Cyprus-Forum.com

[Bananiot]

Hermes wrote

And who's fault was that? You cannot keep blaming the GCs for the disastrous policies of the TC leadership in the 1960s. At Ankara's instigation they pursued a reckless self-segregationist agenda which amounted to an armed insurgency against the majority population - as well as targeting those TCs who wanted unity and co-existence. Faced with a belligerent minority you cannot blame the GCs for reacting harshly. You keep blaming "enosis" but in reality the enosis genie could've been contained if the TCs were committed to a fully democratic independent Cyprus. Instead TCs were only interested in partition because the GCs wouldn't allow them perpetual veto rights - veto rights which would've been exercised against the will of the democratic majority. And please don't reply by saying "enosis" turned you into rabid segregationists. The TC leadership chose the path of segregation as a deliberate policy to further Turkey's agenda to prevent Cypriot independence, and they connived to murder those who disagreed with them.

As I said on many occasions, Hermes builds on events that never happened. He is showing selective preference to an imaginary plot and whilst this may be good for his own ego, it offers nothing in practical terms. His agenda is to prove that only Turkey and the TCs are responsible for everything that happened in Cyprus. It is well documented, for a start, that Turkey asked the TCs to return to the RoC in 1964 and try to find political answers to all issues. The letter sent by Inonu to Dr F. Kucuk has been made public and anyone can read it. Kucuk answered back saying that "we would rather all emigrate to Turkey than go back".

The enosis drive that started in 1955 did fuel TC fears for the worst. It would have been strange to say the least if it hadn't. Had the aim of the armed struggle been one of full independence, any such fears would have been uncalled for. In fact, many TCs would have participated in such a struggle, in my opinion, provided the leaders of the struggle were respected and accepted by both communities. There was no shortage of such people in Cyprus at the time. Instead, in 1955 we embarked in an armed struggle to unite Cyprus with Greece. These aspirations did not end in 1960, when we signed for an independent Cyprus. Hiding our head in the sand will not help Hermes. We need to be totally honest and you are not. We decided to use the agreements as a stepping stone to achieve enosis. The changes to the constitution we asked for, were not aiming at creating a more democratic Cyprus. At the back of our mind (and we did not hide it) lingered vivid dreams of realising our national aspirations. These National aspirations, which made the news every day back then, did not refer to the nation of Cyprus but the nation of Greece.

Once again, it is very easy to blame every body else for our misfortunes. We have a habit of doing this in Cyprus. It is our national sport. In 1962, Makarios went to a state visit to Ankara where he was well received with a red carpet and all the hours bestowed to a head of a country. Inonu, a kind and considerate person (despite being a Turk) tried to instill some sense into Makarios. Your Beatitude, he addressed him, think again about the constitution. Don't do it, you will unleash dangerous forces. Makarios was stubborn man. He came back to Cyprus and handed his proposals for changes to the constitution. Some say they were mere proposals and that the Turkish side only had to reject them. The fact of the matter is, when the Turkish Ambassador went to the Presidential Palace to give Turkey's answer, he found no one to give it to. We simply did not want to know about what Turkey thought on the matter. We had already made our mind on this and we were prepared to go through with it.

To that end, we put an "organisation" into effective use, to stop any reaction by the TCs. The "organisation" was funded by the government and was led by the notorious Yiorgadjis who was the president and Papadopoulos the vice president. It consisted of armed bands led by Sampson and Lyssarides. In short, we did not want to debate the changes but enforce them by brutal force. TMT in fact, accepted this as a heavenly gift. They could now hit back at the romantic TCs who aspired for a true democratic and independent Cyprus and tell them "look, the TCs are not interested in all that, they care only for enosis". Hence, we gave TMT all the reasons it needed to draw more strength from the TC community.

At the end, it boiled down to a fatal battle between two nationalisms. The Greek one and the Turkish one. We lost this war Hermes and we need to make serious observations in order to ta arrive at the reasons why we arrived at this grave position.

Arguments of the type "The Turks are to blame" will not save the day for us.

[Bananiot]

Hermes wrote

And who's fault was that? You cannot keep blaming the GCs for the disastrous policies of the TC leadership in the 1960s. At Ankara's instigation they pursued a reckless self-segregationist agenda which amounted to an armed insurgency against the majority population - as well as targeting those TCs who wanted unity and co-existence. Faced with a belligerent minority you cannot blame the GCs for reacting harshly. You keep blaming "enosis" but in reality the enosis genie could've been contained if the TCs were committed to a fully democratic independent Cyprus. Instead TCs were only interested in partition because the GCs wouldn't allow them perpetual veto rights - veto rights which would've been exercised against the will of the democratic majority. And please don't reply by saying "enosis" turned you into rabid segregationists. The TC leadership chose the path of segregation as a deliberate policy to further Turkey's agenda to prevent Cypriot independence, and they connived to murder those who disagreed with them.

As I said on many occasions, Hermes builds on events that never happened. He is showing selective preference to an imaginary plot and whilst this may be good for his own ego, it offers nothing in practical terms. His agenda is to prove that only Turkey and the TCs are responsible for everything that happened in Cyprus. It is well documented, for a start, that Turkey asked the TCs to return to the RoC in 1964 and try to find political answers to all issues. The letter sent by Inonu to Dr F. Kucuk has been made public and anyone can read it. Kucuk answered back saying that "we would rather all emigrate to Turkey than go back".

The enosis drive that started in 1955 did fuel TC fears for the worst. It would have been strange to say the least if it hadn't. Had the aim of the armed struggle been one of full independence, any such fears would have been uncalled for. In fact, many TCs would have participated in such a struggle, in my opinion, provided the leaders of the struggle were respected and accepted by both communities. There was no shortage of such people in Cyprus at the time. Instead, in 1955 we embarked in an armed struggle to unite Cyprus with Greece. These aspirations did not end in 1960, when we signed for an independent Cyprus. Hiding our head in the sand will not help Hermes. We need to be totally honest and you are not. We decided to use the agreements as a stepping stone to achieve enosis. The changes to the constitution we asked for, were not aiming at creating a more democratic Cyprus. At the back of our mind (and we did not hide it) lingered vivid dreams of realising our national aspirations. These National aspirations, which made the news every day back then, did not refer to the nation of Cyprus but the nation of Greece.

Once again, it is very easy to blame every body else for our misfortunes. We have a habit of doing this in Cyprus. It is our national sport. In 1962, Makarios went to a state visit to Ankara where he was well received with a red carpet and all the honours bestowed to a head of a country. Inonu, a kind and considerate person (despite being a Turk) tried to instill some sense into Makarios. Your Beatitude, he addressed him, think again about the constitution. Don't do it, you will unleash dangerous forces. Makarios was stubborn man. He came back to Cyprus and handed his proposals for changes to the constitution. Some say they were mere proposals and that the Turkish side only had to reject them. The fact of the matter is, when the Turkish Ambassador went to the Presidential Palace to give Turkey's answer, he found no one to give it to. We simply did not want to know about what Turkey thought on the matter. We had already made our mind on this and we were prepared to go through with it.

To that end, we put an "organisation" into effective use, to stop any reaction by the TCs. The "organisation" was funded by the government and was led by the notorious Yiorgadjis who was the president and Papadopoulos the vice president. It consisted of armed bands led by Sampson and Lyssarides. In short, we did not want to debate the changes but enforce them by brutal force. TMT in fact, accepted this as a heavenly gift. They could now hit back at the romantic TCs who aspired for a true democratic and independent Cyprus and tell them "look, the TCs are not interested in all that, they care only for enosis". Hence, we gave TMT all the reasons it needed to draw more strength from the TC community.

At the end, it boiled down to a fatal battle between two nationalisms. The Greek one and the Turkish one. We lost this war Hermes and we need to make serious observations in order to ta arrive at the reasons why we arrived at this grave position.

Arguments of the type "The Turks are to blame" will not save the day for us.

[Bananiot]

Hermes wrote

And who's fault was that? You cannot keep blaming the GCs for the disastrous policies of the TC leadership in the 1960s. At Ankara's instigation they pursued a reckless self-segregationist agenda which amounted to an armed insurgency against the majority population - as well as targeting those TCs who wanted unity and co-existence. Faced with a belligerent minority you cannot blame the GCs for reacting harshly. You keep blaming "enosis" but in reality the enosis genie could've been contained if the TCs were committed to a fully democratic independent Cyprus. Instead TCs were only interested in partition because the GCs wouldn't allow them perpetual veto rights - veto rights which would've been exercised against the will of the democratic majority. And please don't reply by saying "enosis" turned you into rabid segregationists. The TC leadership chose the path of segregation as a deliberate policy to further Turkey's agenda to prevent Cypriot independence, and they connived to murder those who disagreed with them.

As I said on many occasions, Hermes builds on events that never happened. He is showing selective preference to an imaginary plot and whilst this may be good for his own ego, it offers nothing in practical terms. His agenda is to prove that only Turkey and the TCs are responsible for everything that happened in Cyprus. It is well documented, for a start, that Turkey asked the TCs to return to the RoC in 1964 and try to find political answers to all issues. The letter sent by Inonu to Dr F. Kucuk has been made public and anyone can read it. Kucuk answered back saying that "we would rather all emigrate to Turkey than go back".

The enosis drive that started in 1955 did fuel TC fears for the worst. It would have been strange to say the least if it hadn't. Had the aim of the armed struggle been one of full independence, any such fears would have been uncalled for. In fact, many TCs would have participated in such a struggle, in my opinion, provided the leaders of the struggle were respected and accepted by both communities. There was no shortage of such people in Cyprus at the time. Instead, in 1955 we embarked in an armed struggle to unite Cyprus with Greece with two leaders that took an oath on the name of enosis. These aspirations did not end in 1960, when we signed for an independent Cyprus. Hiding our head in the sand will not help Hermes. We need to be totally honest and you are not. We decided to use the agreements as a stepping stone to achieve enosis. The changes to the constitution we asked for, were not aiming at creating a more democratic Cyprus. At the back of our mind (and we did not hide it) lingered vivid dreams of realising our national aspirations. These National aspirations, which made the news every day back then, did not refer to the nation of Cyprus but the nation of Greece.

Once again, it is very easy to blame every body else for our misfortunes. We have a habit of doing this in Cyprus. It is our national sport. In 1962, Makarios went to a state visit to Ankara where he was well received with a red carpet and all the honours bestowed to a head of a country. Inonu, a kind and considerate person (despite being a Turk) tried to instill some sense into Makarios. Your Beatitude, he addressed him, think again about the constitution. Don't do it, you will unleash dangerous forces. Makarios was a stubborn man. He came back to Cyprus and handed his proposals for changes to the constitution. Some say they were mere proposals and that the Turkish side only had to reject them. The fact of the matter is, when the Turkish Ambassador went to the Presidential Palace to give Turkey's answer, he found no one to give it to. We simply did not want to know about what Turkey thought on the matter. We had already made our mind on this and we were prepared to go through with it.

To that end, we put an "organisation" into effective use, to stop any reaction by the TCs. The "organisation" was funded by the government and was led by the notorious Yiorgadjis who was the president and Papadopoulos the vice president. It consisted of armed bands led by Sampson and Lyssarides. In short, we did not want to debate the changes but enforce them by brutal force. TMT in fact, accepted this as a heavenly gift. They could now hit back at the romantic TCs who aspired for a true democratic and independent Cyprus and tell them "look, the GCs are not interested in all that, they care only for enosis". Hence, we gave TMT all the reasons it needed to draw more strength from the TC community and get rid of any remaining "romantics" in the ranks of the TC community. Perhaps, one could claim that in a way we are also to blame for the murders of the TC patriots by TMT.

At the end, it boiled down to a fatal battle between two nationalisms. The Greek one and the Turkish one. We lost this war Hermes and we need to make systematic, serious and scientific observations, in order to ta arrive at some valid answers.

Arguments of the type "The Turks are to blame" simple are childish and won't do

[Piratis]

Bananiot, Cyprus is a Greek island like all the rest. A Muslim minority was created here during Ottoman rule, in the same way that similar minorities were created in most Greek and Christian territories that the Ottoman had under their rule. (and Cyprus was one of the last Greek / Christian territories that fall under the Ottomans)

If we go by your logic then no Greek island or territory should have been liberated from Turks and no Greek state should have ever been created because that would upset those that the Ottomans brought to our lands during their occupation.

We asked for nothing more than what was our right: Our freedom to democratically decide the destiny of our own lands. We never posed any thread to the Muslim/Turkish minority here. Just like there is a Latin minority in Cyprus from the time that latins ruled Cyprus, there would also be a Muslim/Turkish minority from the time that Ottomans ruled Cyprus. Similarly there are White minorities in Africa from the time the whites ruled Africa ... or maybe you are an apartheid supporter claiming that the majority of the population should not have the right to rule their own lands, as it was the case with South Africa?

So don't try to equate our struggle, which was a struggle for freedom from the foreign invaders, with the attempt of the foreign invaders, with the help of the minority they created on our island during their rule, to maintain their control over our lands.

And by the way, we didn't lose the war. You want us to lose the war by signing some capitulation agreement that would legalize the crimes of Turkey against us, but we will not sign any such capitulation agreement and therefore this war the Turks started against us will not end until we win it.

The members of the TC minority are more than welcome to be equal Cypriots with their human and democratic rights respected (unlike the way that Turkey treats her own minorities). But minorities do not have the right to determine the destiny of Cyprus against the desires of the majority, and we will never accept such thing.

The TCs rejected to be equal Cypriots, and they instead choose to remain the agents of Turkey on our island hoping for Ottoman style privileges on our expense as a reward. Making themselves our enemies was their choice and therefore they will be treated accordingly, unless they show remorse for their crimes and show respect for the human and democratic rights of the Cypriot people.

[Get Real!]

Bananiot, Cyprus is a Greek island like all the rest.....

When you start with totally baseless nonsense like this you’ve already lost the argument!

[Hermes]

As I said on many occasions, Hermes builds on events that never happened. He is showing selective preference to an imaginary plot and whilst this may be good for his own ego, it offers nothing in practical terms. His agenda is to prove that only Turkey and the TCs are responsible for everything that happened in Cyprus. It is well documented, for a start, that Turkey asked the TCs to return to the RoC in 1964 and try to find political answers to all issues. The letter sent by Inonu to Dr F. Kucuk has been made public and anyone can read it. Kucuk answered back saying that "we would rather all emigrate to Turkey than go back".

That is not my agenda at all. This is not about which came first: enosis or taksim. Historically, it is recognised that it was the TMT who initiated inter-communal violence in 1958. Up till then both sides had lived relatively peacefully. That is not my point. The point is about today. And how the TMT terrorist policies at the time: violent self-segregation, a refusal to co-operate with agents of the government and the assassination of TC activists, was a deliberate campaign against the idea of democratic independence and peaceful co-existence. The TCs were hell-bent on accepting nothing less than the distorted privileges granted them by the 1960s constitution. This was noted by the UN Secretary General at the time and confirmed in the UN Mediator's report of 1965.

What the TMT embarked upon - and what they achieved - was to bring about the conditions of civil strife and then claim that civil strife is why we need partition and then through violence to enforce that partition. It was not until 1974 that these policies could find their final fruition under the pretext, once more, of preventing an enosis that no GC really believed in anymore.

The current partition of the island and all the mistrust, is a continuation of the same policies that Ankara and the TMT were pursuing in the 1960s. A refusal to accept a democratic solution and Cypriot independence. Only today "enosis" is not the bogeyman. It is the EU which apparently is a "trick" to lure the TCs into subservience. Today it is the EU acquis and human rights which conceal a hidden GC agenda. Nothing has changed for the TCs. It is still pretty much the same mindset. It is still why TCs argue that peaceful co-existence is not possible and that we ought to accept permanent derogations and confederation, as envisaged by the Annan Plan, as a solution.

[Bananiot]

Firstly, my apologies for the triple posting, I was in a big hurry this morning and really I do not know what happened.

I am not going to spend any grey cells on Piratis ramblings. Simply, in the same logic, Germany is entitled to what she lost after the second world war. The Germans can just claim that they were not responsible for Hitler and his actions. This is not how this world is run. Hermes does not seem to understand this either. This is because he thinks that the TCs are solely to blame. No rational or unbiased person can adhere to this claim. Hermes has not bother to comment on the historical facts I repeated ad nauseum in this thread, such as, the endeavour of both parts to inflame the nationalist asks of each side. We bombed our own symbols and TMT bombed their mosques. Both sides played the same game in a ruthless struggle for eventual success. TMT executed TCs who had the "audacity" to ask for an independent Cyprus but similar crimes were committed by our side against GCs who warned of the folly of going for enosis. TMT and Greek nationalism were the two sides of the same coin. The nationalists worked in unison to destroy the old Cyprus.

Blaming one side is very is myopic, unless other agendas are indeed served, but this time what we stand to lose is the whole of Cyprus, which will of course survive as an abiotic environment with a marked difference in one of its biotic inhabitats.

[Hermes]

Blaming one side is very is myopic, unless other agendas are indeed served, but this time what we stand to lose is the whole of Cyprus, which will of course survive as an abiotic environment with a marked difference in one of its biotic inhabitats.

Your logic is peculiar and simplistic. You blame both sides equally therefore we ought to accept blame equally therefore we ought to divide the island equally in some sort of confederation and then the Cyprus problem would be "solved". This runs counter to the UN resolutions and international law which maintain that the invasion of 1974 was illegal and an unjustified assault on the sovereignty of the island.

Indeed blame is not really the issue unless you want to see the invasion as a punishment solely for the GCs for their share of the intercommunal troubles. Indeed, the whole basis of the UN resolutions and legal precedence, the securing of RoC sovereignty through EU entry etc, is to ensure that the TCs and Turkey in particular do not profit in any way from the invasion. Therefore your insistence that "both sides are to blame" is irrelevant. This is not the basis for a solution. Or at least a solution as Turkey envisages it.

That is why my emphasis is on how the Turkish demand for an anti-democratic legalised partition is a continuation of the same policies of the 1960s. Which came first: enosis or taksim - or whether both sides are equally to blame - is not relevant. The GCs are today not advocating enosis but for a solution founded on EU law and principles with temporary guarantees as insurance for the security concerns of both sides. This is not an unreasonable or idealistic demand but one governed by Cyprus's status as a full EU member. Indeed the point of EU entry was to defend Cypriot sovereignty and to provide a counterbalance to the Turkish threat and occupation.

Currently the problem is of illegal occupation and the setting up of an illegal state on Cyprus's territory. Not who is to blame for communal violence in the 1960s. In effect the RoC is now united with Europe in a kind of federal enosis. And the island is legally re-united under EU sovereignty. The problem - why there is a Cyprob at all - is the current Turkish refusal to accept the sovereignty of the RoC and (now the EU) over the occupied areas. If you can explain to me how this is fundamentally different from the aspirations of Turkish/TMT policies of the 1960s, I'd be interested to hear it.

[Get Real!]

Blaming one side is very is myopic, unless other agendas are indeed served, but this time what we stand to lose is the whole of Cyprus, which will of course survive as an abiotic environment with a marked difference in one of its biotic inhabitats.

Your logic is peculiar and simplistic. You blame both sides equally therefore we ought to accept blame equally therefore we ought to divide the island equally in some sort of confederation and then the Cyprus problem would be "solved". This runs counter to the UN resolutions and international law which maintain that the invasion of 1974 was illegal and an unjustified assault on the sovereignty of the island.

By the same token, I'm sure he also means that Turkish Cypriots must accept their extinct fate!

Would that be correct Bananiot?

[Piratis]

I am not going to spend any grey cells on Piratis ramblings. Simply, in the same logic, Germany is entitled to what she lost after the second world war. The Germans can just claim that they were not responsible for Hitler and his actions. This is not how this world is run.

In the case of the Cyprus Problem the Nazis are the Turks. Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia with the excuse of protecting the German minority there and the Turks did the same with Cyprus. Are you now going to defend Hitler like you defend your Nazi Turkish friends by repeating Hitler's lame excuses for invading Czechoslovakia as you repeat the Turkish lame excuses for invading Cyprus?

The only difference between Hitler and your Nazi Turkish friends is that Hitler eventually lost the war while the war in Cyprus is not yet over. In the countries which Hitler occupied there were many traitors like you who choose to kiss the ass of the invader. Sorry, but we will not follow your ways. We will continue to fight for our freedom and democracy, either you like it or not.

By the way, do you know what happened to that German minority which Hitler used as an excuse in order to invade Czechoslovakia? Since your Turkish friends insist that ethnic cleansing can be the "solution", then in the end they might get exactly that, but not in the way they hope.