors were covered with faeces and
urine; in jail in Adana prisoners were kept 76 to a cell with three towels
between them and one block of soap per eight persons per month to wash
themselves and their clothes.
One man, it was alleged, had to amputate his own toes with a razor blade as
a consequence of ill-treatment. Caught in Achna with another man, they had
been beaten up with hard objects. When he asked for a glass of water he was
given a glass full of urine. His toes were then stepped on until they became
blue, swollen and eventually gangrenous (the other man was said to have been
taken to hospital in Nicosia, where he agreed to have his legs amputated. He
did not survive the operation).
According to witness S:- "hundreds of Greek Cypriots were beaten and dozens
were executed. They have cut off their ears in some cases, like the case of
Palekythron and Trahoni ..." (verbatim record).
Verdict by Commission: By 12 votes to one, the Commission concluded that
prisoners were in a number of cases physically ill-treated by Turkish
soldiers.
"These acts of ill-treatment caused considerable injuries and in at least
one case, death of a victim. By their severity they constitute "in-human
treatment" in the sense of Article 3, for which Turkey is responsible under
the Convention."
LOOTING Relevant article:- Every natural or legal person is entitled to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.
Charge: In all Turkish-occupied areas the Turkish army systematically looted
houses and businesses of Greek Cypriots.
Evidence to Commission: Looting in Kyrenia was described by witness C:- "...
The first days of looting of the shops was done by the army of heavy things
like refrigerators, laundry machines, television sets" (verbatim record).
For weeks after the invasion, he said, he had watched Turkish naval ships
taking on board the looted goods.
Witness K, a barrister, described the pillage of Famagusta:- "At two o'clock
an organised, systematic, terrifying, shocking, unbelievable looting started
.... We heard the breaking of doors, some of them iron doors, smashing of
glass, and we were waiting for them any minute to enter the house. This
lasted for about four hours."
Written statements by eye-witnesses of looting were corroborated by several
reports by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Verdict of Commission: The Commission accepted that looting and robbery on
an extensive scale, by Turkish troops and Turkish Cypriots, had taken place.
By 12 votes to one, it established that there had been deprivation of
possessions of Greek Cypriots on a large scale.
OTHER CHARGES
On four counts:- the Commission concluded that Turkey had also violated an
Article of the Convention asserting the right to respect for private and
family life, home and correspondence. The Commission also decided that
Turkey was continuing to violate the Article by refusing to allow the return
of more than 170,000 Greek Cypriot refugees to their homes in the north.
On three counts:- the Commission said Turkey had breached an Article laying
down the right to liberty and security of persons by confining more than
2,000 Greek Cypriots in schools and churches.
Finally, the Commission said Turkey had violated two more articles that
specify that the rights and freedoms in the Convention shall be secured
without discrimination on any grounds, and that anyone whose rights are
violated "shall have an effective remedy before a national authority."
The European Commission on Human Rights has outlined in great detail the
actions of the Turkish armed forces and the treatment that it handed out to
those Greek Cypriot civilians with whom it came into contact. 5,000 Greek
Cypriot civilians were murdered, over 1,000 women were raped. Over 1,619
Greek Cypriots were abducted and remain missing, their whereabouts never
disclosed by the Turkish authorities. The brutality the Turkish army brought
with it was specifically designed to terrify the local Greek Cypriot
creating 200,000 refugees. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Agamemnon
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:40 pm Post subject: Re: And the final piece of the puzzle is put in place. Daois |
|
|
"Martin Edwards" <big_mart_98@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:TRPUk.152688$yK5.126632@newsfe24.ams2...
| Quote: | imipak wrote:
On Nov 18, 12:10 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.com> wrote:
imipak wrote:
On Nov 17, 12:20 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
"Martin Edwards" <big_mart...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mG9Uk.102646$i%.71862@newsfe25.ams2...
Agamemnon wrote:
We have already seen that the whole of Europe, Egypt, Palestine and
even
India was once ruled by the same body of indo-European or Minoan or
Hyksos God Kings who lived at the time just prior to the Thera
Eruption
Mega Tsunami which caused the Ogygian Deluge which in Norse
tradition is
referred to as Ragnorok and in the Bible is called Noah's Flood and
by
the Hindus occurred in the time of Manu Vaivasvata and is also the
basis
of the Babylonian account of the Flood of Xisuthrus which was
appended to
the Gilgamesh Epic on an 11th tablet in 1600 BC, so it's now time to
fit
in the final piece of the puzzle.
Actually very few have had that hallucination. What are you on at
George
Grivas University?
Imbecile!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kIJ-1KjU2M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RKCFJrE-6g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGhRvMYQrEc
So all of your inane posts are somehow to assert Greece's superiority
in the world in some misguided effort to salve the pain of one
independence war? You understand that throughout history, all
countries - Greece included - have been guilty of imperialism and have
had rebellions against such imperialism waged against them? That no
hands are clean? Indeed, modern Greece formed out of nothing less than
the military imposition of one tribe's will over and above the will of
all other tribes on the mainland and islands.
I have to say that you are stretching a point here. There were no
tribes by 1821. The population transfers of 1923 were on the basis of
religion, thus Christians who by that time spoke Turkish were washed up
in a country where they did not speak the language. This did not apply
only to Greece. Ildır, ancient Erythrai, was settled by Macedonian
Slavs, and the old people speak it to this day.
--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From "Rollerball"
Well, I -did- note that I was talking about all through history, so
I'm not just talking the past couple of hundred years or even as far
back as the birth of Christianity. Aggy goes back for the bulk of his
discussion to beyond 3,600 BC and his use of the links to recent
events as part of a justification of his claims cannot be allowed to
stand unanswered. Turkey has done many evil things over the millennia,
but so has every other nation, Greece included. (If you want to use
recent examples, then in recent war crimes investigations, there is
evidence that a comparable number of innocent Turks were murdered by
Greek Cypriots after the division as there were innocent Greeks who
were murdered by Turkish Cypriots. No hands are clean.) If Aggy wishes
to use the atrocities of the past against Greece to fuel his fervor in
proving that the innocent Greeks were wrongly disinherited of their
global dominion by a conspiracy of world powers and academics, he
should be prepared to be confronted with evidence that the Greeks were
never innocent and also with anger that he dare abuse the memories of
all who have been wrongfully killed (by whomever, whenever) to further
his propaganda.
I'll drink to that. My uncle did time against EOKA. At the time we
|
Your uncle did time murdering innocent school kids since that is who most of
EOKA's members were.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRGIrzAxMbI
| Quote: | Brits regarded them purely as terrorists, but they are now seen in a rose
coloured rearview mirror.
|
The were always seen a heroes. The Brits regarded the people who fought for
America's independence as terrorists, alone with the people of India, and
everyone else who fought for freedom from British colonial rule.
Yer, like painting slogans on walls and throwing eggs at British soldiers is
terrorism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRGIrzAxMbI |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
gogu
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:47 pm Post subject: Re: And the final piece of the puzzle is put in place. Daois |
|
|
Ο "Martin Edwards" <big_mart_98@yahoo.com> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:TRPUk.152688$yK5.126632@newsfe24.ams2...
| Quote: | imipak wrote:
I'll drink to that. My uncle did time against EOKA. At the time we Brits
regarded them purely as terrorists, but they are now seen in a rose
coloured rearview mirror.
|
I really fail to see with what *moral* right your uncle and the rest of the
British occupiers were in Cyprus!
I fail to see why the Cypriots wouldn't have to fight to get out of *THEIR*
country the occupiers!
I fail to see why the Cypriots were regarded as terrorists and not the
British!
And don't forget that the same happened in Palestine/Israel where the Jews
were regarded by the British as terrorists, too!
And in the US!
And in many African countries!
So I am sorry but in the world’s conscience the British were the
invaders/occupiers/terrorists and not the local people! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
imipak
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:07 pm Post subject: Re: And the final piece of the puzzle is put in place. Daois |
|
|
On Nov 19, 6:14am, "gogu" <RruminiiSugPu...@Greci.com> wrote:
| Quote: | ? "imipak" <imi...@yahoo.com> ?????? ??? ??????news:ad9e76ea-ba06-4216-80be-ebff788acfd4@c36g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Turkey has done many evil things over the millennia,
but so has every other nation, Greece included. (If you want to use
recent examples, then in recent war crimes investigations, there is
evidence that a comparable number of innocent Turks were murdered by
Greek Cypriots after the division as there were innocent Greeks who
were murdered by Turkish Cypriots. No hands are clean.)
I don't deny the fact because in a war both parts are doing wrong things but
I'd be quite interested in seeing an unbiased source stating that the number
of the "dead Turks after the division" is comparable to that of the dead
Greeks!
I am also challenging the fact that *these* Turks were killed *after* the
division of the island!
As I said, during a war time there are killings from both parts but *after*
the ceasefire??!!! I think not!
I'd like to see an independent and unbiased source please.
BTW, AFAIK it was *only* Turkey condemned for similar things by the UN and
there is a resolution for that regarding *only* Turkey!
|
Ok, it's hard to prove it was strictly after the division, but the
accounts given by the BBC do indicate some percentage were.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6166560.stm
According to the article: "Some 1,500 Greek Cypriots and 500 Turkish
Cypriots are officially registered as missing on Cyprus, never seen
since fighting broke out between the two communities in the 1960s."
This is information from the United Nations Committee on Missing
Persons, which I assume all parties will accept is about as
independent and unbiased as sources are likely to get.
The Cyprus Committee on Missing Persons can be found here:
http://www.cmp-cyprus.org/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=1307
The Guardian's piece is somewhat more emotional, but they're one of
the most independent of British newspapers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/15/cyprus
And another BBC story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6177505.stm
These make it clear that there are mass graves on both sides and that
there was killing after peace broke out (although it does not show how
much).
My point, however, stands and stands unanswered: Is Agamemnon
attempting to use this tragic set of events in order to assert his
(somewhat unique) view of world history? Is he trying to use this
event to "prove" that the Greeks are the only rightful masters of the
world? Is he trying to manipulate and use YOUR feelings and YOUR
losses, in a concerted effort to rewrite history, where highly
selective use of facts have failed to do this for him? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
imipak
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:26 pm Post subject: Re: And the final piece of the puzzle is put in place. Daois |
|
|
On Nov 19, 6:29am, "gogu" <RruminiiSugPu...@Greci.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Sorry but I can't debate sophistry!
"There was not an independent country named Cyprus", "England was there by
right because it inherited Cyprus from X" and so on!
Come on!
|
If a person adds enough qualifiers, you can prove anything. To me,
Scotland and Wales are countries in and of their own right, and
nominally so is Cornwall. (Cornwall even has the right to hold its own
parliament, under British law.) The fact that they are under the
jurisdiction of the Crown doesn't change anything. Personally, I'd
rather see them "re-evolve" into some sort of nominal federation of
countries, where each country had greater autonomy but the collective
could still act for the benefit of the collective. (But, then, I was
always an optimist when it came to human nature.)
Cyprus, to me, was, is, and always has been, a country in and of its
own right. It has been conquered by many other countries, but the
essence of what is Cyprus is whole and independent. Neither Britain,
nor Turkey nor Greece have ever had any moral claim to it. They may
have had legal claims of one sort or another, but I regard such claims
as specious as those claims reflect the politics and attitudes of a
single moment, they do not reflect the unique entity known as Cyprus
and they do not reflect the needs of Cyprus. They are only concerned
with the politics of other nations and the indoctrination those other
nations have imposed on Cyprus.
This is not to say that Cyprus should have no ties with anyone, but
before it can safely and maturely have ties, it MUST be free to make
that decision without the corrupt and degenerate influence of land-
grabbers.
I hold this to be an inalienable truth for all countries, not just
those named. You cannot freely make a decision if you never had the
freedom to make it, and no nation has the right to instruct another on
what decisions it should make.*
*The UN is different, in that there is an agreement between nations
that in order to bring law and order to international affairs, some
sovereign rights must be sacrificed to a higher authority. The UN is
badly run, riddled with flaws and completely dysfunctional at times,
but it's the best we currently have. These things take time to evolve.
Democracy wasn't started in a day - it took close to a thousand years
from the earliest experiment to the first truly functional body. In
comparison, the UN has been around for barely over half a century.
Progress isn't what I'd like, but it has 950 years to go before anyone
should start worrying. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Agamemnon
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject: Re: And the final piece of the puzzle is put in place. Daois |
|
|
<pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a81533e3-ce3c-4870-83cd-30f6989d9ada@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On 19 Nov, 09:47, "gogu" <RuminiiSugPu...@Greci.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Martin Edwards" <big_mart...@yahoo.com>
news:TRPUk.152688$yK5.126632@newsfe24.ams2...
imipak wrote:
I'll drink to that. My uncle did time against EOKA. At the time we Brits
regarded them purely as terrorists, but they are now seen in a rose
coloured rearview mirror.
I really fail to see with what *moral* right your uncle and the rest of
the
British occupiers were in Cyprus!
|
<<<<Not relevant. Firstly, politics has never been an issue of morality in
any case - national borders and territories are always an act of
historical accident and political convenience; in the case of Cyprus,
the island was ceded to the British by treaty - Britain was never an
"invader".>>>
Cyprus was an still is a Greek island and has been Greek for the past 3700
years of recorded history. The British were illegally occupying so one
else's land, the Cypriots, 95% of which at the time the British occupation
began spoke Greek.
| Quote: | I fail to see why the Cypriots wouldn't have to fight to get out of
*THEIR*
country the occupiers!
|
<<<Tricky question - what constitutes "*THEIR* country"? Prior to
independence from Britain in the late 20th Century Cyprus had never
been an independent state, just a part of numerous larger ones - and>>>
ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT! Cyprus was an independent state and had its own kings and
democratic rulers for thousands of years. The Cypriot king Evagoras the
Great even ruled directly over Palestine, Egypt and Anatolia and was
regarded as an equal by the king of Persia.
<<<by the time of independence from Britain, none of those larger ones
other than Britain still existed. You might as well ask why the Isle
of Wight shouldn't fight to get the "occupiers" out of their
"country".>>>
MORE BULLSHIT! Cyprus was ruled by its own native Greek kings for over 1000
years and then became part of the Greek empire of Alexander, then part of
the Greek Byzantine Empire, then it was a neutral independent Greek state
again before it rejoined the Greek Byzantine Empire and was then occupied by
the Franks.
You don't have even the remotest clue about history.
| Quote: | I fail to see why the Cypriots were regarded as terrorists and not the
British!
|
<<<Because the British didn't go around assassinating people, conducting
sabotage and attacking media offices? Terrorism has a specific
meaning. Wikipedia:>>>
No, that was the Turks.
<<<"Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which
are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an
ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately
target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.">>>
<<<Attacking media offices as part of an independence struggle, with a
stated aim of making international headlines qualifies - occupying an>>>
IT WAS THE TURKS WHO BLEW UP THEIR OWN MEDIA OFFICE YOU STUPID IGNORANT
MORON, BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION!
"TMT's strategy was one of incitement in the hope of provoking inter-ethnic
conflict with the aim of securing the separation of the two communities. It
did so without any consideration to likely casualties amongst innocent Greek
and Turkish Cypriots. The first such serious inter-communal fighting began
in June 1958 and was the result of such incitement which the Turkish
authorities have subsequently been candid on a number of occasions. Mr Emin
Dirvana, a former Turkish diplomat, said: `I was informed that on 7 June
1958 a bomb had been planted in the Turkish press office in Nicosia by
persons who, as was later established, had nothing to do with the Greek
Cypriots. The Turks of Nicosia were then incited to be overwhelmed by holy
indignation and perpetrated acts similar to those committed on 6 and 7
September 1955 in Istanbul.'
In the ITN documentary `Cyprus, Britain's Grim Legacy' the account
continues:
`The explosion sparked off a night of riot in Nicosia. Turkish Cypriots
burned and looted Greek shops and homes. Soon came counter attacks and the
fighting spread around the island. A friend of mine, whose name must still
be kept secret, was to confess to me that he had put this little bomb in the
doorway in order to create an atmosphere of tension so that people would
know that the Turkish Cypriots mattered.'"
<<<island doesn't. Based on Wikipedia's description of the EOKA's>>>
Wikipedia cannot be trusted on giving an accurate portrayal of EOKAs
activities whatsoever. The majority of EOKAs members were school kids and
its activates were mainly confined to writing graffiti and pelting British
soldiers with eggs and rotten vegetables. It was a campaign of civil
disobedience not terrorism.
<<<actions, it's equivocal whether they strictly fit the definition
"deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants", but
this is a pretty artificial distinction in any case - assassinating a
soldier who hasn't had a chance to defend himself isn't any different
practically from assassinating a civilian, and in the specific case of
Cyprus British rule wasn't even based on military occupation.>>>
BULLSHIT! British rule based on the policy of divide and rule by creating
inciting intercommunal violence, and using its forces to assist the minority
it created by forced transfers or expulsions of population subjugate the
majority.
<<<Restricting his targets to soldiers just seems to have been a spurious
effort for military man Grivas to feel a bit less cowardly about
having people shot in the back - and perhaps, since he wanted to make
international news, because it was more likely to evoke sympathy that
way. There's certainly no sign that he had any particular moral reason
for not targeting civilians.>>>
IMBECILE! Grivas didn't target civilians. It was the British that did that.
It was the British who armed Turkish TMT terrorist whose sole aim was to
murder innocent Greek Cypriot civilians and anyone who supported
independence.
| Quote: | And don't forget that the same happened in Palestine/Israel where the Jews
were regarded by the British as terrorists, too!
|
<<<You mean you're seriously suggesting that blowing up hotels full of
civilians wasn't an act of terrorism? Quite the reverse, it was
terrorism in its most literal sense - the stated objective was to make>>>
It is an example of the British policy of divide and rule backfiring on
themselves. They armed the Jewish minority and incited it to slaughter and
ethnically cleansed the Palestinian majority and then the Jews turned on
their handlers.
<<<the British feel unsafe in order to force them out. It's irrelevant
whether the people involved had a legitimate grievance against a
government. Plenty of people would say that the US has no right to
station military forces in Saudi Arabia. That doesn't imply that
flying planes into buildings is a justified act of reprisal.>>>
<<<Not the case - the term 'terrorist' didn't even exist at the time, and
the British at the time called the American uprising a revolution.>>>
What rubbish. The activities they engaged in, including crossing the
Atlantic and terrorising English villages would be regarded as terrorism by
you definition.
| Quote: | So I am sorry but in the worlds conscience the British were the
invaders/occupiers/terrorists and not the local people!
|
<<<This demonstrates the flaw in your argument by itself - the idea that
invaders/occupiers are synonymous with terrorists is untenable.>>>
No it isn't. Given that it has been proven that the British armed terrorist
groups the British must be regarded as terrorist themselves. Even without
that by your definition the British were still terrorists. The people whose
countries the British invaded and subjugated were all non-combatants. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
choro
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:40 pm Post subject: Re: And the final piece of the puzzle is put in place. Daois |
|
|
pbowles@aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | On 19 Nov, 09:47, "gogu" <RuminiiSugPu...@Greci.com> wrote:
"Martin Edwards" <big_mart...@yahoo.com> news:TRPUk.152688$yK5.126632@newsfe24.ams2...
imipak wrote:
I'll drink to that. My uncle did time against EOKA. At the time we Brits
regarded them purely as terrorists, but they are now seen in a rose
coloured rearview mirror.
I really fail to see with what *moral* right your uncle and the rest of the
British occupiers were in Cyprus!
Not relevant. Firstly, politics has never been an issue of morality in
any case - national borders and territories are always an act of
historical accident and political convenience; in the case of Cyprus,
the island was ceded to the British by treaty - Britain was never an
"invader".
I fail to see why the Cypriots wouldn't have to fight to get out of *THEIR*
country the occupiers!
Tricky question - what constitutes "*THEIR* country"? Prior to
independence from Britain in the late 20th Century Cyprus had never
been an independent state, just a part of numerous larger ones - and
by the time of independence from Britain, none of those larger ones
other than Britain still existed. You might as well ask why the Isle
of Wight shouldn't fight to get the "occupiers" out of their
"country".
I fail to see why the Cypriots were regarded as terrorists and not the
British!
Because the British didn't go around assassinating people, conducting
sabotage and attacking media offices? Terrorism has a specific
meaning. Wikipedia:
"Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which
are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an
ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately
target or disregard the safety of non-combatants."
Attacking media offices as part of an independence struggle, with a
stated aim of making international headlines qualifies - occupying an
island doesn't. Based on Wikipedia's description of the EOKA's
actions, it's equivocal whether they strictly fit the definition
"deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants", but
this is a pretty artificial distinction in any case - assassinating a
soldier who hasn't had a chance to defend himself isn't any different
practically from assassinating a civilian, and in the specific case of
Cyprus British rule wasn't even based on military occupation.
Restricting his targets to soldiers just seems to have been a spurious
effort for military man Grivas to feel a bit less cowardly about
having people shot in the back - and perhaps, since he wanted to make
international news, because it was more likely to evoke sympathy that
way. There's certainly no sign that he had any particular moral reason
for not targeting civilians.
|
Aha! But that's where you are wrong. EOKA did rpt did target civilians
and not only British civilians but also Greek Cypriot as well as Turkish
Cypriot civilians. EOKA was a terrorist organization, pure and simple!
Greek Cypriots were scared shitless (if you will pardon the expression)
by EOKA. In fact EOKA was not making any headway until it first
absolutely terrorized the Greek Cypriot community until people were
scared of even whispering their opinions. The ground had ears!
In my opinion Makarios who drew the wrath of the British (as well as of
the Turks, I am afraid to say) was in my personal opinion the far lesser
evil than Grivas, the military head of EOKA, the terrorist organization.
But he was completely wrong in thinking that he could tear up the
International Agreements under which Cyprus gained independence for the
first time in its history in 1960. Perhaps success had gone to his head
but Greek Cypriots shot themselves in the foot by ripping those
agreements in 1963 within three years of their signing.
It has become fashionable now among Greek Cypriots to blame Makarios for
everything. They still cannot see how they did their "cause" no good by
succumbing to the enticing siren call of extreme nationalism. Cyprus,
which had been part of the Ottoman Empire for four centuries before it
was leased to the British at the end of the 19th century, with its
sizable Turkish Cypriot minority was after all only 40 miles from
Turkey's southern coast. In fact one can see the Turkish mountains on
the horizon from the northern shores of Cyprus. They still cannot grasp
the significance and importance of the existence of the Turkish mainland
a stone's throw from Cyprus with its land mass and population seven
times that of Greece which lies some 600 miles west of Cyprus.
It is a pity that through terrorism hotheads always win the day in such
circumstances to the detriment of all.
--
choro
*****
| Quote: |
And don't forget that the same happened in Palestine/Israel where the Jews
were regarded by the British as terrorists, too!
You mean you're seriously suggesting that blowing up hotels full of
civilians wasn't an act of terrorism? Quite the reverse, it was
terrorism in its most literal sense - the stated objective was to make
the British feel unsafe in order to force them out. It's irrelevant
whether the people involved had a legitimate grievance against a
government. Plenty of people would say that the US has no right to
station military forces in Saudi Arabia. That doesn't imply that
flying planes into buildings is a justified act of reprisal.
And in the US!
Not the case - the term 'terrorist' didn't even exist at the time, and
the British at the time called the American uprising a revolution.
So I am sorry but in the worlds conscience the British were the
invaders/occupiers/terrorists and not the local people!
This demonstrates the flaw in your argument by itself - the idea that
invaders/occupiers are synonymous with terrorists is untenable.
Phil |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
choro
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject: Re: And the final piece of the puzzle is put in place. Daois |
|
|
Agamemnon wrote:
| Quote: |
pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a81533e3-ce3c-4870-83cd-30f6989d9ada@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On 19 Nov, 09:47, "gogu" <RuminiiSugPu...@Greci.com> wrote:
"Martin Edwards" <big_mart...@yahoo.com>
news:TRPUk.152688$yK5.126632@newsfe24.ams2...
imipak wrote:
I'll drink to that. My uncle did time against EOKA. At the time we
Brits
regarded them purely as terrorists, but they are now seen in a rose
coloured rearview mirror.
I really fail to see with what *moral* right your uncle and the rest
of the
British occupiers were in Cyprus!
Not relevant. Firstly, politics has never been an issue of morality in
any case - national borders and territories are always an act of
historical accident and political convenience; in the case of Cyprus,
the island was ceded to the British by treaty - Britain was never an
"invader".
Cyprus was an still is a Greek island and has been Greek for the past
3700 years of recorded history. The British were illegally occupying so
one else's land, the Cypriots, 95% of which at the time the British
occupation began spoke Greek.
I fail to see why the Cypriots wouldn't have to fight to get out of
*THEIR*
country the occupiers!
Tricky question - what constitutes "*THEIR* country"? Prior to
independence from Britain in the late 20th Century Cyprus had never
been an independent state, just a part of numerous larger ones - and
ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT! Cyprus was an independent state and had its own kings
and democratic rulers for thousands of years. The Cypriot king Evagoras
the Great even ruled directly over Palestine, Egypt and Anatolia and was
regarded as an equal by the king of Persia.
by the time of independence from Britain, none of those larger ones
other than Britain still existed. You might as well ask why the Isle
of Wight shouldn't fight to get the "occupiers" out of their
"country".
MORE BULLSHIT! Cyprus was ruled by its own native Greek kings for over
1000 years and then became part of the Greek empire of Alexander, then
part of the Greek Byzantine Empire, then it was a neutral independent
Greek state again before it rejoined the Greek Byzantine Empire and was
then occupied by the Franks.
You don't have even the remotest clue about history.
I fail to see why the Cypriots were regarded as terrorists and not the
British!
Because the British didn't go around assassinating people, conducting
sabotage and attacking media offices? Terrorism has a specific
meaning. Wikipedia:
No, that was the Turks.
"Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which
are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an
ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately
target or disregard the safety of non-combatants."
Attacking media offices as part of an independence struggle, with a
stated aim of making international headlines qualifies - occupying an
IT WAS THE TURKS WHO BLEW UP THEIR OWN MEDIA OFFICE YOU STUPID IGNORANT
MORON, BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION!
"TMT's strategy was one of incitement in the hope of provoking
inter-ethnic conflict with the aim of securing the separation of the two
communities. It did so without any consideration to likely casualties
amongst innocent Greek and Turkish Cypriots. The first such serious
inter-communal fighting began in June 1958 and was the result of such
incitement which the Turkish authorities have subsequently been candid
on a number of occasions. Mr Emin Dirvana, a former Turkish diplomat,
said: `I was informed that on 7 June 1958 a bomb had been planted in the
Turkish press office in Nicosia by persons who, as was later
established, had nothing to do with the Greek Cypriots. The Turks of
Nicosia were then incited to be overwhelmed by holy indignation and
perpetrated acts similar to those committed on 6 and 7 September 1955 in
Istanbul.'
In the ITN documentary `Cyprus, Britain's Grim Legacy' the account
continues:
`The explosion sparked off a night of riot in Nicosia. Turkish Cypriots
burned and looted Greek shops and homes. Soon came counter attacks and
the fighting spread around the island. A friend of mine, whose name must
still be kept secret, was to confess to me that he had put this little
bomb in the doorway in order to create an atmosphere of tension so that
people would know that the Turkish Cypriots mattered.'"
island doesn't. Based on Wikipedia's description of the EOKA's
Wikipedia cannot be trusted on giving an accurate portrayal of EOKAs
activities whatsoever. The majority of EOKAs members were school kids
and its activates were mainly confined to writing graffiti and pelting
British soldiers with eggs and rotten vegetables. It was a campaign of
civil disobedience not terrorism.
actions, it's equivocal whether they strictly fit the definition
"deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants", but
this is a pretty artificial distinction in any case - assassinating a
soldier who hasn't had a chance to defend himself isn't any different
practically from assassinating a civilian, and in the specific case of
Cyprus British rule wasn't even based on military occupation.
BULLSHIT! British rule based on the policy of divide and rule by
creating inciting intercommunal violence, and using its forces to assist
the minority it created by forced transfers or expulsions of population
subjugate the majority.
Restricting his targets to soldiers just seems to have been a spurious
effort for military man Grivas to feel a bit less cowardly about
having people shot in the back - and perhaps, since he wanted to make
international news, because it was more likely to evoke sympathy that
way. There's certainly no sign that he had any particular moral reason
for not targeting civilians.
IMBECILE! Grivas didn't target civilians. It was the British that did
that. It was the British who armed Turkish TMT terrorist whose sole aim
was to murder innocent Greek Cypriot civilians and anyone who supported
independence.
And don't forget that the same happened in Palestine/Israel where the
Jews
were regarded by the British as terrorists, too!
You mean you're seriously suggesting that blowing up hotels full of
civilians wasn't an act of terrorism? Quite the reverse, it was
terrorism in its most literal sense - the stated objective was to make
It is an example of the British policy of divide and rule backfiring on
themselves. They armed the Jewish minority and incited it to slaughter
and ethnically cleansed the Palestinian majority and then the Jews
turned on their handlers.
the British feel unsafe in order to force them out. It's irrelevant
whether the people involved had a legitimate grievance against a
government. Plenty of people would say that the US has no right to
station military forces in Saudi Arabia. That doesn't imply that
flying planes into buildings is a justified act of reprisal.
And in the US!
Not the case - the term 'terrorist' didn't even exist at the time, and
the British at the time called the American uprising a revolution.
What rubbish. The activities they engaged in, including crossing the
Atlantic and terrorising English villages would be regarded as terrorism
by you definition.
So I am sorry but in the worlds conscience the British were the
invaders/occupiers/terrorists and not the local people!
This demonstrates the flaw in your argument by itself - the idea that
invaders/occupiers are synonymous with terrorists is untenable.
No it isn't. Given that it has been proven that the British armed
terrorist groups the British must be regarded as terrorist themselves.
Even without that by your definition the British were still terrorists.
The people whose countries the British invaded and subjugated were all
non-combatants.
|
Aga, you surpass even Rumsfeld!!! (I think you know what I mean!)
--
choro
***** |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
VtSkier
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:13 pm Post subject: Re: And the final piece of the puzzle is put in place. Daois |
|
|
gogu wrote:
| Quote: | Ο "Martin Edwards" <big_mart_98@yahoo.com> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:TRPUk.152688$yK5.126632@newsfe24.ams2...
imipak wrote:
I'll drink to that. My uncle did time against EOKA. At the time we
Brits regarded them purely as terrorists, but they are now seen in a
rose coloured rearview mirror.
I really fail to see with what *moral* right your uncle and the rest of
the British occupiers were in Cyprus!
I fail to see why the Cypriots wouldn't have to fight to get out of
*THEIR* country the occupiers!
I fail to see why the Cypriots were regarded as terrorists and not the
British!
And don't forget that the same happened in Palestine/Israel where the
Jews were regarded by the British as terrorists, too!
And in the US!
And in many African countries!
So I am sorry but in the world’s conscience the British were the
invaders/occupiers/terrorists and not the local people!
|
I've posted this quote before and it is still true:
"The difference between a terrorist and a patriot
depends on which side you are on."
and its corollary:
"The difference between a terrorist and a patriot
depends on which side won." |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
gogu
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:14 pm Post subject: Re: And the final piece of the puzzle is put in place. Daois |
|
|
? "imipak" <imipak@yahoo.com> ?????? ??? ??????
news:ad9e76ea-ba06-4216-80be-ebff788acfd4@c36g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Turkey has done many evil things over the millennia,
but so has every other nation, Greece included. (If you want to use
recent examples, then in recent war crimes investigations, there is
evidence that a comparable number of innocent Turks were murdered by
Greek Cypriots after the division as there were innocent Greeks who
were murdered by Turkish Cypriots. No hands are clean.)
|
I don't deny the fact because in a war both parts are doing wrong things but
I'd be quite interested in seeing an unbiased source stating that the number
of the "dead Turks after the division" is comparable to that of the dead
Greeks!
I am also challenging the fact that *these* Turks were killed *after* the
division of the island!
As I said, during a war time there are killings from both parts but *after*
the ceasefire??!!! I think not!
I'd like to see an independent and unbiased source please.
BTW, AFAIK it was *only* Turkey condemned for similar things by the UN and
there is a resolution for that regarding *only* Turkey! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
gogu
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:29 pm Post subject: Re: And the final piece of the puzzle is put in place. Daois |
|
|
Sorry but I can't debate sophistry!
"There was not an independent country named Cyprus", "England was there by
right because it inherited Cyprus from X" and so on!
Come on!
If we were thinking the way you suggest, Cyprus, Malta, Hong Kong, Canada,
Australia and half Africa would be even today part of the UK! Get real!
Truth is that England *immorally* occupied lands where there were never
autochthonous British populations, so it was a clear act of occupation.
I am not denying that every (powerful) country did that during the human
history but I can't accept and justify it *morally* today (=recently)!
The modus vivendi you suggest the whole world should be turned into a
jungle!
In that case one wonders why we need all those organizations like the UN,
the Hague Tribunal, the Helsinki Watch, etc!
Sorry but I am not buying that!
<pbowles@aol.com>
news:a81533e3-ce3c-4870-83cd-30f6989d9ada@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On 19 Nov, 09:47, "gogu" <RuminiiSugPu...@Greci.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Martin Edwards" <big_mart...@yahoo.com>
news:TRPUk.152688$yK5.126632@newsfe24.ams2...
imipak wrote:
I'll drink to that. My uncle did time against EOKA. At the time we Brits
regarded them purely as terrorists, but they are now seen in a rose
coloured rearview mirror.
I really fail to see with what *moral* right your uncle and the rest of
the
British occupiers were in Cyprus!
|
Not relevant. Firstly, politics has never been an issue of morality in
any case - national borders and territories are always an act of
historical accident and political convenience; in the case of Cyprus,
the island was ceded to the British by treaty - Britain was never an
"invader".
| Quote: | I fail to see why the Cypriots wouldn't have to fight to get out of
*THEIR*
country the occupiers!
|
Tricky question - what constitutes "*THEIR* country"? Prior to
independence from Britain in the late 20th Century Cyprus had never
been an independent state, just a part of numerous larger ones - and
by the time of independence from Britain, none of those larger ones
other than Britain still existed. You might as well ask why the Isle
of Wight shouldn't fight to get the "occupiers" out of their
"country".
| Quote: | I fail to see why the Cypriots were regarded as terrorists and not the
British!
|
Because the British didn't go around assassinating people, conducting
sabotage and attacking media offices? Terrorism has a specific
meaning. Wikipedia:
"Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which
are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an
ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately
target or disregard the safety of non-combatants."
Attacking media offices as part of an independence struggle, with a
stated aim of making international headlines qualifies - occupying an
island doesn't. Based on Wikipedia's description of the EOKA's
actions, it's equivocal whether they strictly fit the definition
"deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants", but
this is a pretty artificial distinction in any case - assassinating a
soldier who hasn't had a chance to defend himself isn't any different
practically from assassinating a civilian, and in the specific case of
Cyprus British rule wasn't even based on military occupation.
Restricting his targets to soldiers just seems to have been a spurious
effort for military man Grivas to feel a bit less cowardly about
having people shot in the back - and perhaps, since he wanted to make
international news, because it was more likely to evoke sympathy that
way. There's certainly no sign that he had any particular moral reason
for not targeting civilians.
| Quote: | And don't forget that the same happened in Palestine/Israel where the Jews
were regarded by the British as terrorists, too!
|
You mean you're seriously suggesting that blowing up hotels full of
civilians wasn't an act of terrorism? Quite the reverse, it was
terrorism in its most literal sense - the stated objective was to make
the British feel unsafe in order to force them out. It's irrelevant
whether the people involved had a legitimate grievance against a
government. Plenty of people would say that the US has no right to
station military forces in Saudi Arabia. That doesn't imply that
flying planes into buildings is a justified act of reprisal.
Not the case - the term 'terrorist' didn't even exist at the time, and
the British at the time called the American uprising a revolution.
| Quote: | So I am sorry but in the worlds conscience the British were the
invaders/occupiers/terrorists and not the local people!
|
This demonstrates the flaw in your argument by itself - the idea that
invaders/occupiers are synonymous with terrorists is untenable.
Phil |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
gogu
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:38 pm Post subject: Re: And the final piece of the puzzle is put in place. Daois |
|
|
? <pbowles@aol.com> ?????? ??? ??????
news:9acc9659-ba3d-46b1-a677-0c7e3f3a5207@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On 19 Nov, 12:40, choro <ch...@tvco.net> wrote:
pbow...@aol.com wrote:
On 19 Nov, 09:47, "gogu" <RuminiiSugPu...@Greci.com> wrote:
"Martin Edwards" <big_mart...@yahoo.com>
news:TRPUk.152688$yK5.126632@newsfe24.ams2...
imipak wrote:
It has become fashionable now among Greek Cypriots to blame Makarios for
everything. They still cannot see how they did their "cause" no good by
succumbing to the enticing siren call of extreme nationalism.
How much choice are they likely to have had, especially if EOKA was
engaged in the tactics you suggest?
|
Please ask the Turkish TROLL to make a distinction between EOKA A and EOKA
B.
Two different periods with different actions and different popular support!
EOKA A was OK, EOKA B was not!
But the Turkish TROLL and his alike do not like to make the difference
because this way it's easier to denigrate *all* the EOKA cause!
Also let's not forget the TRRORRIST actions of the Turkish MIT! (the Turkish
TROLL conveniently says nothing about it;-)).
Typical of fanatics and extremists. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
gogu
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:52 pm Post subject: Re: And the final piece of the puzzle is put in place. Daois |
|
|
Ο "VtSkier" <VtSkier@nospam.net> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:6oil97F3qb8iU1@mid.individual.net...
| Quote: | gogu wrote:
Ο "Martin Edwards" <big_mart_98@yahoo.com> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:TRPUk.152688$yK5.126632@newsfe24.ams2...
imipak wrote:
I'll drink to that. My uncle did time against EOKA. At the time we
Brits regarded them purely as terrorists, but they are now seen in a
rose coloured rearview mirror.
|
| Quote: | I really fail to see with what *moral* right your uncle and the rest of
the British occupiers were in Cyprus!
I fail to see why the Cypriots wouldn't have to fight to get out of
*THEIR* country the occupiers!
I fail to see why the Cypriots were regarded as terrorists and not the
British!
And don't forget that the same happened in Palestine/Israel where the
Jews were regarded by the British as terrorists, too!
And in the US!
And in many African countries!
So I am sorry but in the world’s conscience the British were the
invaders/occupiers/terrorists and not the local people!
|
| Quote: | I've posted this quote before and it is still true:
"The difference between a terrorist and a patriot
depends on which side you are on."
|
I'll agree with that!
| Quote: | and its corollary:
"The difference between a terrorist and a patriot
depends on which side won."
|
I'll LOL with that:-)
A good one! |
|
| |
|
