Cyprus-Forum.com

[miltiades]

Cypezokyli , the honour killing in London of the young woman , which incidentally was condemned by communities across all sections , was perpetrated by people who share the ideology of the suicide bombers , and the philosophy that their barbaric act is an honourable one. The similarity doesn't end there. The culture is very similar to that of the London bombers who given the same circumstances would have carried out the same act.
I do not make any excuses what so ever when it comes to premeditated and intentional targeting of innocent people by any force. I supported wholeheartedly the allied action againstYougoslavia , (remember that the Greek world was against such action ) because the Christians were deliberately and intentionally targeting innocent Muslims.I would not make any comparisons then and I do not make any now. The rape and killing of another human is revolting and barbaric. Full stop.
When I come across people who say to me , Yes I condemn the suicide bombers but what else can they do ?
This analogy is tantamount to supporting such acts, whether these acts take place in Baghdad , London , Madrid or any where else.You are correct in "oil , geostrategic interests ", I never doubted their importance and I agree that these interests must be protected by the west .

[cypezokyli]

correct me if i am wrong , but are you implying that as west we are allowed to attack other countries just to protect our interests ?

[miltiades]

The west must protect its interests .If a regime like Afghanistan that was host to Al Qaeda , an organization dedicated to the destruction of the West , was attacked as indeed it has then I support such action. The west is not always righteous but it has a duty to protect its people .If Iran continues with its efforts to create atomic weapons , I feel that this would represent a great threat to the Western world and to all its neighbours .The West must act and it will act. Every superpower through out history had as its primary objective the protection of its interests and its people . I see nothing wrong in the West doing the same. The USA and its allies invaded Iraq believing that WOMD were available and that Sadam would not hesitate to use them.None had been found .What do you think the allies should then do .Withdraw and let the whole area become so destabilized , no they remain there and are doing all they can to strengthen the democratically elected Iraqi government until it is able to take care of its own security. The obstacle ? The so called by the CY BC "antartes " The people who are waging war on their own people .

[cypezokyli]

so whats the difference between them and EOKA ?

[miltiades]

Its a preposterous comparison for the following reasons.
1. EOKA did not have suicide killers.
2.EOKA did not indiscriminately kill civilians in Markets , Cemeteries , Churchyards ,Weddings Jop centres etc.
3. EOKA was fighting for a well publicised cause that of Enosis .
4.EOKA did not abduct foreign aid workers , including women , and videotaped the barbaric act of slitting their throats.
5.EOKA was not fighting a Cypriot administration but a foreign occupying power that had made it clear that it would never give Cyprus up .The Americans cant wait to get the hell out of Iraq.
The reasons why EOKA was different are obvious to all apart from you cypezokyli.Have you ever seen one of those video tapes showing the beheading of a human ? They are not waging a war of independence but are following the A.Q doctrine of killing Westerners is the duty of all those that subscribe to their perverted ideology.They are fanatics , vicious savages and any comparison with EOKA is absurd.

[cypezokyli]

1. EOKA did not have suicide killers.
.

so ? they are also people who give their lives for the freedom of their country. just in a different way.
i mean, if you want to push it down to tactics , the tactic of ambush or hit-and-run , is also not that ethical. actually i would go as far to argue that it is actually a very coward tactic. but, i am not familiar with any other way , that partisans ever tried to deal with a superior army.

2.EOKA did not indiscriminately kill civilians in Markets , Cemeteries , Churchyards ,Weddings Jop centres etc.

i hope you are not suggesting that EOKA didnot kill civilians. which actually is even worse. bc a suicide bomber in iraq has a target american soldiers (or those he considers traitors) and the rest are just...how do the americans call them....side-victims ? mistakes ? while in our case , when civilians were targeted , it was precicely because they were targets. and moraly that seems worse as far as i understand. unless you can prove that the purpose of these people (in iraq) is civilians.
moreoever as i have told you many times , attacking civilians is a common practise (albeit sad one) in all wars. american soldiers have done this a number of times up to now. if you follow the news , they did it quite a number of times. But ofcource , they are first of all 1. westerners and 2. they didnot commit suicide , as a concequence we forgive them.

3. EOKA was fighting for a well publicised cause that of Enosis

whether the cause was "well publicised" purpose is a matter of opinion. why dont you ask the tcs what do they think about that target. would the target of the iraqis be better if they faught to unite with iran ?

EOKA did not abduct foreign aid workers , including women , and videotaped the barbaric act of slitting their throats

thats true they didnot.
could you give an aproximation of foreign aid workers that were present in cyprus at the time ? did eoka have any videocameras?
some of those though , did take pictures of their achievements later , when they massacred tcs. sapson taking a picture of himself became a tool of the turkish propaganda machine. so if sampson took a picture when some years after the 1960 , i dont see the reason why he owuldnt do that some years before the 1960s, besides him not having a camera (lol)

but if you want to make a step backwards , and explore the history of our mama , after the treaty of varkiza when ELAS gave up the arms , there were right wink paramilitirized groups that acted as head-hunters. i ve seen those pictures of the cutted heads. and they were paid for it! which brings the question who paid them to do that.... let me give you a hint...ahem **it was called the battle against communism
but ofcource the battle against communism can justify things like that. when we were sponsoring the taliban and OBL to attack the soviets it was ok. not that he uses the same tacticts against that , we suddenly became moral animals

5.EOKA was not fighting a Cypriot administration but a foreign occupying power that had made it clear that it would never give Cyprus up .The Americans cant wait to get the hell out of Iraq.

ofcource they didnot. if i may remind you , the british in 1948 and 1956 proposed us extended self-goverment , but we refused it and chose to fight. what they proposed was not absilute democracy or freedom , i.e. more or less what the iraqis have today.
so we had the right not to like such a proposal , but the iraqis should accept it.


.....
any other reasons ?

[miltiades]

Absolute bullshit , you have a warped interpretation of events. I will say nothing more on this subject .

[Natty]

whether the cause was "well publicised" purpose is a matter of opinion. why dont you ask the tcs what do they think about that target. would the target of the iraqis be better if they faught to unite with iran ?

[quote]The British colonial government appeared to exercise a policy of "divide and rule", drawing the majority of members of the island's police force from the Turkish Cypriot community. Whether this was a deliberate policy, or the consequence of widespread Greek Cypriot unwillingness to enrol in the force, remains open to debate. As a result, EOKA perceived its actions as attacking the British government, while the Turkish Cypriots often perceived them as an attack directly against the Turkish Cypriot community. [quote]




I took the quote from Wikipedia.

Peace!:)

[Jim]

Natty
Try reading the Cyprus Conflict on the web; supposedly a balanced view of the conflict or try Small Wars and read about the two women' one English and one German in Famagusta or the old retired English couple in Kolossi. History is points of view, generally written by the Victor; unfortunately in Cyprus there were no winners and as usual it's the innocent who suffer on all sides.

Jim

PS. Wikpedia generally isn't very well balanced

[Socrates]

EOKA did not have suicide killers.

so ? they are also people who give their lives for the freedom of their country. just in a different way.
i mean, if you want to push it down to tactics , the tactic of ambush or hit-and-run , is also not that ethical. actually i would go as far to argue that it is actually a very coward tactic. but, i am not familiar with any other way , that partisans ever tried to deal with a superior army.

This is not an answer we had fanatics psychopaths but not in such level.

ofcource they didnot. if i may remind you , the british in 1948 and 1956 proposed us extended self-goverment , but we refused it and chose to fight. what they proposed was not absilute democracy or freedom , i.e. more or less what the iraqis have today.
so we had the right not to like such a proposal , but the iraqis should accept it.

They first give us a change to make a different constitution at 1930 but our fanatic priests did not accept it.

And I think what out refuse of the British offers (were Greece it self was pushing as to accept) is the first big mistake we’ve made because today Cyprus could be a paradise and back then there was worldwide instability with the cold war and our area was critical for the west. And our place in either case was along the west side because Greece (our only ally) was an active member of NATO and it would be ridiculous to go against it and later our conflict with NATO was another one big mistake we have paid.

The biggest mistake of the British Empire was what they let our priests to have full authority on our community and our minds.

but if you want to make a step backwards , and explore the history of our mama , after the treaty of varkiza when ELAS gave up the arms , there were right wink paramilitirized groups that acted as head-hunters. i ve seen those pictures of the cutted heads. and they were paid for it! which brings the question who paid them to do that.... let me give you a hint...ahem **it was called the battle against communism
but ofcource the battle against communism can justify things like that. when we were sponsoring the taliban and OBL to attack the soviets it was ok. not that he uses the same tacticts against that , we suddenly became moral animals

This is a result of the cold war were both sides was using barbaric tactics but the Talibans were problem only to USSR back then beacouse there was in USSR borders.

The Americans are not angels infact there is no angels at all, what Miltiades try to say is what we have to choose a side specially if something big will happen.

And either we like it or not we are in the west side but this doesn’t cut our right to criticize the USA actions.