Cyprus-Forum.com

We disagree.

To me it is crystal clear. What was the aim of Britain in 1960? What was the aim of Turkey in 1960? They have the power, they enforced their aims. Thats about it.

The 1960 dysfunctional agreements were simply part of the plan.

Sure, blame goes to the traitors that helped those outsiders to achieve their aims. But thats not the fault of the general public, the same way that today is not the fault of the general public if some other traitors are again working for the interests of some outsiders.

Piratis wrote:
oh ok. So Turkey is innocent for the 6.000 dead, 200.000 refugees and the occupation, and it is our fault.

I was not talking of Turky's guilt (or any other non Cypriot entity) - I was refuting the idea that the tradgey of Cyprus is ALL the fault of 'outsiders'.

In a sense the events of 74 ARE the fault of Cypriots. If we had managed to live in peace and harmony with each other then what happened in 74 would not have been possible. The idea that Turkey would have taken such military action in 74 if we had not been arguing / fighting and KILLING each other is ludicrous. It was not Turks or Americans or the British that took my totaly inncoent uncle from his place of work in 64 and ruthlessly murdered him. It was CYPRIOTS that did this.

Piratis wrote:
And the UK is innocent. They really didn't want to keep bases here, and they did nothing in order to maintain their presence, its our fault that they are here. (I guess we forced them to stay)

yeah, whatever.

I made no such assetion* that the UK is 'innocent' or that it was not their prime interest to secure and maintain sovreign bases in Cyprus. What I did and do refute is the idea that the Cyprus problem has been caused by outsiders and that Cypriots played no part in creating the tradgedies of Cyprus. I also challenge the idea that a divided unstable Cyprus makes the UK bases more secure than a stable united one.

Yes the USA, Turkey, Greece, UK and others have all meddled in Cyprus in the past. They all persue their own interests first and foremost. They all carry a _degree_ of blame for the mess that is Cyprus. But to extrapolate from this that Cypriots bear no blame, were not the primary players in the tradgey is simply to live in a fantasy land as far as I am concerned.

* This is a repeated behaviour of yours in these forums. You take a statement and twist it to such an extent that reasonable debate becomes almost impossible. Can you really find anywhere in this thread where I have said the UK is innocent, or that they have done nothing to try and secure and maintain their bases in Cyprus or that the fact there are bases in Cyprus is the 'fault' of Cypriots? With the utmost respect Piratis I suggest you try reading what I worte again and then consider what you claimed I am saying above again. If you still think that your claims as to what I said are valid having done this, then so be it.

Piratis wrote:The 1960 dysfunctional agreements were simply part of the plan.

I can't believe how you can call the 1960 agreement dysfunctional while being so proud of the RoC joining to the EU and all...Why don't you admit that you're happy that the RoC is basically a GC republic and you don't want to share it with TCs? If that's not the case, then how can you suggest that 1960 agreements were dysfunctional while claiming that the RoC exists? You either accept something as it is and in its complete form, or you don't accept it at all.

Piratis wrote: We disagree.

Clearly

Piratis wrote:To me it is crystal clear. What was the aim of Britain in 1960?

Britains primary aim in 1960 was to 'get out' of Cyprus whilst securing a leagal basis for it's bases and without creating an unacceptable sistuation for either Turkey or Greece.

Piratis wrote:What was the aim of Turkey in 1960?

To ensure that Cyprus did not become a part of Greece, thus leaving Turkey total surounded by a country with a long standing emnity to Turkey and with a potential miltary base a mere 40 miles of the mainland of Turkey. A secondary aim was to ensure the susrvival and saftey of the TC population in Cyprus

Piratis wrote:They have the power, they enforced their aims. Thats about it.

Are you really suggesting someone (anyone - the UK, the USA or Turkey) sat down and decided that what they wanted in Cyprus was eternal strife and division and emnitiy between GC and TC in Cyprus. And that having decide this was their objective they puprposly created a consitituion that would undoubtedly lead to GC opressing and killing TC and TC killing GC which in turn would lead to Turkish military intevention at some point down the line? This is just madness. What exactly stopped those that has the power just dividing the island in 1960 and securing their bases there. After all they had all the power. Who could have stopped them from doing this then?

Piratis wrote:
Sure, blame goes to the traitors that helped those outsiders to achieve their aims. But thats not the fault of the general public, the same way that today is not the fault of the general public if some other traitors are again working for the interests of some outsiders.

Was Sampson a 'traitor' in 1950? In 1960? In 1974? Was he really working for outsiders interests or was he a Cypriot working for HIS OWN interests?

It's the fault of the americans
It's the fault of Turkey
It's the fault of UK
It's the fault of (a few exceptional) cypriot 'traitors'

This is all denial imo. We have to examine and accept our own (as Cypriots) role in the tragedies of Cyprus. We have to understand where and how our actions (or inactions) as Cypriots have allowed the tradgeies of Cyprus to occur and continue. We have direct control of our own actions (or inactions). This si something we can change - directly. We can not do so however if we choose to live in denial.

You either accept something as it is and in its complete form, or you don't accept it at all.

I said they were dysfunctional, and thats a fact. I didn't say I do not accept them.

You take a statement and twist it to such an extent that reasonable debate becomes almost impossible. Can you really find anywhere in this thread where I have said the UK is innocent, or that they have done nothing to try and secure and maintain their bases in Cyprus or that the fact there are bases in Cyprus is the 'fault' of Cypriots?

Here:

We all as Cypriots have to stop blaming 'the rest of the world' for our woes and start accepting OUR responsibility for the tradgies that have befallen Cyprus if we are ever to create a better future here.

In a sense the events of 74 ARE the fault of Cypriots.

You are clearly stating that the events of 74 are our fault. I didn't twist anything.

Your uncle was killed in 64. Turkey didn't invade in 63,64 or 67. They invaded in 74, from the excuse that was given by the CIA controlled Athens generals.
Whats our fault if some outsiders took down our democratically elected president to give the excuse to some other outsiders to invade us?

If its "our" fault, can you please say who you exactly mean by this "our"?

Piratis wrote:If its "our" fault, can you please say who you exactly mean by this "our"?

By 'our' I mean Cypriots. Nothing more and nothing less.

I could go on arguing about what I said and if you have twisted it or not but to be honest I do not have the energy or motivation to do so and neither to I fear the ability of others to read what has been written and to make up their own minds.

This thread has now drifted way off topic. Out of respect for Mills I will stop my participation in this 'topic drift'. Hopefully everyone else will do the same. The thread is about Mills idea for a school. Let's go to another thread if we wish to continue this off topic discussion.

To ensure that Cyprus did not become a part of Greece, thus leaving Turkey total surrounded by a country with a long standing emnity to Turkey and with a potential miltary base a mere 40 miles of the mainland of Turkey. A secondary aim was to ensure the susrvival and saftey of the TC population in Cyprus

Turkey's aim in the beginning was the control of the whole Cyprus. They expected Britain to give it back to them because the British took it from the Ottomans.
Later on the Turks wanted partition. Thats a very known fact.

Was Sampson a 'traitor' in 1950? In 1960? In 1974? Was he really working for outsiders interests or was he a Cypriot working for HIS OWN interests?

A traitor. Maybe he thought he was working for his own interests, but his was actually working for some others interests as it was proven later on.

This is all denial imo. We have to examine and accept our own (as Cypriots) role in the tragedies of Cyprus. We have to understand where and how our actions (or inactions) as Cypriots have allowed the tradgeies of Cyprus to occur and continue. We have direct control of our own actions (or inactions). This si something we can change - directly. We can not do so however if we choose to live in denial.

Ok, so would you be willing to accept that the 18% TC minority should have accepted something more functional in 1960 or at least in 1963? Or you will continue to live in denial and claim that it was absolutely fair for the 18% of TCs to have 30% of the government positions, 40% of the police, veto power on everything etc?

oh ok. So Turkey is innocent for the 6.000 dead, 200.000 refugees and the occupation, and it is our fault.

And the UK is innocent. They really didn't want to keep bases here, and they did nothing in order to maintain their presence, its our fault that they are here. (I guess we forced them to stay)

yeah, whatever.

Turkey didn't plan to intervene Cyprus and kill 6000 GCs, even the bi-zonality wasn't planned until they intervene... You well know what Denktash and Klerides were talking about from 1967 until 1974. Turkish side had agreed to restore the constitutional order on a fair basis(Proportional participation in all public sevices, abolishment of veto power on some matters which Makarios had proposed in 1963, etc. see cyprus-conflict.net for further details). The only issue which Klerides(Actually Makarios) and Denktash couldn't agree was the local autonomy issue that I think if we have been at the same stage today, as the leadership of two communities had reached in 1973; the leadership of GC community would agreed on local autonomy issue today...


Turkey, before intervening in 1974 after the coup d'etat asked other guarantors to cooperate in order to organize a joint intervention but as you know one of them already and illegaly was in Cyprus and UK weren't so willingly to intervene. Therefore Turkey many times warned Junta and Sampson to withdraw and resign. What did Junta do? Silently defied to Turkey in hope of a US intervention to stop Turkey and Enosis fait accompli as a reward of overthrowing the Castro of the Cyprus. There were many things that made, encouraged Greek Junta to achieve that coup.

1- The harsh treatment of US president to Turkey's president after the intervention of 1964. The then president of Turkey was İ . İnönü, a leftist...

2- In 1974 the prime minister of Turkey was one of the successors of İnönü, B. Ecevit, the most fiery leftist prime minister of Turkey that haven't had strong[compatible] relations with US governments in that era...

3- Makarios good relations with USSR and a strong leftist support behind him....


These 3 factors encouraged them to hit the last stroke in order to make Enosis a fait a'compli.


Even on 27th of July Turkey one more time made her intentions very clear:

Wiggin: 'Mr. Kirca, can you give us an assurance that your forces will halt their advance if the other side stops firing?'

Kirca: Immediately!'

Bitsios: 'But, at the moment, there are various bands of irregular soldiers about who will not take orders from us. Would the Turks feel justified in further advances if one of these groups acted in an irresponsible manner?'

Kirca: 'I'm afraid I do not understand. You send Greek officers to command them and now plead that "you cannot control them." This, I cannot accept. I speak for the whole of our forces, including the Turkish-Cypriot Fighters, and I expect the Greek delegation to be in a similar position. Mr. Mavros is asking for an undertaking that Turkish units will not advance even if fired on or if Turkish villagers are subjected to massacre. Is this reasonable?

What could Turkey do after all those efforts not to get her troops advanced anymore? What could Turkey do while the ones who didn't hold twhatever fire arms they had against the coupists and didn't hesitate to hold their guns towards Turks and TCs?


Another thing to remind you, Piratis neither Turkey, Greece, GCs or TCs made the number of their human losses public. So, if there were 6000 deads in GC side it's the result of the combat and turmoil of the events which caused by stupid Greek Junta and their supporters. Weren't there so many Turkish and TC soldiers who brutally killed Greek, GC soldiers and civilians just because to take revenge upon or hatred in their soul or they hold their fired arms towards them. Highly probable and even doubtless as Denktash admitted some of them. Weren't there so many Greek and GC soldiers who brutally kiled Turkish and TC soldiers, civilians just because the hatred they had in their soul and taking revenge upon them ? Yes there were as it was admitted by some ex-Eoka-B members... What could be expected of a combat under those days conditions? If you can find the Simerini and Machi newspapers of that era, take a look at them and see how considerable supporters they had and how they encouraged the Greek Junta and coupists in order to overthrow Makarios and achieve Enosis with a fait a'compli...

metecyp wrote:

magikthrill wrote:Also, you mention no Cypriot history should be taught. Of course TCs not think it's beneficial since TC history starts about 2000 years after GC.

And what does that have to do with anything? I always hear this argument that "GCs have been on the island for 2000 years whereas TCs only since 1571". So what? Does that mean that TCs are less entitled to live in Cyprus? I don't think so. Don't bring up something and piss people off if it's irrelevant.

I'm sorry I never mentioned anything about TCs being less entitled to live in Cyprus. I stated the facts and you came up with your own conclusions.

I don't care how you choose to express your insecurities but please don't put words in my mouth.

Thank you.

Insan,

All those excuses that you gave to excuse the crime of the Turkish invasion, the 6000 people that died and the 200.000 refugees could be a bit convincing if today was 1 week after the invasion. But after 30 years of occupation it is pretty clear that Turkey didn't intervene in Cyprus to restore order. It invaded Cyprus in order to occupy a part of it.

This has been their plan all along.