I am going to stop posting to the forum because to me it feels like such participation is in balance causing more harm than good. Not an easy judgement to make but one that I have made for the time being anyway.
Before I 'disapear' (though I will continue to read/lurk on the forum) I will make a couple more posts.
The basic point I was trying to make with my recounting the events that i did was to try and explain why some TC had a fear and still have fear / concerns about living amongst GC as a minority. The fact is that if a loved one is killed (essentaily over the issue of the minorites status as a politcal minority or equal) by a majority community then it is natural to fear once again being a minority (politicaly as well a numericaly).
One of the reasons I have decided to withdraw from the forum is that I feel compelled to counter things said and that leads to tedious bickering that is probably more negative than positive. Below is an exacmple of such
micatcyp wrote:And I already proved to you that Patrics report is a copy of the TC version of the events.
I am sorry Micatcyp but what you have proved to me, if anything, is that you can and will dismiss anything that does not fit what you want to be true. Your 'proof' is that Richard's Patricks cversion of events matches closely the TC version of events. For you this is 'proof' that the version is incorrect. It may however be that his version matches TC because he believes that this is the closest to what actually happened. Richard Patrick attempts to find the real truth behind differing accounts from differing communites. Sometimes hi assment comes down on the side of GC accounts and others on the side of TC. Undooubtedly despite his best efforts there will be times where he is just wrong in this attempt - and this event may be one of them. However this is not 'proof' that he is wrong. I will just paste the intro that Richard is given on the cyprus conflict site (in itself a beacon of efforts to find 'truth and balance' from conflicting accounts).
This period, which has very different meanings in the two dominant political narratives, is meticulously described by the Canadian scholar Richard A. Patrick, who was an officer in UNFICYP in the late 1960s and pursued his interest in the Cyprus conflict as a doctoral student in political geography at the London School of Economics. This research, published as Political Geography and the Cyprus Conflict, 1963-1971, is considered among the most authoritative accounts of the period.
micatcyp wrote:The fact that they were all killed except one who got seriously injured whereas none of your so called police [snip] hurt, proves they were unarmed.
Again your idea of 'proof' is somewhat strange to me (and convieniently so). If they were armed and shooting from a moving car it is perfectly in the realm of possibility that they did not manage to hit the checkpoint guards (and also perhaps caught a passerby), yet the checkpoint guards managed to hit them. I do not say this is what happened or not - I just point out that it is possible and thus what you see as 'proof' is to me not 'proof'.
micatcyp wrote:(what police- the TMT is called police now?)
There were perfectly legal TC police (as defined in the consitituion) at this time. I do not know if the guards at this checkpoint were TC police or not, but the idea that TC police were TMT is no different from the idea GC police were EOKA.
micatcyp wrote:You may continue freely the repeatition of your one sided stories.
There is nothing one sided in my aunts story - as a recounting of her personal experience. I was telling her story. For her, the impact it had on her, the way it made her feel it is of no consequence or mitigation of her pain that her husband was killed in revenge for earlier GC deaths. I did not use her story as an example that GC were barbaric and TC were angles. I used it to try help you understand where TC fears come from. That you are unable to repsond to this story with little else but 'well GC were killed as well and you uncles death was a consequence of this' is to me actualy quite hurtful and an indication that you have little interest (or ability?) in actually understading TC fears.
micatcyp wrote:What else would you like me to do?
Try and understand how events like this help to create a desire for partition in some TC, TC that in the absense of such sensless violence would have had no desire for partition and stop insiting that they all wanted partition for partition sake and because they wanted to 'steal' things from GC. Try and understand that though partition was not desirable in itself it was less bad than living in such an environment.
micatcyp wrote:I could equally say that "fear" could have ended in a similar barbaric way by other events prior to 1974 like the proposed actions of many Junta Greek generals prior to 1974, to which Makarios replied "I cannot take such an action that would cause the death of so many innocent people".So don't repeat me that "peace crap" of iskismets,
and you could just as well argue that the only thing that stopped GC from persuing a policy of 'total extermination' of TC in that period was more the threat of reprisals from Turkey than it was Makarios' reluctance to see innocent deaths (a man who already had imo plenty of the blood of innocents on his hands by then).
micatcyp wrote:because you know damn well there are many ways to achive that kind of "peace" one of which is to end up all people in a cementary.
From the New York times feb 16 1964
Like I have said, I do not enjoy or want to have these 'bickering' arguments but neither do I feel able to participate here and just ignore such things, so as a result I will not be continuing in posting here for the time being.
