Turkish Cyprus hosts an international water conference
m.mi...@tele.com
On Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:55:16 +0100, "Agamemnon"
<argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>The "TRNC" is a illegal entity which is not reognised by the United
>Nation or any other international organisation.
>
Recognition for TRNC:
Isn't it time?
By Ugur Akinci / Turkish Daily News
AMERICAN PANORAMA
The European Union (EU) is trying to make a
two-egg omelet with only one egg -- i.e. the
Greek-Cypriot administration, which is recognized
by the whole world (save Turkey) as the only
legitimate government of Cyprus. The Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), on the other
hand, since its formation in 1983, has been
recognized only by Turkey.
Such so-called "Muslim brothers" as Pakistan and
Bangladesh have also refused to recognize their
brethren in Northern Cyprus for fear of reprisals
from the U.N. and the United States. Even Erbakan,
the deputy prime minister during the 1974
intervention and chairman of the Islamist Welfare
Party, could not make "believers" out of his Muslim
brothers.
It's not clear how something that does not even
"exist" officially can enter into negotiations on an
equal footing with any other officially recognized
party.
How can "nothing" be equal to "everything?"
Perhaps both the European Council and U.N.
Security Council are hoping to lift a page from David
Copperfield's book on magic.
The nominal Greek argument against recognizing the
TRNC has been that the TRNC is the product of an
"invasion." Thus, recognizing the TRNC would be
tantamount to a legitimization of "might over right."
But isn't it a matter of record that the Greek
Cypriots themselves have repeatedly resorted to
brute force between the Bloody Christmas of 1963
and the coup of July 15, 1974?
Since no Turkish Cypriots ever voted for any
"Republic of Cyprus" governments and since no
Turkish Cypriots were ever represented in any way
in such governments, it is clear that the "Republic of
Cyprus" is not the government of the Turkish
Cypriots by any stretch of imagination. It is, in
effect, the continuation of the same Greek Cypriot
entity that perpetrated so many acts of violence
against the Turkish Cypriots before 1974.
So why is it that to "legitimize" the Turkish use of
force in 1974, through recognition of the TRNC, is
wrong but it's not wrong to legitimize the Greek
Cypriot resort to violence in 1963, 1967 and 1974
by recognizing the continuation of the same Greek
Cypriot entity as the only legitimate "Republic of
Cyprus?" Who can explain the wisdom underlying
such skewed logic?
Actually, some EU members have already started to
see the light -- if ever so tentatively. They put out
some trial balloons, which were shot down
immediately by the Greek government, which can
threaten blackmail against the EU's expansion
eastward.
Italian Foreign Minister Lamberto Dini, for example,
told this writer in person during an official visit to
Washington that there are "two governments" in
Cyprus, with borders in between. "And that's a state
of fact," he added for emphasis.
But, as expected, Dini's timely call for political
realism, just like his similar earlier statement about a
month ago in Italy, came under instant Greek fire,
since it went against the traditional EU stand.
Dini, eating his words that were recorded by at least
half a dozen journalists in the inner court of the State
Department building in Washington, unfortunately
announced on Monday that Italy recognizes only
one government in Cyprus. He described his early
statements about "two governments" as a
"misunderstanding." He said he explained the
situation to Greek Foreign Minister Theodoros
Pangalos and both considered the issue "closed."
But he opened the proverbial "Pandora's box" and
the genie is out of the bottle already. There are
apparently a few minds in and around the EU
chewing on the long-censured "what if...?" question
these days.
Spanish Foreign Minister Abel Matutes, for
example, although stating that there is only one
government in Cyprus, also stressed that there are
"two communities" on the island. One can almost
hear Dini's earlier courageous statement about "two
governments" echoing in the chamber of Matutes'
conscience.
The bi-zonal bi-communal federation formula
accepted way back in the late '70s is still valid, in
principle. And Secretary of State Albright, after the
futile direct talks this past summer between Denktas
and Clerides in Troutbeck, New York and Glion,
Switzerland, made a statement to journalists on
Monday in Nicosia which reflected a U-turn in
American policy. Albright announced that the
Turkish- and Greek Cypriot leaders would start to
discuss "security" -- one of the three core issues that
the parties have serious disagreements about.
That's all fine and dandy. But the crux of the matter
remains to be addressed: In order to arrive at a
federation with a single sovereignty (as Clerides
wants) the parties obviously must voluntarily
abdicate the sovereignty they currently hold
separately in favor of the new federative entity. The
Greek Cypriots are in a position to abdicate their
own sovereignty because the United Nations
recognizes them as a sovereign entity.
How, then, can the Turkish Cypriots abdicate the
sovereignty that (according to the United Nations)
they do not have in the first place?
If they were recognized as a sovereign entity, then
the TRNC could realistically think about abdicating
what it had, in favor of a larger federative entity.
Currently the Turkish Cypriots are in that Twilight
Zone of political pressure where they are asked to
give up what they haven't got, i.e. their sovereignty
as a separate state, all thanks to the United Nations
in which the United States plays an undeniably
critical role.
All experts agree that time is ticking away as Greek
Cyprus is awaiting the delivery of Russian S-300
missiles that can reportedly hit targets even inside
Turkey. The new Greek Cypriot air base at Paphos
and a new naval base in Larnaka are about to be
inaugurated, presenting new strategic challenges not
only for the TRNC but directly for the Republic of
Turkey as well. Such a dangerous calendar renders a
federative solution more necessary than ever.
The EU created a mess out of the direct talks
process by announcing its "Agenda 2000" in the
midst of the New York talks, when Greek Cyprus
was announced as a candidate for full EU
membership while Turkey was not even mentioned.
TRNC President Denktas made it clear that he won't
return to the table in '98 if the EU kicks off
accession talks with Greek Cyprus next January.
Without resumption of these talks, the TRNC
would be forced to culminate the process for "partial
integration" with Turkey, announced by the Mesut
Yilmaz government. And that would of course be the
end of any solutions in Cyprus for a long time to
come, and the beginning of new and dangerous
complications in Turkey's relationship with the EU
and even with NATO.
A comprehensive analysis published in the quarterly
Survival by Heinz Kramer, Germany's top
Turkish-Greek specialist, went so far as to suggest
that Turkey may even end up canceling the
European customs union, turn eastward and even
pull out of NATO. What a price for the West to
pay!
Recognition of the TRNC would eliminate all
legitimate reasons on the part of the
Turkish-Cypriots to approach the negotiations with
reservations.
The EU contributed immensely to the current
instability by igniting a process, in Kramer's words,
"whose security-policy effects it cannot control."
The EU can clean up its mess by giving serious
thought to TRNC's recognition, as the long-missing
central piece of the Cyprus jigsaw puzzle. The time
is now.
TOzturk
keep tolking negative. lets see how far you go this way.you never know maybe
you can find anoter nation in this world think like you.
try to work for peace.spent your time for peace. do not dump the gas on
fire.you will find out peace alot easy . peace what a buttiful
choice. lets work on that.
chetin
Agamemnon wrote:
>
> UN RESOLUTION 550 (1984)
> Adopted by the Security Council on 11th May 1984
> The Security Council,
> Having considered the situation in Cyprus
where the existence of two governments, two entities
and border lines is a reality.
> at the request of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus,
which can only represent and speak for the Greek Cypriot
Community.
> Having heard the statement made by the President of the
> Republic of Cyprus,
who was only voted and elected by the Greek Cypriot people.
> 3. Reaffirms the call upon all States not to recognise the purported
> state of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" set up by
> secessionist acts and calls upon them not to facilitate or in any way
> assist this the aforesaid secessionist entity;
From Press Reports:
A ten-strong delegation representing the Chamber of Commerce (KTTO),
the Chamber of Industry (KTSO), the Young Businessmen's
Association (GIAD) and the Businessmen's Association (ISAD)
of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus goes to Athens today
(22/10/97)
for a conferance which agenda includes regional and local business
issues.
The Turkish Cypriot businessmen used their TRNC passports when
obtaining visas for Greece.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Recognition for TRNC:
Isn't it time?
Çetěn
###
>
> chetin wrote in message <344F64...@ozemail.com.au>...
> >Agamemnon wrote:
> >>
> >> m.mi...@tele.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>The "TRNC" is a illegal entity which is not reognised by the United
> >> >>Nation or any other international organisation.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Recognition for TRNC:
> >> > Isn't it time?
> >> >
> >> > By Ugur Akinci / Turkish Daily News
> >> >
> >> > AMERICAN PANORAMA
> >>
> >> Not when it is a result of Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
> >
> >
> >From Press Reports:
> >
> >GREEK CYPRIOT "deputies" at an inter-parliamentary conference in Cairo
> >left 'speechless' when the Finnish chairman asked if the so called
> >Cyprus respected democracy in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
> >Greek Cypriot Disy's leader Nicos Anastassiades called the
> >question by the Finnish chairman of the Inter-parliamentary
> >Union's Monitoring Committee (IPU) for Cyprus "insulting".
> >
> >The Finnish chairman called on the Greek Cypriot "deputies" to say
> >whether
> >"Cyprus" respected democracy in the TRNC and took into account the
> views
> >of
> >the Turkish Cypriot People.
> >
> >Speaking on Greek Cypriot state radio from Cairo, Anastassiades said he
> >pointed out to the committee that the international community
> recognises
> >only the Republic of Cyprus as the sole legitimate government
> >on the island, and that the question was inappropriate.
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Agamemnon
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION ON THE POLITICAL SITUATION FOLLOWING THE
UN-SPONSORED TALKS ON CYPRUS (17/09/1997)
RESOLUTION
The European Parliament,
-having regard to its previous resolutions on the political situation in
Cyprus and Turkey
A. noting the public statement by the President of the Security Council,
Sir John Westonin which he identified the Councl's concern and
disappointment that further substantive progress was impeded by the
attempt by the Turkish Cypriots to bring preconditions to the table,
B. welcoming the statement made by Commissioner Van den Broek on 22
August 1997 and Council President Jacques Poos, on 26 August 1997 about
the lack of progress on the Cyprus issue,
C. drawing attention to the references to Cyprus in the Commission
document "Agenda 2000- for a Stronger and Wider Union", and to the
European Council's undertaking in Florence in June 1996, that "Accession
negotiations with Cyprus should start six months after the conclusion of
the EGC",
D. maintaining that negotiations for accession to the Union should
benefit both communities,
1. Denounces the joint declaration and the implementing measures, signed
by Turkey and the illegal regime in the occupied areas of the Republic
of Cyprus, which threaten to annex the occupied part of the island to
Turkey, as illegal, provocative and not conducive to creating the right
negotiating climate for the talks;
2. Is appalled at all statements by Rauf Denktash, leader of the Turkish
Cypriot community, that there will be war in Cyprus if its application
to join the EU is successful, and demands their total withdrawal;
3. Regrets the precondition for progress in the direct talks set by Mr.
Denktash - the freezing of the accession negotiations with Cyprus - and
cofirms its clear expectation that these negotiations will be launched
by the beginning of 1998 as agreed by the EU in March 1995 and as
expressed in Agenda 2000, i.e. "if progress towards a settlement is not
made before the negotiations are due to begin, they should be opened
with the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, as the only authority
recognized by international law";
4. Welcomes the outcome of the meetings between President Clerides and
Rauf Denktash in Nicosia on humanitarian issues, in particular measures
concerning investigations into the fate of the missing people, and
expresses its hope that these efforts will continue despite the outcome
of the Montreux talks;
5. Welcomes the recent announcement that President Clerides and Mr.
Denktash will meet to discuss security issues, including
demilitarisation of the island, and in this context draws attention to
the excessive build-up of arms on the island; urges both parties to
exercise the utmost restraint with regard to military deployment;
6. Recognises that there are Turkish Cypriot voices which oppose Mr.
Denktash and appeals to the Government of Cyprus and the Turkish Cypriot
community to continue to look for a peaceful and just solution to the
Cyprus issue in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions;
7. Reminds the Turkish Government that constructive relations between
Turkey and the EU depend partly on the Turkish Government's policy on
Cyprus;
8. Calls on the Union and on all Member States to maintain firm pressure
on Turkey to contribute positively to a just solution of the Cyprus
problem and to ensure that they facilitate the commencement of accession
negotiation with Cyprus by the beginning of 1998;
9. Notes the role that the United States can play in contributing to a
just solution of the Cyprus problem;
Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the
Commission and the Governments of the Member States, Cyprus, and Turkey,
and the United Nations Secretary-General.
chetin wrote in message <34516B...@ozemail.com.au>...
> Recognition for TRNC:
> Isn't it time?
>
>Çetěn
>
>
> ###
>
>>
>> chetin wrote in message <344F64...@ozemail.com.au>...
>> >Agamemnon wrote:
>> >>
>> >> m.mi...@tele.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>The "TRNC" is a illegal entity which is not reognised by the
United
>> >> >>Nation or any other international organisation.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Recognition for TRNC:
>> >> > Isn't it time?
>> >> >
>> >> > By Ugur Akinci / Turkish Daily News
>> >> >
>> >> > AMERICAN PANORAMA
>> >>
>> >> Not when it is a result of Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
>> >
>> >
>> >From Press Reports:
>> >
>> >GREEK CYPRIOT "deputies" at an inter-parliamentary conference in
Cairo
>> >left 'speechless' when the Finnish chairman asked if the so called
>> >Cyprus respected democracy in the Turkish Republic of Northern
Cyprus.
>> >Greek Cypriot Disy's leader Nicos Anastassiades called the
>> >question by the Finnish chairman of the Inter-parliamentary
>> >Union's Monitoring Committee (IPU) for Cyprus "insulting".
>> >
>> >The Finnish chairman called on the Greek Cypriot "deputies" to say
>> >whether
>> >"Cyprus" respected democracy in the TRNC and took into account the
>> views
>> >of
>> >the Turkish Cypriot People.
>> >
>> >Speaking on Greek Cypriot state radio from Cairo, Anastassiades said
he
>> >pointed out to the committee that the international community
>> recognises
>> >only the Republic of Cyprus as the sole legitimate government
>> >on the island, and that the question was inappropriate.
>> >
>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Agamemnon
Çetěn wrote in message <34553A...@ozemail.com.au>...
>Agamemnon wrote:
>
>The Republic of Cyprus was established in accordance with
>the Zurich and London Agreements of the 11th and 19th February,
>1959 as a bi-national state based on the existence of two national
>communities. The Constitution of the Republic provides for the joint
>participation of the two communities in the Executive,Legislative
>and Judicial organs of the State and the two peoples have equal rights
>in the sovereignty and territory of the Republic. LAWFUL AUTHORITY in
>Cyprus is, therefore, based on the JOINT WILL OF BOTH THE TURKISH
>CYPRIOT
>AND GREEK CYPRIOT PEOPLES and this authority can neither be assumed nor
>exercised by either one community without the consent of the other.
Which is more than you have given the Kurds
>However, following the Greek/Greek Cypriot armed onslaught against the
>Turkish Cypriot People in December 1963, aimed at eliminating the
>Turkish
As I remember it the it was the Turks who Bombed Cyprus on Christmas Day
1963 and continued bombing Cyprus in the years that followed. The S-300
missiles cant come a moment too soon.
UN RESOLUTION 193 (1964)
Adopted by the Security Council on 9 August 1964
The Security Council,
Concerned at the serious deterioration of the situation in Cyprus,
Reaffirming its resolutions 186(1964) of 4 March 1964, 187(1964) of 13
March and 192(1964) of 20 June 1964,
Anticipating the submission of the Secretary-General's report on the
situation,
1. Reaffirms the appeal just addressed by the President of the Security
Council to the Governments of Turkey and Cyprus, worded as follows:
'The Security has authorised me to make an urgent appeal to the
Government of Turkey to cease instantly the bombardment of and the use
of military force of any kind against Cyprus, and to the Government of
Cyprus to order the armed forces under its control to cease firing
immediately,,:
2. Calls for an immediate cease-fire by all concerned;
3. Calls upon a11 concerned to cooperate fully with the Commander of
the United Nations Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus in the restoration of
peace and security;
4. Calls upon all states to refrain from any action that might
exacerbate the situation or contribute to the broadening of hostilities.
Adopted at the 1143rd meeting by 9 votes to none, with 2 abstentions X
Czechoslovakia, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
>Cypriot Community and thus uniting the island with Greece, the Turkish
>Cypriot members of the Goverment and the public service were forcible
>ousted
>from their offices and never allowed to return. Their positions were
Denktash voluntarily withdrew from the Government of Cyprus in 1963
after he repeatedly used the provisions of the constitution to veto the
budget, boycot committees and votes thus paralysing Cyprus and making it
ungovernable.
>subsequently filled in by Greek Cypriots and the machinery of goverment
>of
>the Republic of Cyprus was thus illegally usurped by the Greek Cypriot
>element of the bi-national State.
It was thus necessary for president Makarios to implement emergency
measures to make Cyprus governable. All of the seats and positions of
power awarded to the Muslim Cypriots by the constitution were held open
for Muslim Cypriots to re-take but they refused to take them.
>The continuous violation of the 1960 Constitution by the Greek Cypriot
>side ever since 1963 had rendered the so called "Goverment of Cyprus"
>illegal and unconstitutional, and its writ never ran over areas in
which
RESOLUTION 186 (1964)
Adopted by the Security Council on 4 March 1964
The Security Council,...............
2. Asks the Government of Cyprus, which has the responsibility for the
maintenance and restoration of law and order, to take all additional
measures necessary to stop violence and bloodshed in Cyprus;
.................
>Turkish Cypriots lived and controlled. Yet due to its de facto
>superiority
>over the Turkish Cypriot People which was achieved through force of
arms
>and
>inhuman oppression of the Turkish Cypriots, the Greek Cypriot
>Administration
>managed to pose to the world as the " Goverment of Cyprus".
>The Greek engineered coup d'etat of 15th July 1974 constituted the
>culmination
The copup d'etat was an internal matter and nothing to do with the
Muslim Cypriots (Denktash even said this himself), Turkey or the United
Nations, the coup doesnt even get a direct mention in any UN Resolution,
and in any case only lasted eight days.
>of Greek Cypriot efforts to unite the island with Greece and
represented
>the final blow to constitutional order in Cyprus. The ensuing Turkish
>intervension, carried out in accordance with the Treaty rights and
>obligations
The Treaty of Guarantee was (and still is) in violation of.Article 2
Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter, "All Members shall refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
The Provisions of Guarantee in the constitution were (are) thus illegal
and invalid.
>of Turkey to preserve the independence of Cyprus and to protect the
>Turkish
>Cypriot Community, put an end to the de facto superiority of the Greek
That is not stated in the Treaty of garauntee. The Treaty only calls for
the restoration of the status Quo, nothing about protection, and does
not authorise the use of force. Also the right if intervention (which
cannot be by use of force) has to have the approval of all three
Garantour Powers. Greece was not consulted therefor Turkey violated the
Treaty.
>Cypriot Administration and two autonomous administration each
exercising
>exclusive
>control and authority over two distinct regions of the island came into
>being.
>The existence of two separate administration in Cyprus was
unequivocally
>recognized by the three guarantor powers-Turkey, Greece and the United
>Kingdom-
They did not
>by the Geneva Declaration of 30th July 1974 and also acknowledged by
the
>Resolutions of the United Nations.
No they didnt..
UN RESOLUTION 355 (1974)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 1789th meeting on 1 August 1974
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolutions 186 (1964) of 4 March 1964, 353 (1974) of 20
July and 354 (1974) of 23 July 1974,
Noting that all States have declared their respect for the sovereignty,
independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus,
Taking note of the Secretary-General’s statement made at the 1788th
meeting of the Security Council,
Requests the Secretary-General to take appropriate action in the light
of his statement and to present a full report to the Council, taking
into account that the cease-fire will be the first step in the full
implementation of Security Council resolution 353 (1974).
Turkey then broke the cease fire and launched a second wave of invasion
on 15 August.
RESOLUTION 359 (1974)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 1793rd meeting on 15 August 1974
The Security Council,
Noting with concern from the Secretary-General’s report on developments
in Cyprus, in particular documents S/11353/Add.24 and 25, that
casualties are increasing among the personnel of the United Nations
Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus as a direct result of the military action
which is still continuing in Cyprus,
Recalling that the United Nations Force was stationed in Cyprus with the
full consent of the Governments of Cyprus, Turkey and Greece,
Bearing in mind that the Secretary-General was requested by the Security
Council in resolution 355 (1974) of 1 August 1974 to take appropriate
action in the light of his statement made at the 1788th meeting of the
Council in which he dealt with the role, functions and strength of the
Force and related issues arising out of the most recent political
developments in respect of Cyprus,
1. Deeply deplores the fact that members of the United Nations
Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus have been killed and wounded;
2. Demands that all parties concerned fully respect the international
status of the United Nations Force and refrain from any action which
might endanger the lives and safety of its members;
3. Urges the parties concerned to demonstrate in a firm, clear and
unequivocal manner their willingness to fulfil the commitments they have
entered into in this regard;
4. Demands further that all parties co-operate with the United Nations
Force in carrying out its tasks, including humanitarian functions, in
all areas of Cyprus and in regard to all sections of the population of
Cyprus;
5. Emphasises the fundamental principle that the status and safety of
the members of the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus and for
that matter of any United Nations peace-keeping
>It is thus abundantly clear that ever since the Greek Cypriot
aggression
>against the Turkish Cypriot Community in 1963, there have existed in
>Cyprus
You mean Turkish air strikes on civilian targets, and planned bombings
on both communities by Dantashes TMT terrorist group, that he has also
admitted to on television.
>and, IN THE ABSENCE OF MUTUALLY AGREED FINAL POLITICAL SETTLEMENT,
there
>will
>continue to exist, two separate administrations in Cyprus.Following the
>events
>of July 1974 these two administrations gained further autonomy and
>equality and
>they have been exercising exclusive control and authority over their
>respective
>regions.
>
>UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SO CALLED "GOVERMENT OF CYPRUS" CANNOT
>CLAIM
>THE RIGHT TO REPRESENT OR SPEAK FOR THE WHOLE OF CYPRUS, BUT CAN ONLY
>REPRESENT
>OR SPEAK FOR THE GREEK CYPRIOT COMMUNITY AND THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE
>ISLAND.
>
>The TRNC(Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus) is the sole competent
>authority
>which can speak for and represent the Turkish Cypriot People and
>Northern Cyprus.
>
The European Commission of Human Rights, Report II (19 May 1976 - 10 Feb
1983)
"Having found violations of a number of Articles of the Convention, the
Commission notes that the acts violating the Convention were exclusively
directed against members of one of two communities in Cyprus, namely the
Greek Cypriot community. It 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, religion as required by Article 14 of the Convention."
>
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/argyros.argyrou/TRNC.htm
>
> #######################
Çetěn
Agamemnon wrote:
>
> Çetěn wrote in message <34553A...@ozemail.com.au>...
> >Agamemnon wrote:
>
> >
> >The Republic of Cyprus was established in accordance with
> >the Zurich and London Agreements of the 11th and 19th February,
> >1959 as a bi-national state based on the existence of two national
> >communities. The Constitution of the Republic provides for the joint
> >participation of the two communities in the Executive,Legislative
> >and Judicial organs of the State and the two peoples have equal rights
> >in the sovereignty and territory of the Republic. LAWFUL AUTHORITY in
> >Cyprus is, therefore, based on the JOINT WILL OF BOTH THE TURKISH
> >CYPRIOT
> >AND GREEK CYPRIOT PEOPLES and this authority can neither be assumed nor
> >exercised by either one community without the consent of the other.
>
> Which is more than you have given the Kurds
I wasn't aware of the existance of the Kurds in TRNC.
>
> >However, following the Greek/Greek Cypriot armed onslaught against the
> >Turkish Cypriot People in December 1963, aimed at eliminating the
> >Turkish
>
> As I remember it the it was the Turks who Bombed Cyprus on Christmas Day
> 1963 and continued bombing Cyprus in the years that followed. The S-300
> missiles cant come a moment too soon.
My grandfather doesn't agree with you. Neither does the PROFESSOR OF
HISTORY
PIERRE OBERLING :
"Greek terrorism is relentless... At four o'clock in the afternoon,
curfew
is imposed on the Turkish villages. Threats, shootings and attempts at
arson
start as soon as it becomes dark. After the MASSACRE OF CHRISTMAS that
spared
neither women nor children, it is difficult to put up any resistance.
(Cited by Prof.
P.Oberling,
The Road to Bellapais, Page 101)
Turkey warned immediate intervension under the Treaty of Guarantee in
order to
stop the blood-bath.
Italian correspondent GORGIA BOCCA, in Nicosia, reported in IL GIORNO
on 14 January 1964:
"Discussions start in London; in Cyprus, the terror continues. Right
now we are
witnessing the exodus of Turks from villages. Thousands of people
abandoning
homes, lands, herds:....This time, the rhetoric of the Hellenes and
busts of Plato
do not cover-up barbaric and ferrocious behaviours."
Turkey sent two jets over Nicosia "AS WARNING"
In September 1964, the U.N. Secretary-General reported to the Security
Council
the EXPULSION of all Turkish Cypriots from the State machinery....
(U.N.Document S/5950)
>
> >subsequently filled in by Greek Cypriots and the machinery of goverment
> >of
> >the Republic of Cyprus was thus illegally usurped by the Greek Cypriot
> >element of the bi-national State.
>
> It was thus necessary for president Makarios to implement emergency
> measures to make Cyprus governable. All of the seats and positions of
> power awarded to the Muslim Cypriots by the constitution were held open
> for Muslim Cypriots to re-take but they refused to take them.
"The freedom of movement of Turkish Cypriots in the areas under the
control
of the Goverment has in practice been restricted..."
(U.N.Document S/5950)
>
> >The continuous violation of the 1960 Constitution by the Greek Cypriot
> >side ever since 1963 had rendered the so called "Goverment of Cyprus"
> >illegal and unconstitutional, and its writ never ran over areas in
> which
>
> RESOLUTION 186 (1964)
> Adopted by the Security Council on 4 March 1964
> The Security Council,...............
>
> 2. Asks the Government of Cyprus, which has the responsibility for the
> maintenance and restoration of law and order, to take all additional
> measures necessary to stop violence and bloodshed in Cyprus;
> .................
The violance and bloodshed that the so called Goverment of Cyprus was
fully
responsible which was also cited by Michael Stephen with a number of
interesting
reports, in his book " CYPRUS: TWO NATIONS IN ONE ISLAND"
"On 28th December 1963 the DAILY EXPRESS carried the following report
from Cyprus: 'We went tonight into the sealed-off Turkish Quarter of
Nicosia
in which 200 to 300 people had been slaughtered in the last five days.
We were
the first Western reporters there and we have seen sights too frightful
to be
described in print. Horror so extreme that the people seemed stunned
beyond
tears'.
On 14th January 1964 the DAILY TELEGRAPH reported that the
Turkish-Cypriot
inhabitants of Ayios Vassilios had been massacred on 26th December 1963,
and
reported their exhumation from a mass grave in the presence of the RED
CROSS.
A further massacre of Turkish Cypriots, at Limassol, was reported by The
OBSERVER on 16th February 1964, and there were many more.
>
> >Turkish Cypriots lived and controlled. Yet due to its de facto
> >superiority
> >over the Turkish Cypriot People which was achieved through force of
> arms
> >and
> >inhuman oppression of the Turkish Cypriots, the Greek Cypriot
> >Administration
> >managed to pose to the world as the " Goverment of Cyprus".
> >The Greek engineered coup d'etat of 15th July 1974 constituted the
> >culmination
>
> The copup d'etat was an internal matter and nothing to do with the
> Muslim Cypriots (Denktash even said this himself), Turkey or the United
> Nations, the coup doesnt even get a direct mention in any UN Resolution,
> and in any case only lasted eight days.
As the then Greek Cypriot leader Makarios stated "....the events in
Cyprus
do not constitute an internal matter of the Greeks of Cyprus. The Turks
of
Cyprus are also affected..."
(U.N.Document S/1780, Verbadim Record of
the
1780th Meeting, U.N.Security Council)
YES it didn't last long; simple because theTurkish Army didn't allow
them to do so.
(A reminder: You will not gain anything by NOT calling us Turkish
Cypriots,
because we know, who we are)
>
> >of Greek Cypriot efforts to unite the island with Greece and
> represented
> >the final blow to constitutional order in Cyprus. The ensuing Turkish
> >intervension, carried out in accordance with the Treaty rights and
> >obligations
>
> The Treaty of Guarantee was (and still is) in violation of.Article 2
> Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter, "All Members shall refrain in their
> international relations from the threat or use of force against the
> territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any
> other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
Therefore the United Nations, under the auspices of its
Secretary-General
trying to find a negotiated (federal or Confederal) settlement to suit
the sides
(to the so called Cyprus and TRNC) on the island.
>
> The Provisions of Guarantee in the constitution were (are) thus illegal
> and invalid.
You wish. As the former U.S. UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE GEORGE
W. BALL stated in his Memories:
"Makarios's central interest was to block off Turkish intervention so
that
he and his Greek-Cypriots could go on happly massacring
Turkish-Cypriots"
(The Past Has Another Pattern, W.W.Norton
and Company, New York, Page 345)
>
> >of Turkey to preserve the independence of Cyprus and to protect the
> >Turkish
> >Cypriot Community, put an end to the de facto superiority of the Greek
>
> That is not stated in the Treaty of garauntee. The Treaty only calls for
> the restoration of the status Quo, nothing about protection, and does
> not authorise the use of force. Also the right if intervention (which
> cannot be by use of force) has to have the approval of all three
> Garantour Powers. Greece was not consulted therefor Turkey violated the
> Treaty.
The Appeals Court of Athens' decision numbered 2658/79 dated 21/4/1979
refers to the Turkish intervension as a legal action though.
>
> >Cypriot Administration and two autonomous administration each
> exercising
> >exclusive
> >control and authority over two distinct regions of the island came into
> >being.
> >The existence of two separate administration in Cyprus was
> unequivocally
> >recognized by the three guarantor powers-Turkey, Greece and the United
> >Kingdom-
>
> They did not
Yes they did.
See the Declaration at the conclusion of the First Geneva Conference, 30
JULY 1974.
>
> >by the Geneva Declaration of 30th July 1974 and also acknowledged by
> >the Resolutions of the United Nations.
>
> No they didnt..
Yes they did...
AND you know what?.. These TWO SEPARATE ADMINISTRATIONS OF CYPRUS
are now trying to establish a federal or a Confederal Cyprus under the
auspices of the UN Secretary-General.
>
> UN RESOLUTION 355 (1974)
> Adopted by the Security Council at its 1789th meeting on 1 August 1974
> The Security Council,
> Recalling its resolutions 186 (1964) of 4 March 1964, 353 (1974) of 20
> July and 354 (1974) of 23 July 1974,
> Noting that all States have declared their respect for the sovereignty,
> independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus,
> Taking note of the Secretary-General's statement made at the 1788th
> meeting of the Security Council,
> Requests the Secretary-General to take appropriate action in the light
> of his statement and to present a full report to the Council, taking
> into account that the cease-fire will be the first step in the full
> implementation of Security Council resolution 353 (1974).
>
> Turkey then broke the cease fire and launched a second wave of invasion
> on 15 August.
Second phase of the Turkish Peace Operation was necessary to stop
the Greek/Greek Cypriot armed forces massacring the Turkish civillians.
No... What I mean is that the Italian correspondent GORGIA BOCCA, in
Nicosia,
reported in IL GIORNO on 14 January 1964:
"....in Cyprus, the terror continues. Right now we are
witnessing the exodus of Turks from villages. Thousands of people
abandoning
homes, lands, herds:....This time, the rhetoric of the Hellenes and
busts of Plato
do not cover-up barbaric and ferrocious behaviours."
".... intercommunal fighting broke out in December 1963, thus bringing
about the collapse of the unitary Greco - Turkish State of Cyprus.
Within the armed enclaves which the Turks created, a system of
political,
administrative, judical, social and other institutions was set up,
which eventually took almost ALL THE ORGANIC CHARACTERISTICS of
a small STATE. The Greeks ofcourse, refused to recognise it, and
the Turks did not ask for recognition from other countries.....
But although it lacked the name of a state what the Turkish Cypriots
created was in essence a small national state, EXISTING within
DEFENDED BORDERS, with its own Goverment, public services and even
luxuries.....
Dr Kutchuk headed the Turkish Cypriot Administration until 1973, when he
was
succeeded by Mr Rauf Denktash."
[(Greek Cypriot author)Zenon
Stavrinides,
The Cyprus Conflict]
The Turkish Peace Keeping Forces will remain in TRNC,even though;
"The Greek-Cypriots do not want a peace-keeping force; they just want
to be left alone to kill Turkish-Cypriots."
[( former U.S. UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE
)
GEORGE W. BALL's Memories:
The Past Has Another Pattern,
W.W.Norton
and Company, New York, Page 347)]
Çetěn
Armin Forker
Çetěn (che...@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
(...)
Your discussion is quite interesting for a (more or less neutral)
spectator.
It shows how difficult it will be to have a lasting peace and
reconciliation in Cyprus.
I have been in Cyprus this year and tried to filter the truth out of all
the propaganda from both sides.
Couldn't you (Greek and Turkish Cypriot) agree on these facts:
1) Turkey unjustfully conquered Cyprus in the first place (16th century).
While it is impossible to get justice for a crime that long ago it is
important to aknowledge this fact to understand the Greek mindset.
2) The Greek always wanted to get rid of Turkish and then British rule.
They began with terrorism (EOKA-A) so the British more and more sustained
their government with the help of the Turkish part of the population. This
directed EOKA-A terror also on the Turkish.
3) After independence the Greek tried to get rid of the Turkish population
(ghettos, EOKA-B terrorism etc.)
4) There were acceptable reasons for the Turkish invasion/intervention.
Its military success however tempted the Turks to exaggerate: Terror
against the Greeks to drive them out of the occupied territory and get a
grip on their property, vandalism against Greek cultural heritage,
breaking of ceasefires in order to get more land.
5) The state of Northern Cyprus faced economical problems leading to an
exodus of Turkish Cypriots. To (over)compensate the Denktash-regime
allowed Anatolian settlers to come to Cyprus. They already outnumber
the Turkish Cypriots ensuring that Denktash wins every election by
maintaining the political status quo. This was illegal following the
last commonly accepted treaties (London agreement) and will make it even
harder to reach a just solution: The Turkish side tries to make the
present unjust situation irreversible by altering the ethnic consistency
of the island.
With other words:
1) Both sides have accumulated a lot of guilt on their sides.
2) Both sides only see the guilt of the other side or at least justify
their own guilt by it. This makes reconciliation impossible.
3) The Turkish site is not interested in reconciliation or
reunification because they would have to admit that the last and
persistent crimes were on their side: They had to return stolen property
(including all those churches turned to mosques), maybe even send those
Anatolians back to where they came from. Denktash's political existence
depends on the status quo so he won't accept any proposals touching the
situation.
4) This is a crap world. Darwinism rules: The strongest side wins,
not the one with justice on its side. Lasting peace demands 'ethnic
cleansing' (wisely Greece and Turkey accomplished it in 1923).
Consequence:
1) Unless one wants another war the present situation has to be accepted.
The TRNC will sooner or later be part of Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus
part of the EU.
2) With some good will on both sides (that I don't see):
A federated state with distinct territories should be possible. Like two
'homelands': whereever a Greek or a Turk Cypriot lives within Cyprus he
would be citizen of his part of the island. This would allow for refugess
to return home without taking the Turkish conquered territory away again.
For the few things the two sides had to make together a 50/50 shared
government could be elected. Thus having returned to more or less justice
the entire island could join EU.
--
........................................................
Armin Forker, 51580 Dorn [Rheinland]
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5313/contact.htm
........................................................
Recep Lutfu Sahin
On 30 Oct 1997 14:53:40 GMT, a257...@smail.Uni-Koeln.DE (Armin
Forker) wrote:
>Your discussion is quite interesting for a (more or less neutral)
>spectator.
>
>1) Turkey unjustfully conquered Cyprus in the first place (16th century).
like Chistopher Colombo did America !!
>
>3) After independence the Greek tried to get rid of the Turkish population
>(ghettos, EOKA-B terrorism etc.)
get rid of Turkish population... how ? . let me tell you .. by
killing women and children in bath tubs !! do you know where
Bosnia is or Does your memory only works in the 16th century !!
>4) There were acceptable reasons for the Turkish invasion/intervention.
thank you. why could we not hear those ACCEPTABLE reasons then..
>5) The Turkish side tries to make the
>present unjust situation irreversible by altering the ethnic consistency
>of the island.
>
Do you know I was just wondering what would the be the effects of so
many British settling in Spain now. perhaps they are there to bring
back the Franko regime ..
>4) This is a crap world. Darwinism rules: The strongest side wins,
>not the one with justice on its side. Lasting peace demands 'ethnic
>cleansing' (wisely Greece and Turkey accomplished it in 1923).
>
I suppose you think that is exactly what happened in Europe between
1939-45
You " more or less neutral -faschist - moron."
>Consequence:
>
>1) Unless one wants another war the present situation has to be accepted.
>The TRNC will sooner or later be part of Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus
>part of the EU.
It is obvious that your mind can't envisage Turkey in the EU. You "
more less neutral moron "
I wish you were not real ...
In this world no creature does, what humans do to their own kind ..
....................
Turgut Durduran
In article <3458CE...@chem.fsu.edu>,
Michael Panagiotakis <mih...@chem.fsu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> 2) The Greek always wanted to get rid of Turkish and then British rule.
>> They began with terrorism (EOKA-A)
>
>self-determination is not what I'd call "terrorism". In the same way
>Geprge Washington was considered a terrorist by the Brits, and
>resistance groups were considered terrorist by the Nazi's...
>
Not really, i.e it does not depend on such a definition.
All those that you are quoting used 'terorist methods' for their
purpose, and they were terorists. Regardless of their cause.
>> 3) After independence the Greek tried to get rid of the Turkish population
>> (ghettos, EOKA-B terrorism etc.)
> True. But this had ceased around 1965.
may be you tried to mean 1967.
>> 4) There were acceptable reasons for the Turkish >invasion/intervention.
>
> No doubt after the military coup in Cyprus Turkey had a right to
>intervene to protect the Turkish Cypriots. That this was not it's main
>aim though was demonstrated by the refusal to remove it's troops AFTER
>the coup failed. Indeed the invading Attila army advanced instead of
>retreating.... There is no evidence that by 1974 Makarios had any wish
>to "get rid of the turkish population".
Forget Makarios. He was toppled down by that coup.
There were quite clear intentions to take action against us
at that point.
You are however right that Turkey's main intention was to
divide Cyprus. Her actions showed this intention clearly, and
it still does.
the problem that we- Turkish Cypriots- and Greek Cypriots (and everybody
else who pokes his/her nose into this issue) face when discussing this
issue the inability to get past nailed positions. One side has
to insist that it is an invasion, occupation etc with no possible
justification at all, and the other side has to reject all those, and
say the one and only reason was to save Turkish Cypriots.
Personally, I think both of these are crap. The reality contains
both of these points, and many more issues. What Turkey did in 1974
is not as devilish as pictured by Greek Cypriots, neither it is as
angelic as pictured by Turkish Cypriots. If as Cypriots we are to ever
live together, we *have to* acknowledge the mistakes and guilts that we
all carry. I carry part of the guilt for the missing people, refugess
etc, and my Greek Cypriot countrymen carry the guilt for our missing
people, refugees, kids who dies in the bathtub etc.
So our friend , either as a 'neutral moron' or as a 'neutral genius'
did indeed say valuable things.
>go watch TV" mentality. Anyway the idea that Darwinism is about "the
>strongest side winning" is rather 19th century, NOT what the modern
>evolutionary perspective is.
agreed to some degree.. i.e unfortunately he does have a point
about today's world (regardless of the biological changes :)) .
But, what is different now is that these things are not justifiable
any more!
>
> I generally agree with the second solution- it seems the only viable
>(long term) one. The first solution is unacceptable to awfully many
>people who lost their loved ones and their homes in the 1974 invasion,
>and no Greek or Greek Cypriot government could accept it without being
>tried for treason...! Indeed a unilateral annexation of N.Cyprus
>by Turkey would bring the two countries almost certainly to war.
>
> Of course the interesting question that the Cyprus issue raises is
>how much an 18% minority has a right to deny the will of a 82% majority.
>I'm not claiming that the answer is simple. IMHO the issue is one of
>guaranteeing the minorities rights without obstucting the political
>choices of the majority.
I think we can easily go beyond this simple logic.. how important is it
whether 18% gets 40-50% vote or not when both sides may have a veto right
etc? when there would be special arrangements for guaranteeing against
shovenist(sp??) , discriminatory actions? when the newly formed state
will base its existence on the ongoing experience of animosity and how to
stop it.
I believe if we really want to achieve a solution these questions are not
so important, i.e questions about numerical representation. In a place
where human rights and democracy persists these things do not matter. In
fact, I rather see a federal state as a temporary solution, final aim
should be that 'a cypriot is a cypriot' not '18% turkish cypriot, 82%
greek cypriot'.
Turgut
Agamemnon
Turgut Durduran wrote in message <63bh4o$t4b$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>
>I think we can easily go beyond this simple logic.. how important is
it
>whether 18% gets 40-50% vote or not when both sides may have a veto
right
It was the veto right in the illegal 1960 Cyprus constitution imposed on
Cypris by the British that led to the collapse of the Cyprus Governmet
in 1963. Denktas kept vetoing the Budget and refused fo sit in
parliament making all decision making processed impossible.
The Cyprus constitution was racist, divisive and imposed separatism in
Cyprus of the kind now shunned in South Africa.
It prevented a "Turkish" Cypriot from ever becoming President and Greek
Cypriots could only vote for Greek Cypriots and Muslim Cypriots for
Muslim Cypriots.
>etc? when there would be special arrangements for guaranteeing against
>shovenist(sp??) , discriminatory actions? when the newly formed state
>will base its existence on the ongoing experience of animosity and how
to
>stop it.
>
>I believe if we really want to achieve a solution these questions are
not
>so important, i.e questions about numerical representation. In a place
>where human rights and democracy persists these things do not matter.
In
Neither should there be any insitence in creating seperate Muslim and
Greek Cypriot zones. South Africa tried to create Black and White
homlands, whose real purpose was to steal the most productive land from
the blacks and give it to the whites.
>fact, I rather see a federal state as a temporary solution, final aim
>should be that 'a cypriot is a cypriot' not '18% turkish cypriot, 82%
>greek cypriot'.
Completely agree, and Turkey and Greece and Britain should stay out of
any guarantee arrangements, and the worlds biggest international Trouble
Maker the US should stay out also.
Agamemnon
>
>
>Turgut
>
Agamemnon
Michael Panagiotakis wrote in message <3458CE...@chem.fsu.edu>...
>Armin Forker wrote:
>
>> I have been in Cyprus this year and tried to filter the truth out of
all
>> the propaganda from both sides.
>>
>> Couldn't you (Greek and Turkish Cypriot) agree on these facts:
>>
>> 1) Turkey unjustfully conquered Cyprus in the first place (16th
century).
>> While it is impossible to get justice for a crime that long ago it is
>> important to aknowledge this fact to understand the Greek mindset.
>>
>> 2) The Greek always wanted to get rid of Turkish and then British
rule.
>> They began with terrorism (EOKA-A)
The Greek Cypriots wanted the to get rid of the British First, but the
British when they left imposed an unworkable and illegal constitution
on Cyprus. One which could not be amended without the connect of Britain
Greece and Turkey. A constitution which cannot be amended by those which
it applies to is legally not a constitution.
EOKA A was formed against British imperialism. Denktash formed the Nazi
based TMT terrorist organisation to help the British and attack the
Greek and Muslim Cypriots that were on the same side.
>
> Well it depends on how you define terrorism. A people's struggle for
>self-determination is not what I'd call "terrorism". In the same way
>Geprge Washington was considered a terrorist by the Brits, and
>resistance groups were considered terrorist by the Nazi's...
>
>>so the British more and more sustained
>> their government with the help of the Turkish part of the population.
>This
>> directed EOKA-A terror also on the Turkish.
>>
>> 3) After independence the Greek tried to get rid of the Turkish
population
>> (ghettos, EOKA-B terrorism etc.)
> True. But this had ceased around 1965.
After independence Turkey tried to attack Cyprus and forced the Muslim
Cypriots who were evenly spread all over Cyprus and could not claim a
separate state, into Ghettos in north Nicosia so as the claim part of
Cyprus as its own.
>
>>
>> 4) There were acceptable reasons for the Turkish
>invasion/intervention.
>
> No doubt after the military coup in Cyprus Turkey had a right to
>intervene to protect the Turkish Cypriots. That this was not it's main
The UN Charter forbids the use of force and foreign intervention in the
internal matters of member states. The coup was directed against the
Greek Cypriot majority Government. Denktash himself stated that the
"Turkish" Cypriots have nothing to fear from the coup, which was not
against them but the Greek Cypriots.
Turkey had no right to invade Cyprus. Greece did not invade Turkey in
1955 to protect the Greeks of Constantiople and it did not invade Turkey
every time it had one if its regular military coups.
>aim though was demonstrated by the refusal to remove it's troops AFTER
>the coup failed. Indeed the invading Attila army advanced instead of
>retreating.... There is no evidence that by 1974 Makarios had any wish
>to "get rid of the turkish population".
The Atila invasion was pre-planned by Turkey in the 1950's when Turkey
drew the Atila line on a map of Cyprus. In 1963 Turkey tried to invade
Cyprus and failed. It then waited for an excuse and executed its
pre-planned invasion against the people of Cyprus. There is no way that
Turkey could have amassed so many Troops and so much equipment and ships
in 5 days if the invasion was not planned long in advance. Look at Iraq.
it took 6 months before the allies were ready to attack Saddam, and in
Bosnia it took years.
>
>> Its military success however tempted the Turks to exaggerate: Terror
>> against the Greeks to drive them out of the occupied territory and
get a
>> grip on their property, vandalism against Greek cultural heritage,
>> breaking of ceasefires in order to get more land.
>>
> That's putting it rather mildly. It seems that every Greek Cypriot
I've
>met has some relative/friend who was killed during the invasion. Rape,
>murder and pillage was the standard treatment of the GreekCypriot
>population by the Turkish army.
>
>
>> 5) The state of Northern Cyprus faced economical problems leading to
an
>> exodus of Turkish Cypriots. To (over)compensate the Denktash-regime
The exodus of Muslim Cypriots was caused by the transfer of illegal
Anatolian settlers, who have nothing in common with the Muslim Cypriots.
It was the cost of bringing in the settlers and maintaining them that
destroyed the economy.
>> allowed Anatolian settlers to come to Cyprus. They already outnumber
>> the Turkish Cypriots ensuring that Denktash wins every election by
>> maintaining the political status quo. This was illegal following the
>> last commonly accepted treaties (London agreement) and will make it
even
>> harder to reach a just solution: The Turkish side tries to make the
>> present unjust situation irreversible by altering the ethnic
consistency
>> of the island.
>
> I pretty much agree with you on the above points... you did an im-
>pressively good job of filtering the truth out of the propaganda of
both
>sides.
>
>
>>
>> With other words:
>>
>> 1) Both sides have accumulated a lot of guilt on their sides.
>> 2) Both sides only see the guilt of the other side or at least
justify
>> their own guilt by it. This makes reconciliation impossible.
Greece Cyprus and even Germany and Japan have all recognised their
crimes.
Turkey still refuses to Recognise the Armenian, Pontian Smyrnan,
Assyrian and Kurdish gencocides, and continues to violate international
law and commit more attrocities against even its own people every day.
>> 3) The Turkish site is not interested in reconciliation or
>> reunification because they would have to admit that the last and
>> persistent crimes were on their side: They had to return stolen
property
>> (including all those churches turned to mosques), maybe even send
those
Not just mosques, the Churches were also turned into Pig Stys, Public
Latrines, Cespits, Stables and Brothels.
>> Anatolians back to where they came from. Denktash's political
existence
>> depends on the status quo so he won't accept any proposals touching
the
>> situation.
>> 4) This is a crap world. Darwinism rules: The strongest side wins,
>> not the one with justice on its side. Lasting peace demands 'ethnic
>> cleansing' (wisely Greece and Turkey accomplished it in 1923).
>
> Whoa! This "realpolitik" I find offensive. The ethnic cleansing in
>1923 involved the destruction of people's -REAL people's- lives on both
>sides.... I can tell you that when the Moslim population left Crete
>(a greek speaking population BTW) according to my grandmother's stories
>it was heartwrenching. The people arriving from Asia Minor to Greece
>were destitute and broken. It took a generation for them to overcome
>this tragedy and even today people speak of "hamenes patrides" (lost
>homelands). Since I don't believe that policies and decisions are
>something "out there", independent of our own actions, laws of nature
>that cannot be tampered with, but rather something that we (all
>humans)bear a responsibility to influence and change (or support as the
>case may be), I cannot accept this "the world is rotten anyway, so
let's
>go watch TV" mentality. Anyway the idea that Darwinism is about "the
>strongest side winning" is rather 19th century, NOT what the modern
>evolutionary perspective is.
> Finally, do you realize that the statement: "lasting peace demands
>ethnic cleansing" can be used to justify Serb and Croat atrocities in
>Bosnia? Indonesian atrocities in Timor? and that it can be used as
>an argument by any blood crazed nationalist in defending massacres?
>
>
>>
>> Consequence:
>>
>> 1) Unless one wants another war the present situation has to be
accepted.
>> The TRNC will sooner or later be part of Turkey and the Republic of
Cyprus
>> part of the EU.
Any attempt by Tureky to do this will result in a war with Greece.
>>
>> 2) With some good will on both sides (that I don't see):
>> A federated state with distinct territories should be possible. Like
two
>> 'homelands': whereever a Greek or a Turk Cypriot lives within Cyprus
he
>> would be citizen of his part of the island. This would allow for
refugess
>> to return home without taking the Turkish conquered territory away
again.
You are completely ignorant.
95 percent of the land and property in the occupied territory is legally
owned by Greek Cypriots as verified by the European Court of Human
Rights.
Most of the Muslim Cypriot population after 1963 was concentrated in
north Nicosia.
Thus unless you have a separate Muslim state in north Nicosia and a
separate Muslim state in every Cypriot village which has a Muslim
majority, both federated states would have a Greek Cypriot majority and
Greek Cypriot led administration.
>> For the few things the two sides had to make together a 50/50 shared
>> government could be elected. Thus having returned to more or less
justice
>> the entire island could join EU.
It was a shared government that caused the Cyprus problem in the first
place. The Government must be a majority led Government. South Africa
has already learnt the lesson from this. How can Turkey claim a 50%
share in the Cyprus government for a 20% (no 5%) Muslim population when
it wont even giver its 33% Kurdish population recognition let alone a
separate federated state or democratic representation in the Turkish
parliament.
Agamemnon
>
> I generally agree with the second solution- it seems the only viable
>(long term) one. The first solution is unacceptable to awfully many
>people who lost their loved ones and their homes in the 1974 invasion,
>and no Greek or Greek Cypriot government could accept it without being
>tried for treason...! Indeed a unilateral annexation of N.Cyprus
>by Turkey would bring the two countries almost certainly to war.
>
> Of course the interesting question that the Cyprus issue raises is
>how much an 18% minority has a right to deny the will of a 82%
majority.
>I'm not claiming that the answer is simple. IMHO the issue is one of
>guaranteeing the minorities rights without obstucting the political
>choices of the majority.
>
>>
>> --
>> ........................................................
>> Armin Forker, 51580 Dorn [Rheinland]
>> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5313/contact.htm
>> ........................................................
>
> Regards
> Mihalis Panagiotakis
Turgut Durduran
In article <63bu24$rl3$2...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Turgut Durduran wrote in message <63bh4o$t4b$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>
>Cypris by the British that led to the collapse of the Cyprus Governmet
>in 1963. Denktas kept vetoing the Budget and refused fo sit in
>parliament making all decision making processed impossible.
>
yeah :) I am sure Denktas was the vice-president then.
First learn who was what before you make such comments!
Does the name "Kucthuk" sound familiar to you?
Just picking on this small piece :)
Turgut
Mihalis Panagiotakis
Turgut Durduran wrote:
>
> In article <3458CE...@chem.fsu.edu>,
> Michael Panagiotakis <mih...@chem.fsu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> They began with terrorism (EOKA-A)
> >
> >self-determination is not what I'd call "terrorism". In the same way
> >Geprge Washington was considered a terrorist by the Brits, and
> >resistance groups were considered terrorist by the Nazi's...
> >
>
> All those that you are quoting used 'terorist methods' for their
> purpose, and they were terorists. Regardless of their cause.
I totally disagree! Resistance fighters against the Nazis in occupied
Europe were terrorists?!! I guess you have to define terrorism Turgut,
because I think we have different definitions in mind...
I agree that attacking civilians may -in most cases- be considered
terrorism. But attacking an occupying army is certainly not. BTW
by that definition (attacking civilians)the Turkish invasion of '74
was a terrorist act.
>
> >> 3) After independence the Greek tried to get rid of the Turkish population
> >> (ghettos, EOKA-B terrorism etc.)
> > True. But this had ceased around 1965.
>
> may be you tried to mean 1967.
My sources may be wrong, I concede the point.
>
> >> 4) There were acceptable reasons for the Turkish >invasion/intervention.
> >
> > No doubt after the military coup in Cyprus Turkey had a right to
> >intervene to protect the Turkish Cypriots. That this was not it's main
> >aim though was demonstrated by the refusal to remove it's troops AFTER
> >the coup failed. Indeed the invading Attila army advanced instead of
> >retreating.... There is no evidence that by 1974 Makarios had any wish
> >to "get rid of the turkish population".
>
> Forget Makarios. He was toppled down by that coup.
> There were quite clear intentions to take action against us
> at that point.
You missed my point. On July 24 if I'm not mistaken of 1974 both the
Athens and the Leukosia juntas toppled. After that Makarios was again
the major player in Cypriot politics. I am asserting that at that point
he had no intention of starting a pogrom against Turkish Cypriots.
Indeed
even if that were to be his intention it would have been impossible to
carry anything out.
>
> You are however right that Turkey's main intention was to
> divide Cyprus. Her actions showed this intention clearly, and
> it still does.
>
> the problem that we- Turkish Cypriots- and Greek Cypriots (and everybody
> else who pokes his/her nose into this issue) face when discussing this
> issue the inability to get past nailed positions. One side has
> to insist that it is an invasion, occupation etc with no possible
> justification at all, and the other side has to reject all those, and
> say the one and only reason was to save Turkish Cypriots.
>
> Personally, I think both of these are crap. The reality contains
> both of these points, and many more issues. What Turkey did in 1974
> is not as devilish as pictured by Greek Cypriots, neither it is as
> angelic as pictured by Turkish Cypriots. If as Cypriots we are to ever
> live together, we *have to* acknowledge the mistakes and guilts that we
> all carry. I carry part of the guilt for the missing people, refugess
> etc, and my Greek Cypriot countrymen carry the guilt for our missing
> people, refugees, kids who dies in the bathtub etc.
If I understood you correctly ( I may not have)you accepted that
murder, rape and plunder
DID occur at the time of the invasion. How is that "not devilish"?
We probably differ on this but my position is that the Turkish invasion,
having as you said as its goal the division of Cyprus, is a crime under
international law, and was appropriately condemned unanimously (if I'm
not
mistaken) by the UN.
While I do agree that there were factions in the Greek Cypriot side
(EOKA B') that indeed did have quite murderous intentions against the
Turkish
Cypriots, I also claim that they were indeed just that: factions. They
were not carrying official state policy, and (again if I am well
informed)
they directed their violence against Greek Cypriots i.e. the AKEL party
(The Communist Party of Cyprus) which represented a large part of the
Cypriot population. It is a whole different ballgame when the GOVERNMENT
of a country organizes and carries out an invasion of a sovereign state.
So if both sides have to share a burden of blame surely it shouldn't be
equally apportioned.
>
> So our friend , either as a 'neutral moron' or as a 'neutral genius'
> did indeed say valuable things.
I agree...
>
> >go watch TV" mentality. Anyway the idea that Darwinism is about "the
> >strongest side winning" is rather 19th century, NOT what the modern
> >evolutionary perspective is.
>
> agreed to some degree.. i.e unfortunately he does have a point
> about today's world (regardless of the biological changes :)) .
> But, what is different now is that these things are not justifiable
> any more!
>
> >
> > I generally agree with the second solution- it seems the only viable
> >(long term) one. The first solution is unacceptable to awfully many
> >people who lost their loved ones and their homes in the 1974 invasion,
> >and no Greek or Greek Cypriot government could accept it without being
> >tried for treason...! Indeed a unilateral annexation of N.Cyprus
> >by Turkey would bring the two countries almost certainly to war.
> >
> > Of course the interesting question that the Cyprus issue raises is
> >how much an 18% minority has a right to deny the will of a 82% majority.
> >I'm not claiming that the answer is simple. IMHO the issue is one of
> >guaranteeing the minorities rights without obstucting the political
> >choices of the majority.
>
> I think we can easily go beyond this simple logic.. how important is it
> whether 18% gets 40-50% vote or not when both sides may have a veto right
> etc? when there would be special arrangements for guaranteeing against
> shovenist(sp??) , discriminatory actions? when the newly formed state
> will base its existence on the ongoing experience of animosity and how to
> stop it.
>
> I believe if we really want to achieve a solution these questions are not
> so important, i.e questions about numerical representation. In a place
> where human rights and democracy persists these things do not matter. In
> fact, I rather see a federal state as a temporary solution, final aim
> should be that 'a cypriot is a cypriot' not '18% turkish cypriot, 82%
> greek cypriot'.
>
> Turgut
I have no doubt of your good intentions Turgut. But surely you must
agree
that Turkish official policy in no way shares your vision of a united
Cyprus. There is a majority of Greek Cypriots that share the same goal
with you, I don't see Denktash accepting any such thing.
BTW, I have heard the claim that Turkish Cypriots are becoming a
minority
in Occupied Cyprus, and that the settlers from the mainland hold all of
the
political power, is that true or just a myth? I am asking seriously,
because such reports in the Greek media tend to be overblown...
Also a more personal question, what were your feelings about the murder
of the two Greek-Cypriot demonstrators at the neutral zone? I ask
because it seems that most Turkish netters are justifying the act as
necessary or defensive.
Regards
Michael Panagiotakis
Turgut Durduran
In article <345A55...@chem.fsu.edu>,
Mihalis Panagiotakis <mih...@chem.fsu.edu> wrote:
>
> I totally disagree! Resistance fighters against the Nazis in occupied
>Europe were terrorists?!! I guess you have to define terrorism Turgut,
>because I think we have different definitions in mind...
> I agree that attacking civilians may -in most cases- be considered
>terrorism. But attacking an occupying army is certainly not. BTW
>by that definition (attacking civilians)the Turkish invasion of '74
>was a terrorist act.
I actually think that the Resistance fighters were terorists.
Think more further than just attacking civilians. Most of the
liberation struggles (many going on these days all over the place
and I support their ideals, not their methods) involve terorist
activities. You go and bomb public places, damns, power stations,
shut down public schools, other government services. So that government
suffers economical, and psycological losses. People in the region
end up getting bad treatment from the government in their pursuit
of the terorists etc, and they turn to support the terorist. And
many other such tactics.
Turkish invasion of '74 involve quite a lot of terorist activities
indeed. TMT was a terorist organisation, and they helped the Turkish
army. Turkish army also burnt down villages etc.
I do not see terorist as only the actions of groups that I do not approve
of. No matter how much I agree with PLO's cause, however much TMT helped
to save the lives of so many of my relatives etc, they are terorists.
Personally, I am a strong anti-militarist and I do not accept any form
of violence for any reason whatsoever.
>> > True. But this had ceased around 1965.
>>
>> may be you tried to mean 1967.
>
> My sources may be wrong, I concede the point.
I believe the real bi-communal fighting ended after 1967. The rest
was a very tense and miserable cold war. T/C's in the enclaves,and
G/C's outside. Waiting for the day Turkey would come, or waiting
for the day one side would get the chance to 'win' this fight.
> You missed my point. On July 24 if I'm not mistaken of 1974 both the
>Athens and the Leukosia juntas toppled. After that Makarios was again
>the major player in Cypriot politics. I am asserting that at that point
>he had no intention of starting a pogrom against Turkish Cypriots.
>Indeed
>even if that were to be his intention it would have been impossible to
>carry anything out.
ok sorry about that. I assume you were refering to the second
wave of the invasion then.
apart from the incidents in several villages where people were
masacred , yes, there was very little excuse for the 2nd wave.
At that point the problem could have been settled had both sides
been honest about desiring peace!
>
> If I understood you correctly ( I may not have)you accepted that
>murder, rape and plunder
>DID occur at the time of the invasion. How is that "not devilish"?
yes, ofcourse I accept it. I was saying it is not *as* devilish
as G/C's portray it. There was atleast some point in Turkey's
action. Lives of Turkish Cypriots were really endangered. We were
living inthe enclaves etc.
>We probably differ on this but my position is that the Turkish invasion,
>having as you said as its goal the division of Cyprus, is a crime under
>international law, and was appropriately condemned unanimously (if I'm
>not
>mistaken) by the UN.
Yes.
ūk
> While I do agree that there were factions in the Greek Cypriot side
>(EOKA B') that indeed did have quite murderous intentions against the
>Turkish
>Cypriots, I also claim that they were indeed just that: factions. They
>were not carrying official state policy, and (again if I am well
>informed)
>they directed their violence against Greek Cypriots i.e. the AKEL party
>(The Communist Party of Cyprus) which represented a large part of the
>Cypriot population. It is a whole different ballgame when the GOVERNMENT
>of a country organizes and carries out an invasion of a sovereign state.
>So if both sides have to share a burden of blame surely it shouldn't be
>equally apportioned.
Well, what was happening with AKEL is much of an internal issue
of Greek Cypriots. That was again due to the fachist Junta in Greece,
and the general 'cold war' strategy. Communism was considered
to be a bigger enemy than any greek-vs-turkish animosity.
I disagree that the Republic of Cyprus, or what was left of it did not
carry anything. Remember that people like Yorgadis were govt people.
Grivas was head of the national guard. etc etc. Makarios was a
reall diplomat, he played the game 'smoothly.'
In 1974, another government i.e that of Greece did a coup in Cyprus!
Then another government Turkey did the invasion. But contrary to how
this is being portrayed most of the time by Greek Cypriots, Cypriots were
living in miserable conditions, masacres were taking place, people were
missing prior to 1974 aswell.
Legal basis , I do not know who shares how much guilt. I do not care
that much anyways. But as Cypriot individuals we all share quite a lot
of guilt .
> I have no doubt of your good intentions Turgut. But surely you must
>agree
>that Turkish official policy in no way shares your vision of a united
>Cyprus. There is a majority of Greek Cypriots that share the same goal
>with you, I don't see Denktash accepting any such thing.
I agree . I know this quite well. and I struggle quite heavily
against this.
I *do* diverge with many Greek Cypriots on many points aswell though.
Unfortunately, I see that nationalist groups are increasing their
voice in south Cyprus. This summer lots of bi-communal peace events
were endangered because of the activities of the fachists at the border.
and I can not say that we were treated nicely either by the G/C police
or the fachists there.
One way to explain my point would be that I ask too much of bravery
from both sides to accept too many things that they are not
willing to accept.
> BTW, I have heard the claim that Turkish Cypriots are becoming a
>minority
>in Occupied Cyprus, and that the settlers from the mainland hold all of
>the
>political power, is that true or just a myth? I am asking seriously,
>because such reports in the Greek media tend to be overblown...
We are indeed becoming a minority, no doubt of that. Greek media
does overblow the issue though, I can see why they would want to do
that. The settlers do not hold that much political power. They
play a definite role in the elections, and I believe the T/C opposition
could have won the elections if they were not there. They are not
very strong political power further than that though. The strongest
political power in N. Cyprus is Turkish foreign affairs, special
warfare department and other similar organisations.
Even if the opposition wins the elections, the above two does not
let the government to form (see 1981 elections ).
> Also a more personal question, what were your feelings about the murder
>of the two Greek-Cypriot demonstrators at the neutral zone? I ask
>because it seems that most Turkish netters are justifying the act as
>necessary or defensive.
>
It was a murder period. I was totally unecessary. I disapprove what Greek
Cypriots were doing at that point very strongly. I think it was wrong,
unacceptable etc. But this does not change something, i.e that the
Turkish army, Grey wolves, Kenan Akin (the politician) etc killed
innocent people.
Did I expect such a thing? Yes.
Do I agree the with the way G/C and Greek media represents it? No.
I believe both sides, and specially the Turkish side to the more extreme,
uses the 'shady' situation at the border to constantly kill, kidnap,
beat, etc innocent people to prove their point about how 'evil' the other
side is. This is plainly wrong, and no government should be involved in
such actions.
Regards,
Turgut
_________________________________________________________________________
TURGUT DURDURAN
durd...@mail.sas.upenn.edu, durd...@force.stwing.upenn.edu
durd...@mindless.com
CYPRUS PAGE: http://www.stwing.upenn.edu/~durduran/cyprus1.html
"ULU GEYIK DELI CYPRIOT"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
My father says Yurdunu Sevmeliymis insan
Love your country Oyle diyor babam
My country is Benim yurdum
Divided into two Ikiye bolunmus ortasindan
which part should Hangi yarisini
I love Sevmeli insan
Tin patrida na agapas.
Etsi lei kai o pateras mou sichna.
I diki mou i patrida
exi mirasti sta dio
Pio apo ta dio kommatia
prepi na agapw.
by Ne$e Ya$In
Armin Forker
>Armin Forker wrote:
>> I have been in Cyprus this year and tried to filter the truth out of
>> all the propaganda from both sides.
>>
>> Couldn't you (Greek and Turkish Cypriot) agree on these facts:
>>
>> 1) Turkey unjustfully conquered Cyprus in the first place (16th
>> century).
>> While it is impossible to get justice for a crime that long ago it is
>> important to aknowledge this fact to understand the Greek mindset.
>>
>> 2) The Greek always wanted to get rid of Turkish and then British rule.
>> They began with terrorism (EOKA-A)
> Well it depends on how you define terrorism. A people's struggle for
> self-determination is not what I'd call "terrorism". In the same way
> Geprge Washington was considered a terrorist by the Brits, and
> resistance groups were considered terrorist by the Nazi's...
The borderline between 'terrorism' and 'struggle for self determination'
is a thin one. Usually those demanding 'self determination' do this out of
their own mind (not democratically legalized (of course it is in many
cases impossible to get this legitimization)).
However, the consequence must be to avoid anything coming close to
terrorism.
In the case of the British in our century I dare say that they needn't to
be attacked with bombs and ambushes. They were civilized enough to accept
political pressure. Malta gained independence a few years after Cyprus
without a shot fired.
In my opinion the guilt remains on the side of the Greek Cypriots that
they were the ones who started the violence.
By the way: How can anyone expect the Turkish Cypriots to accept living
together with the Greeks once more when the Greek Cypriots make such a
cultus about Grivas and friends. I was amazed that they were adored as
almost religious martyrs, with monuments for them on hilltops and
photographs of them in every other pub.
I think also the Greek Cypriots need to reconsider their sometimes
murderous past before they can expect the Turks to approach them.
>> so the British more and more sustained
>> their government with the help of the Turkish part of the population.
>> This directed EOKA-A terror also on the Turkish.
>>
>> 3) After independence the Greek tried to get rid of the Turkish
>> population (ghettos, EOKA-B terrorism etc.)
> True. But this had ceased around 1965.
As far as I understand the Turkish Cypriots lived in Ghettos from 1967 (in
some regions earlier) to 1974.
From the distance it seems unbelievable that the British and the world
accepted this. Maybe they were distracted by Vietnam? And there was war
with Israel two times within that timespan.
And (although 1974 seems like yesterday) it was not the best time for
democracies. Almost all Latin America, Spain, Greece were dictatorships
(not tom mention the rest of the world), Portugal had just overcome it in
1974.
>> 4) There were acceptable reasons for the Turkish
>> invasion/intervention.
> No doubt after the military coup in Cyprus Turkey had a right to
> intervene to protect the Turkish Cypriots. That this was not it's main
> aim though was demonstrated by the refusal to remove it's troops AFTER
> the coup failed. Indeed the invading Attila army advanced instead of
> retreating.... There is no evidence that by 1974 Makarios had any wish
> to "get rid of the turkish population".
Makarios was in power from 1960 to 1974. He is directly responsible for
not having taken clear steps to settle the conflict peacefully.
He was a man of church; his background was that of a very poor peasant
family and of the life in the orthodox monastery. I think out of this
background he was incapable of accepting muslims as Cypriot citizens with
all rights (including special minority rights).
Could it be that his job was too big for his abilities - and still he is
hero number one for the Greek Cypriots.
>> Its military success however tempted the Turks to exaggerate: Terror
>> against the Greeks to drive them out of the occupied territory and get
>> a grip on their property, vandalism against Greek cultural heritage,
>> breaking of ceasefires in order to get more land.
>
> That's putting it rather mildly. It seems that every Greek Cypriot I've
> met has some relative/friend who was killed during the invasion. Rape,
> murder and pillage was the standard treatment of the Greek Cypriot
> population by the Turkish army.
Agreed. I tried to avoid strong words in order to keep the discussion
unembarassed. The Turkish Army doesn't have a reputation of being nice to
enemies (civilian or not). This may lead off topic; I guess the strong
position of the Turkish Army within the political system of Turkey (to
guarantee Laizism and unity) created a monster beyond legal control. And
monsters are dangerous for everyone having to deal with it.
Correct me when I'm wrong.
>> 5) The state of Northern Cyprus faced economical problems leading to an
>> exodus of Turkish Cypriots. To (over)compensate the Denktash-regime
>> allowed Anatolian settlers to come to Cyprus. They already outnumber
>> the Turkish Cypriots ensuring that Denktash wins every election by
>> maintaining the political status quo. This was illegal following the
>> last commonly accepted treaties (London agreement) and will make it
>> even harder to reach a just solution: The Turkish side tries to make
>> the present unjust situation irreversible by altering the ethnic
>> consistency of the island.
> I pretty much agree with you on the above points... you did an im-
> pressively good job of filtering the truth out of the propaganda of both
> sides.
>>
>> With other words:
>>
>> 1) Both sides have accumulated a lot of guilt on their sides.
>> 2) Both sides only see the guilt of the other side or at least justify
>> their own guilt by it. This makes reconciliation impossible.
>> 3) The Turkish site is not interested in reconciliation or
>> reunification because they would have to admit that the last and
>> persistent crimes were on their side: They had to return stolen
>> property (including all those churches turned to mosques), maybe even
>> send those Anatolians back to where they came from. Denktash's
>> political existence
>> depends on the status quo so he won't accept any proposals touching the
>> situation.
>> 4) This is a crap world. Darwinism rules: The strongest side wins,
>> not the one with justice on its side. Lasting peace demands 'ethnic
>> cleansing' (wisely Greece and Turkey accomplished it in 1923).
> Whoa! This "realpolitik" I find offensive. The ethnic cleansing in
> 1923 involved the destruction of people's -REAL people's- lives on both
> sides.... I can tell you that when the Moslim population left Crete
> (a greek speaking population BTW) according to my grandmother's stories
> it was heartwrenching. The people arriving from Asia Minor to Greece
> were destitute and broken. It took a generation for them to overcome
> this tragedy and even today people speak of "hamenes patrides" (lost
> homelands).
Please don't think that I approve this 'Realpolitik'. My statement was
somewhat cynical.
However, if two populations within one country have massacres every other
year the overall saldo of human suffering is lower when they get separated
in time. Of course this would mean a surrender of justice. But how much
bloodshed is acceptable to maintain justice?
Imagine: Cyprus gets reunited and immediately terrorist on both sides pop
up and resume the killings. A baby in a bathtub here, a bombed bus there.
Wouldn't the island be better of with two seperated territories and UN in
the middle?
> Since I don't believe that policies and decisions are
> something "out there", independent of our own actions, laws of nature
> that cannot be tampered with, but rather something that we (all
> humans)bear a responsibility to influence and change (or support as the
> case may be), I cannot accept this "the world is rotten anyway, so let's
> go watch TV" mentality. Anyway the idea that Darwinism is about "the
> strongest side winning" is rather 19th century, NOT what the modern
> evolutionary perspective is.
I have the sad feeling that most people are incapable to 'bear the
responsibility' you are referring to. They see someone of another
race/nation/whatever and dislike him/her: That's basic human nature - we
like better what resembles ourselves. Then it just takes one Grivas or
Milosevic or Hitler and dislike turns into murderous hate.
It is impossible to eliminate this danger and it requires a lot of
civilizatory work to overcome it. It will never vanish completely, though:
One serious economical crisis and very soon there will have to be someone
who blame it on: those strange others.
This has nothing to do with '19th century' politics - it is human nature.
It has to be taken into account when thinking of solutions of quarrels
between ethnies.
> Finally, do you realize that the statement: "lasting peace demands
> ethnic cleansing" can be used to justify Serb and Croat atrocities in
> Bosnia? Indonesian atrocities in Timor? and that it can be used as
> an argument by any blood crazed nationalist in defending massacres?
No, I am not talking of massacres. 'Ethnic cleansings' would only make
sense when they diminuish the balance of human pain.
Think of an example: In Country A lives a well hated minority of Bs, in
country B one of As. Instead of suffering they decide to swap - and peace
is there ever after. Or: In country A lives the same minority of Bs - but
there is no country B to turn to. Then it could be in favour of all when
those B's received a territory of their own. You call it 'self
determination'.
Better would be to establish countries not on nations but on ideas but as
far as I can see this is not what will be achieved because it contradicts
human nature.
Not even Canada or Switzerland have true internal peace. Should there be
a deep crisis I wouldn't be surprised if they faced civil war (like
Switzerland did already in the 1840s).
>> Consequence:
>>
>> 1) Unless one wants another war the present situation has to be
>> accepted. The TRNC will sooner or later be part of Turkey and the
>> Republic of Cyprus part of the EU.
>>
>> 2) With some good will on both sides (that I don't see):
>> A federated state with distinct territories should be possible. Like
>> two 'homelands': whereever a Greek or a Turk Cypriot lives within
>> Cyprus he would be citizen of his part of the island. This would allow
>> for refugees
>> to return home without taking the Turkish conquered territory away
>> again.
>> For the few things the two sides had to make together a 50/50 shared
>> government could be elected. Thus having returned to more or less
>> justice the entire island could join EU.
> I generally agree with the second solution- it seems the only viable
>(long term) one. The first solution is unacceptable to awfully many
>people who lost their loved ones and their homes in the 1974 invasion,
>and no Greek or Greek Cypriot government could accept it without being
>tried for treason...! Indeed a unilateral annexation of N.Cyprus
>by Turkey would bring the two countries almost certainly to war.
A problem: Renunciation in the interest of peace will be called 'treason'
by hardliners of both sides - the more so in a region of the world with
such a high esteem of honour and machismo.
All declare they want peace - unless it costs them nothing.
> Of course the interesting question that the Cyprus issue raises is
> how much an 18% minority has a right to deny the will of a 82% majority.
> I'm not claiming that the answer is simple. IMHO the issue is one of
> guaranteeing the minorities rights without obstucting the political
> choices of the majority.
That's the fundamental problem of democracy.
Is it 'power for the majority' - then the majority of people wearing
trouser may forbid me going around nude, in the name of democracy.
Replace 'wearing trouser' by 'speaking this or that language in
government' (and of course 'nude' by 'speaking another language') and you
have one typical reason for ethnic quarrels.
It is extremely difficult to decide what is an acceptable barrier to the
way someone wants to live and what isn't.
Without fight nothing is achieved because nobody will care - maybe that's
the saddest part of the dilemma.
Greetings
Armin
Agamemnon
Armin Forker wrote in message <63pq0b$6...@news.rrz.Uni-Koeln.DE>...
>>Armin Forker wrote:
>
>
>In the case of the British in our century I dare say that they needn't
to
>be attacked with bombs and ambushes. They were civilized enough to
accept
>political pressure. Malta gained independence a few years after Cyprus
>without a shot fired.
Wrong: The British never accepted the Republic of Irelands full
independence in 1922 (?). They never accepted the independence of
Zimbabwe in 1979 without a struggle. They never accepted the
independence of India in 1947 without splitting it in two and ethnically
cleansing it of Muslims and creating Pakistan. They never accepted
Argentinas claims to the Falklands in 1982 and went to war.
>
>In my opinion the guilt remains on the side of the Greek Cypriots that
>they were the ones who started the violence.
Wrong Again: The Turks started the violence in 1955 when the marked out
the Atilla line in Cyprus. Murdered and Rampaged though the Greek
districts of Constantinople. Then conspired with the British to kill
Greek Cypriot freedom campaigners. In 1963 they staged air strikes on
Cyprus condemned by the United Nations.
>
>By the way: How can anyone expect the Turkish Cypriots to accept living
>together with the Greeks once more when the Greek Cypriots make such a
>cultus about Grivas and friends. I was amazed that they were adored as
>almost religious martyrs, with monuments for them on hilltops and
>photographs of them in every other pub.
You could say the same and more so about Ataturk, butcher of Kurds,
Greeks, Syrians, Assyrians, Armenians, and Alevis.
>I think also the Greek Cypriots need to reconsider their sometimes
>murderous past before they can expect the Turks to approach them.
>
I think that Turks should recognise their Crimes, and programmed
Genocide's, and reconsider their barbaric past and present.
>
>As far as I understand the Turkish Cypriots lived in Ghettos from 1967
(in
>some regions earlier) to 1974.
Wrong Again: The Turkish Cypriots were forced into the Ghettos in north
Nicosia by the TMT Turkish terrorist organisation led by Rauf Dektash.
Turks that wanted to stay in their original homes had them fire bombed
and razed to the ground by the TMT. Those that still resisted had their
lives threatened by Denktashes Mafia.
>From the distance it seems unbelievable that the British and the world
>accepted this. Maybe they were distracted by Vietnam? And there was war
>with Israel two times within that timespan.
Completely unbelievable that the British stood back and let Denktash
terrorise his "own" people and allowed Turkey to stage Air strike on
Greek and Muslim civilian targets to force people out of their home
inorder to create the movement of Muslim Cypriots to the ghettos and
thus create an artificial claim to a part of Cyprus.
>And (although 1974 seems like yesterday) it was not the best time for
>democracies. Almost all Latin America, Spain, Greece were dictatorships
>(not tom mention the rest of the world), Portugal had just overcome it
in
>1974.
And who do you think backed these dictatorships and kept them in power.
The Americans the same nation that armed Hitler before and During WW2.
Read the recently released congressional records if you dont believe me.
>Makarios was in power from 1960 to 1974. He is directly responsible for
Wrong Again: Makarios was in power from 1960 till 1977 when he died.
>not having taken clear steps to settle the conflict peacefully.
Wrong Again: Makarios made the supreme sacrifice in accepting a
bi-communal federation. Even with this sacrifice Turkey and its puppet
Denktash were not willing to settle.
>He was a man of church; his background was that of a very poor peasant
>family and of the life in the orthodox monastery. I think out of this
>background he was incapable of accepting muslims as Cypriot citizens
with
>all rights (including special minority rights).
Wrong Again: On the contery.Turkey was unwilling to accept Muslim
Cypriots as citizens of any Country that was not ruled by Turkey, which
would have brainwashed them and denied all of their rights and freedoms
including those of Worship, so as to guarantee their loyalty to Ataturk.
>Could it be that his job was too big for his abilities - and still he
is
>hero number one for the Greek Cypriots.
>
Could it be that Denktash didnt and still dosnt want a solution which
would allow all Cypriots to be free to choose who they owed their
allegiance to.
>
>Agreed. I tried to avoid strong words in order to keep the discussion
>unembarassed. The Turkish Army doesn't have a reputation of being nice
to
>enemies (civilian or not). This may lead off topic; I guess the strong
They certainly dont, if you can call them and army. An Army without
discipline is not an army, its just a bunch of homicidal maniacs that go
around chopping of dead Kurds heads.
>position of the Turkish Army within the political system of Turkey (to
>guarantee Laizism and unity) created a monster beyond legal control.
And
>monsters are dangerous for everyone having to deal with it.
>Correct me when I'm wrong.
Right:
>
>Please don't think that I approve this 'Realpolitik'. My statement was
>somewhat cynical.
>However, if two populations within one country have massacres every
other
>year the overall saldo of human suffering is lower when they get
separated
>in time. Of course this would mean a surrender of justice. But how much
>bloodshed is acceptable to maintain justice?
>
The massacres were caused by Turkish mainland interference.
Get rid of Turkey and the Muslim and Christian Cypriots will have no
problem living together.
>Imagine: Cyprus gets reunited and immediately terrorist on both sides
pop
>up and resume the killings. A baby in a bathtub here, a bombed bus
there.
>Wouldn't the island be better of with two seperated territories and UN
in
>the middle?
>
As I said Turkey has to be brought to respect International law, UN
Resolutions, and Human Rights and kept from interfering in Cyprus
affairs, only then will there lasting peace.
>
>I have the sad feeling that most people are incapable to 'bear the
>responsibility' you are referring to. They see someone of another
>race/nation/whatever and dislike him/her: That's basic human nature -
we
>like better what resembles ourselves. Then it just takes one Grivas or
>Milosevic or Hitler and dislike turns into murderous hate.
This is what Turks are taught at School and University, they are taught
to hate and destroy any culture that is not Turkish. They only regard
Turks as heroes and anyone who is not pure Turk is inferior. Look at the
Time poll for instance. The Turks in Schools Collages Universities and
in every establishment have been brainwashed into voting for Ataturk in
every category. Why cant they respect what other people have done for a
change.
>It is impossible to eliminate this danger and it requires a lot of
>civilizatory work to overcome it. It will never vanish completely,
though:
>One serious economical crisis and very soon there will have to be
someone
>who blame it on: those strange others.
>
One serious economical crisis. The whole Turkish economy is one serious
economical crisis. And you wonder why this is. Its because of this
hatred for other people. The Turks have made no attempt to encourage
racial and religious or even sexual tolerance. Bad Greek here, bad
Christian there, Asshole everywhere.
>This has nothing to do with '19th century' politics - it is human
nature.
>It has to be taken into account when thinking of solutions of quarrels
>between ethnies.
It is Turkish nature. Everyone else has learned of their failings and
accepted them. Turkey still thinks it has no failings.
>
>> Finally, do you realize that the statement: "lasting peace demands
>> ethnic cleansing" can be used to justify Serb and Croat atrocities in
>> Bosnia? Indonesian atrocities in Timor? and that it can be used as
>> an argument by any blood crazed nationalist in defending massacres?
>
>No, I am not talking of massacres. 'Ethnic cleansings' would only make
>sense when they diminuish the balance of human pain.
>Think of an example: In Country A lives a well hated minority of Bs, in
>country B one of As. Instead of suffering they decide to swap - and
peace
>is there ever after. Or: In country A lives the same minority of Bs -
but
>there is no country B to turn to. Then it could be in favour of all
when
>those B's received a territory of their own. You call it 'self
>determination'.
>
So where does Kurdistan figure in all this.
Why hasn't Turkey given the Kurds the land that is theirs.
>Better would be to establish countries not on nations but on ideas but
as
>far as I can see this is not what will be achieved because it
contradicts
>human nature.
>
You dont even know the difference between a nation and an idea is. A
nation is greater than the sum of its parts, where no matter how
different you are you are the most important part because with one part
missing or lost the nation is worthless. Turkey is not a nation, is an
idea in the mind of Ataturk. There was never a Turkish nation. There is
no Such thing as a Turk.
Turkey was what was left over from the collapse of the ottoman empire.
The people were never Turks, they were Greeks, Syrians, Arabs, Kurds and
Slaves.
Ataturk "Father of Turks" (pity he couldn't father a child) created an
artificial Turkish identity born out of Barbarism and Hatred, and ruled
over by the military, the scum of the earth.
Turkey should have been allowed to fragment and the people go their own
ways. But the Americans who are afraid of a Strong Europe, Africa, Asia
and South America will do all they can to support and destabilising
influence that can keep their foes at bay.
>Not even Canada or Switzerland have true internal peace. Should there
be
>a deep crisis I wouldn't be surprised if they faced civil war (like
>Switzerland did already in the 1840s).
>
Now let me see Switzerland, German, Italian and French speaking
population. WW1 Switzerland was unaffected, WW2 same story.
>That's the fundamental problem of democracy.
Is that there has never been a true Democracy
Power by the people for the people, has been replaced by power by the
few for the few.
>Is it 'power for the majority' - then the majority of people wearing
>trouser may forbid me going around nude, in the name of democracy.
>Replace 'wearing trouser' by 'speaking this or that language in
>government' (and of course 'nude' by 'speaking another language') and
you
>have one typical reason for ethnic quarrels.
Thats why most countries have human rights accords, but Turkey other
hand dosnt.
>It is extremely difficult to decide what is an acceptable barrier to
the
>way someone wants to live and what isn't.
You can start by treating everybody as you would want them to treat you.
Agamemnon
Turgut Durduran
I do not get to answer the 'better' posts due to time constraints.
But funny ones are easy to answer :)
>Wrong Again: The Turks started the violence in 1955 when the marked out
>the Atilla line in Cyprus.
what? Is this a new invention?
> Then conspired with the British to kill
>Greek Cypriot freedom campaigners.
yeah? you mean auxillary police? people paid to work in a govt?
> In 1963 they staged air strikes on
>Cyprus condemned by the United Nations.
>
during which some angels were killing people all over the place,
and UN said nothing about those angels right?
>
>Wrong Again: The Turkish Cypriots were forced into the Ghettos in north
>Nicosia by the TMT Turkish terrorist organisation led by Rauf Dektash.
>Turks that wanted to stay in their original homes had them fire bombed
>and razed to the ground by the TMT. Those that still resisted had their
>lives threatened by Denktashes Mafia.
very very partially true again.
>Completely unbelievable that the British stood back and let Denktash
>terrorise his "own" people and allowed Turkey to stage Air strike on
>Greek and Muslim civilian targets to force people out of their home
>inorder to create the movement of Muslim Cypriots to the ghettos and
>thus create an artificial claim to a part of Cyprus.
"Muslim cypriots" , I like this :)
so as a *Turkish* Cypriot but not a Moslem, (or any religion for that mater),
where do I fall? May be "Agnostic Cypriots" :) (AC like an air-conditioner)
>
>>not having taken clear steps to settle the conflict peacefully.
>
>Wrong Again: Makarios made the supreme sacrifice in accepting a
>bi-communal federation. Even with this sacrifice Turkey and its puppet
>Denktash were not willing to settle.
what clear step did he take during 1960-74? after being
beaten in Cyprus by a coup and a invasion, any wise person
would have taken some steps.
>The massacres were caused by Turkish mainland interference.
interference of waves? destructive one?
one did Turkey have to do with Ay Vasilis village (just an example)
citizens being masacred? did they buy /brainwash the G/C's?
>
>Get rid of Turkey and the Muslim and Christian Cypriots will have no
>problem living together.
what about agnostics? Are we getting rid of Greece from Cyprus too?
May be then what you said will be kind of (quite remotely though) close
to being so easy.
We can live together, we will live together, we should live together,
we should make peace.. But it is not as easy and one-sided as youare
saying!
>This is what Turks are taught at School and University, they are taught
>to hate and destroy any culture that is not Turkish.
Hmmmmm... I recall lotsa brainwashing against Greeks, etc.. nothing
of this sort though... may be these happened during the classes
I missed :)
They only regard
>Turks as heroes and anyone who is not pure Turk is inferior. Look at the
>Time poll for instance. The Turks in Schools Collages Universities and
>in every establishment have been brainwashed into voting for Ataturk in
>every category. Why cant they respect what other people have done for a
>change.
>
stupid media thing.. simple as that. If someone put Oj Simpson's
name there during the trial he would have gotten quite a few votes.
You are pointing at quite faulty, quite shameful sides of Turkey and
many Turkish people.. But you are over-twisting it.
>>
>You dont even know the difference between a nation and an idea is. A
>nation is greater than the sum of its parts, where no matter how
>different you are you are the most important part because with one part
>missing or lost the nation is worthless. Turkey is not a nation, is an
>idea in the mind of Ataturk. There was never a Turkish nation. There is
>no Such thing as a Turk.
>
ahhhhh .... we are getting somewhere... is a 'Turk' or sorry the
thing that many people think is a 'Turk' , is that thing some
kind of a turkey?
Turgut
Turgut Durduran
In article <63rn6f$i7o$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
>>I do not get to answer the 'better' posts due to time constraints.
>>But funny ones are easy to answer :)
repeating above :)
>>>Wrong Again: The Turks started the violence in 1955 when the marked
>out
>>>the Atilla line in Cyprus.
>>
>>what? Is this a new invention?
>>
>The Atilla line was drawn on a map of Cyprus by the Turkish military who
>then tried to force the British to hand them over 1/3 of Cyprus and
>create a new "Pakistan". When this failed they started a campaign of
>hatred and brainwashing in Cyprus amongst the Muslim Cypriots.
Not really.. Turkey *did* have a plan about a divided Cyprus back during
those times, you are right. But until quite late the 'official' voice was
about getting the whole Cyprus back as the heir of the ottomans.
>>> Then conspired with the British to kill
>>>Greek Cypriot freedom campaigners.
>>
>>yeah? you mean auxillary police? people paid to work in a govt?
>>
>The British have used the same tactic in northern Ireland where the RUC
>is composed almost entirely of Protestants sympathetic to Britain.
>
>The RUC with the backing of the British army was responsible for the
>Bloody Sunday massacre, which started the present phase of the northern
>Ireland problem
>
It was not a 'conspiracy' with the British at all. As you have just said,
they were hired as the auxillary police. It was a tactic may be
a conspiracy *by* the British not *with* the British. Furthermore,
by 1958 or so Volkan, TMT and other groups were already popping out.
So T/C's were no more in that condition. So do not twist what has
happened to create this evil T/C image back then.
>>> In 1963 they staged air strikes on
>>>Cyprus condemned by the United Nations.
>>>
>>during which some angels were killing people all over the place,
>>and UN said nothing about those angels right?
>>
>Before which there was peace mostly.
What are you talking about? *Before* the air strikes is when
first masacres, and first reall bi-communal fighting started. Air
strikes were in Dillirga.. People were dying elsewhere!And UN condemned
all of these, not just air strikes!
>>"Muslim cypriots" , I like this :)
>>so as a *Turkish* Cypriot but not a Moslem, (or any religion for that
>mater),
>>where do I fall? May be "Agnostic Cypriots" :) (AC like an
>air-conditioner)
>>
>
>AgC, so as not to exclude Atheist Cypriots AtC
>
>and then theres the BC's, Buddest Cypriots, HC's Hindu Cypriots and so
>on.
ok.
>
>It was the British again that created the notion of "Turkish" Cypriots.
>As in Ireland where the British brought in Protestants from Scotland to
>augment the few Irish Protestants, in Cyprus the British brought in
>mainland Turks to create a religious divide between the Greek Orthodox
Not really... When, how many mainland Turks were brought to Cyprus
to do this?
>Christian, Armenian Orthodox Christian, Maronite Christian, and Roman
>Catholic Christian Cypriots. The British created an artificial identity
>between the Muslim Cypriots who were Greeks who were forcibly converted
>to Islam by the ottomans, and the mainland Turks and encouraged Turkey
>more an more to interfere in the affairs of Cyprus. The British colonial
>policy has always been one of divide and concur. Before the British
>occupation the Muslim Cypriot thought of themselves as being the same as
>the Greeks.
>
that is not true. Indeed there was little talk of "Turkish vs Greek" in
Cyprus, but mostly the talk about "Moslem vs Xtian". But the difference
was always there. It was not a difference of animosity, but rather two
different cultures, groups living together.
British played the divide & rule in Cyprus. They played quite effectively
aswell.. After all both sides were ready to jump into the arms of the
fachists .. They did not play it to the degree you are conspiring though
(at least I do not think so).
>>
>>what clear step did he take during 1960-74? after being
>>beaten in Cyprus by a coup and a invasion, any wise person
>>would have taken some steps.
>
>I have already told you he accepted a federation. What the Turks wanted
>(and still want) was the concision of north Cyprus to Turkeys control
>and then they'll be wanting the free parts aswell.
He did that in theory *after* 1974. The steps that he should have
taken, if he really was sincere goes about the path of not letting
20% of the population of his republic live in enclaves, stop harrasing
them, put the mobs who harras them into jails, start a working republic,
etc etc. No need to tell what he did instead!
>
>Now you tell me what steps, and concessions that Turkey and its Puppet
>Denktash have made towards a solution.
:) you choose the wrong person to defend these.. Find someone else
to do it for you.
>Desecrate and Sacrilege every Orthodox Church in the occupied areas and
>allow thieves and smugglers to destroy Cyprus' Cultural heritage and
>then turn the Churches into Pig Stys, Brothels, Sheep Pens, Latrines,
>and Stables.
>
do not exagerrate (sp?) ok!
can you tell me which churches are brothels? which ones are pig stys (in
a place where there are no 4-legged pigs :))
>>interference of waves? destructive one?
>>one did Turkey have to do with Ay Vasilis village (just an example)
>>citizens being masacred? did they buy /brainwash the G/C's?
>>
>
>Turkey incited and continues to incite a hated of all non Turks in the
>minds of the Muslim Cypriots.
Still, this does not explain the above!
>
>With Turkey out of Cyprus and nolonger a threat to anyone (which can
>only be achieve when its arms link to America is broken), Greece will
>not need to interfere in Cyprus affairs either.
>
Turkey was *not* in Cyprus when Greece begun her interference (see Greece
& Eoka ties!).
>>stupid media thing.. simple as that. If someone put Oj Simpson's
>>name there during the trial he would have gotten quite a few votes.
>>
>
>So why isnt Louise Woodward in the poll then.
>
'cause Americans lost already , Ataturk is a better entertainer and
scientist then anyone else :) (unless bil gates comes up with some sort
of IE that only works if you vote for him :)
>>
>There have never been any Turks. The ottoman empire was what used to be
>the Byzantine empire. The people were not Turks but were concurred by
>Mongoloids who brought no culture of their own with them. Their subjects
>were forcibly Islamised and governed as separate regions and the empire
>fell when the pashas rebelled.
Ohh come on.. Ottoman empire had zillions of different communities
etc in .. you are right.. it was like a big soup of cultures.
if depended on 'ottomanising' the rest of the groups (not really
turkifying. The big 'ulku' of turkifying all these people is
a new fachist idea from late 19th century) But 'there have never been any
turks', this is the funniest thing I heard recently. Forget ottoman
empire, islam etc, what do you think "Gok*turk* " and the part within
*'s there mean? Have you heard of Orkhun inscriptions?
Ofcourse probably if you get a cut your blood flows blue with shades of
white right? After all the Byzantine was very very pure :)
Take care
turgut
Agamemnon
Turgut Durduran wrote in message <63skn4$jdh$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>In article <63rn6f$i7o$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
>
>
>>>> In 1963 they staged air strikes on
>>>>Cyprus condemned by the United Nations.
>>>>
>>>during which some angels were killing people all over the place,
>>>and UN said nothing about those angels right?
>>>
>>Before which there was peace mostly.
>
>
>What are you talking about? *Before* the air strikes is when
>first masacres, and first reall bi-communal fighting started. Air
>strikes were in Dillirga.. People were dying elsewhere!And UN condemned
>all of these, not just air strikes!
>
>
The were Air Strikes, Air Raids, and Turks Parachuting in all over
Cyprus, and this started on Christmas Day 1963 when Turkey tried to
launch a full scale invasion. .
Before the air strikes there was intimidation with low level flights and
TMT Terrorist Bombings of Christian and Muslim Cypriot targets.
The first UN condemnation came in March 1964 (RES 186) and Quoted the
following part of the UN Charter.
:
Article 2, paragraph 4
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the
purposes of the United Nations."
It is obvious the UN is referring to Turkeys violation of the UN
charter by its attempted invasion..
Res 193 goes on to condemn Turkey directly.
1. Reaffirms the appeal just addressed by the President of the Security
Council to the Governments of Turkey and Cyprus, worded as follows:
'The Security has authorised me to make an urgent appeal to the
Government of Turkey to cease instantly the bombardment of and the use
of military force of any kind against Cyprus, and to the Government of
Cyprus to order the armed forces under its control to cease firing
immediately,,:
Before Turkey started directly interfering in Cyprus affairs after
independence and violating the UN Charter there was Peace.
I didn't see the Greeks or the British stiking the Muslim Cypriots from
the air or staging low overflights. The violence was orchestrated by the
Turks.
>
>>>"Muslim cypriots" , I like this :)
>>>so as a *Turkish* Cypriot but not a Moslem, (or any religion for that
>>mater),
>>>where do I fall? May be "Agnostic Cypriots" :) (AC like an
>>air-conditioner)
>>>
>>
>>AgC, so as not to exclude Atheist Cypriots AtC
>>
>>and then theres the BC's, Buddest Cypriots, HC's Hindu Cypriots and so
>>on.
>
>ok.
>
>>
>>It was the British again that created the notion of "Turkish"
Cypriots.
>>As in Ireland where the British brought in Protestants from Scotland
to
>>augment the few Irish Protestants, in Cyprus the British brought in
>>mainland Turks to create a religious divide between the Greek
Orthodox
>
>Not really... When, how many mainland Turks were brought to Cyprus
>to do this?
>
When Britain took over Cyprus there were only 12% or so Muslim Cypriots,
after it left there were 18%. The Other 6% were imported Turks.
>>Christian, Armenian Orthodox Christian, Maronite Christian, and Roman
>>Catholic Christian Cypriots. The British created an artificial
identity
>>between the Muslim Cypriots who were Greeks who were forcibly
converted
>>to Islam by the ottomans, and the mainland Turks and encouraged Turkey
>>more an more to interfere in the affairs of Cyprus. The British
colonial
>>policy has always been one of divide and concur. Before the British
>>occupation the Muslim Cypriot thought of themselves as being the same
as
>>the Greeks.
>>
>
>
>that is not true. Indeed there was little talk of "Turkish vs Greek" in
>Cyprus, but mostly the talk about "Moslem vs Xtian". But the difference
>was always there. It was not a difference of animosity, but rather two
>different cultures, groups living together.
Not so. The Old Muslim Cypriots wore exactly the same costumes and had
the same culture as the Christians.
It was only when the British brought in thousands of mainland Turks that
the Trouble started.
>
>British played the divide & rule in Cyprus. They played quite
effectively
>aswell.. After all both sides were ready to jump into the arms of the
>fachists .. They did not play it to the degree you are conspiring
though
>(at least I do not think so).
>
The tactic has been the same in every British occupied nation. This
never happened with the Romans who took everyone as an equal into the
Roman Army
>>>
>>>what clear step did he take during 1960-74? after being
>>>beaten in Cyprus by a coup and a invasion, any wise person
>>>would have taken some steps.
>>
>>I have already told you he accepted a federation. What the Turks
wanted
>>(and still want) was the concision of north Cyprus to Turkeys control
>>and then they'll be wanting the free parts aswell.
>
>He did that in theory *after* 1974. The steps that he should have
>taken, if he really was sincere goes about the path of not letting
>20% of the population of his republic live in enclaves, stop harrasing
>them, put the mobs who harras them into jails, start a working
republic,
>etc etc. No need to tell what he did instead!
>
Makarios tried this in 62 or was it 63 when he proposed amendments to
the Cyprus constitution to make Cyprus Governable. And I have already
said what Kermitt, or do I mean Denktash did.
Makarios should have overturned the illegal racist Cyprus Constitution
and replaced it with Democratic majority rule which is what every other
western democracy had. An 18% minority cannot dictate over an 82%
majority.
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/argyros.argyrou/Solution.htm
>>
>>Now you tell me what steps, and concessions that Turkey and its Puppet
>>Denktash have made towards a solution.
>
>:) you choose the wrong person to defend these.. Find someone else
>to do it for you.
>
>>Desecrate and Sacrilege every Orthodox Church in the occupied areas
and
>>allow thieves and smugglers to destroy Cyprus' Cultural heritage and
>>then turn the Churches into Pig Stys, Brothels, Sheep Pens, Latrines,
>>and Stables.
>>
>
>
>do not exagerrate (sp?) ok!
>can you tell me which churches are brothels? which ones are pig stys
(in
>a place where there are no 4-legged pigs :))
>
OK Pig stys maybe not Sheep pens Yes.
Examples of violated Churches:
The church of the Virgin Mary, located near the villages of Prastio and
Acheritou-Ayios Georgios, has been vandalised and is being used as a
sheep pen.
The Church of the Virgin Mary located in Pano Zhodia has been completely
destroyed.
The Church of Saint Sergios and the Church of Saint Paraskevi, located
in the village of Ayios Serghios, near the ancient area of Salamis, and
the surrounding cemetery, have been desecrated and vandalised.
Not to mention the Their of Holy Icons form every Church including the
Greek Orthodox Monastery of Antifonitis, in Kyrenia, and the Panayia
Kanakaria Church, in the Karpass peninsula,
>
>>>interference of waves? destructive one?
>>>one did Turkey have to do with Ay Vasilis village (just an example)
>>>citizens being masacred? did they buy /brainwash the G/C's?
>>>
>>
>>Turkey incited and continues to incite a hated of all non Turks in the
>>minds of the Muslim Cypriots.
>
>Still, this does not explain the above!
>
If the Muslim Cypriots were not incited by Kermitt to attack the
Christians they would have never been any reprisals. How do you expect
fanatics to react when someone is staging mock air attacks almost every
day. Turkey deliberately created circumstances where the Christians
would attack the Muslims in order to alienate the Muslim Cypriots even
further.
You enemy was never the Christian Cypriots it has always been Turkey.
>>
>>With Turkey out of Cyprus and nolonger a threat to anyone (which can
>>only be achieve when its arms link to America is broken), Greece will
>>not need to interfere in Cyprus affairs either.
>>
>
>Turkey was *not* in Cyprus when Greece begun her interference (see
Greece
>& Eoka ties!).
>
What do you mean not in Cyprus. Turkey was encouraged by the British to
interfere in Cyprus all the way through the British occupation . It
continued interfering in Cyprus after independence, thanks to an illegal
racist Cyprus constitution and has never stopped.
EOKA was a movement to gain independence from Britain. The members
wanted a free Cyprus and after Cyprus was free it was Cyprus business
what it did, not Britains, Turkeys of Greeces. The Treaty of Guarantee
as I have said is in violation of Article 2 Paragraph 4 of the UN
Charter. Its up to the people of Cyprus to decide what happens not
others.
EOKA-B was an invention of the Dictators in Greece encouraged by
Dictator monger America, and had nothing in common with aims of EOKA.
America wanted another loyal Dictatorship to add to its collection.
>>>stupid media thing.. simple as that. If someone put Oj Simpson's
>>>name there during the trial he would have gotten quite a few votes.
>>>
>>
>>So why isnt Louise Woodward in the poll then.
>>
>
>'cause Americans lost already , Ataturk is a better entertainer and
>scientist then anyone else :) (unless bil gates comes up with some
sort
>of IE that only works if you vote for him :)
>
>>>
>>There have never been any Turks. The ottoman empire was what used to
be
>>the Byzantine empire. The people were not Turks but were concurred by
>>Mongoloids who brought no culture of their own with them. Their
subjects
>>were forcibly Islamised and governed as separate regions and the
empire
>>fell when the pashas rebelled.
>
>Ohh come on.. Ottoman empire had zillions of different communities
>etc in .. you are right.. it was like a big soup of cultures.
>if depended on 'ottomanising' the rest of the groups (not really
>turkifying. The big 'ulku' of turkifying all these people is
>a new fachist idea from late 19th century) But 'there have never been
any
>turks', this is the funniest thing I heard recently. Forget ottoman
>empire, islam etc, what do you think "Gok*turk* " and the part within
>*'s there mean? Have you heard of Orkhun inscriptions?
>
The Turks have never been united as nation, not under the ottomans, not
under Turkey. The Turks were a tribe of nomads that migrated to Anatolia
and then disappeared.
The ottoman empire left behind was never even governed by Turks. The
pashas were mainly people that were loyal to the empire who had a lust
for blood and power.
>Ofcourse probably if you get a cut your blood flows blue with shades
of
>white right? After all the Byzantine was very very pure :)
>
I never said that.
The Byzantine empire wasn't destroyed by the Ottomans it was destroyed
by the Popes Crusader Scum several decades before the ottomans.
>Take care
>turgut
Agamemnon
Mihalis Panagiotakis
Turgut Durduran wrote:
>
>
> >>>Wrong Again: The Turks started the violence in 1955 when the marked
> >out
> >>>the Atilla line in Cyprus.
> >>
> >>what? Is this a new invention?
> >>
> >The Atilla line was drawn on a map of Cyprus by the Turkish military who
> >then tried to force the British to hand them over 1/3 of Cyprus and
> >create a new "Pakistan". When this failed they started a campaign of
> >hatred and brainwashing in Cyprus amongst the Muslim Cypriots.
>
> Not really.. Turkey *did* have a plan about a divided Cyprus back during
> those times, you are right. But until quite late the 'official' voice was
> about getting the whole Cyprus back as the heir of the ottomans.
However... A recent book by Greek Journalist Alexis Papahelas, who
managed to
find the declassified US State department records, states that the
Americans
accepted in the early 60's the unification of Cyprus with Greece as the
only
viable solution, with some trade offs by the Greek/Greek Cypriot side.
Turkey
it seems accepted that on the condition (which was rejected by Makarios)
that
Turkey keep military bases on the island, or gain control of a (small)
part of
Northen Cyprus. It seemed to the Americans quite probable that the
Turkish
side might accept NATO bases on the island instead of Turkish ones, but
Makarios rejected that as well...
All this off the top of my head but I can (I think) find the book and
translate the relevant portions...
>
> >>> Then conspired with the British to kill
> >>>Greek Cypriot freedom campaigners.
> >>
> >>yeah? you mean auxillary police? people paid to work in a govt?
> >>
> >The British have used the same tactic in northern Ireland where the RUC
> >is composed almost entirely of Protestants sympathetic to Britain.
> >
> >The RUC with the backing of the British army was responsible for the
> >Bloody Sunday massacre, which started the present phase of the northern
> >Ireland problem
> >
>
> It was not a 'conspiracy' with the British at all. As you have just said,
> they were hired as the auxillary police. It was a tactic may be
> a conspiracy *by* the British not *with* the British. Furthermore,
> by 1958 or so Volkan, TMT and other groups were already popping out.
> So T/C's were no more in that condition. So do not twist what has
> happened to create this evil T/C image back then.
>
I agree. Never underestimate the corruptive influence of the Brits when
leaving their colonies... It seems that they ignited, or reignited, all
sorts of regional conflicts to serve their purposes.
> >>> In 1963 they staged air strikes on
> >>>Cyprus condemned by the United Nations.
> >>>
> >>during which some angels were killing people all over the place,
> >>and UN said nothing about those angels right?
> >>
> >Before which there was peace mostly.
>
> What are you talking about? *Before* the air strikes is when
> first masacres, and first reall bi-communal fighting started. Air
> strikes were in Dillirga.. People were dying elsewhere!And UN condemned
> all of these, not just air strikes!
>
> >>"Muslim cypriots" , I like this :)
> >>so as a *Turkish* Cypriot but not a Moslem, (or any religion for that
> >mater),
> >>where do I fall? May be "Agnostic Cypriots" :) (AC like an
> >air-conditioner)
> >>
> >
> >AgC, so as not to exclude Atheist Cypriots AtC
> >
> >and then theres the BC's, Buddest Cypriots, HC's Hindu Cypriots and so
> >on.
>
> ok.
>
> >
> >It was the British again that created the notion of "Turkish" Cypriots.
> >As in Ireland where the British brought in Protestants from Scotland to
> >augment the few Irish Protestants, in Cyprus the British brought in
> >mainland Turks to create a religious divide between the Greek Orthodox
>
> Not really... When, how many mainland Turks were brought to Cyprus
> to do this?
Yes... interesting assertion. Could Agamemnon point out when _the
British_
imported mainland Turks to the island (I am not stating that they
didn't,
I'm just asking when).
>
> >Christian, Armenian Orthodox Christian, Maronite Christian, and Roman
> >Catholic Christian Cypriots. The British created an artificial identity
> >between the Muslim Cypriots who were Greeks who were forcibly converted
> >to Islam by the ottomans, and the mainland Turks and encouraged Turkey
> >more an more to interfere in the affairs of Cyprus. The British colonial
> >policy has always been one of divide and concur. Before the British
> >occupation the Muslim Cypriot thought of themselves as being the same as
> >the Greeks.
> >
>
> that is not true. Indeed there was little talk of "Turkish vs Greek" in
> Cyprus, but mostly the talk about "Moslem vs Xtian". But the difference
> was always there. It was not a difference of animosity, but rather two
> different cultures, groups living together.
>
> British played the divide & rule in Cyprus. They played quite effectively
> aswell.. After all both sides were ready to jump into the arms of the
> fachists .. They did not play it to the degree you are conspiring though
> (at least I do not think so).
Hmmm, were they? Makarios I don't think can conceivably be called a
fashist.
And the AKEL party regularly got ~30% of the vote... So I would venture
to say
that the MAJORITY of Greek Cypriots at least (that's the "side" I know
something
about), didn't jump into the arms of the fashists...
> >I have already told you he accepted a federation. What the Turks wanted
> >(and still want) was the concision of north Cyprus to Turkeys control
> >and then they'll be wanting the free parts aswell.
>
> He did that in theory *after* 1974. The steps that he should have
> taken, if he really was sincere goes about the path of not letting
> 20% of the population of his republic live in enclaves, stop harrasing
> them, put the mobs who harras them into jails, start a working republic,
> etc etc. No need to tell what he did instead!
You have to realize though that Makarios had to "keep a balance"
internaly
and refrain from antagonizing the Right, both in Greece and in Cyprus.
Furthermore
there is enough evidence to show that Makarios viewed the Turkish
minority
as a tool of Turkish foreign policy, backed by the Americans who
considered
him a threat to regional stability and a Russophile, since back then for
the
US anyone that wasn't with them was against them.
That's not an excuse for wrongdoings ofcourse, but I think that
Makarios
prevenyed much worse than he allowed.
>
> >
> >Now you tell me what steps, and concessions that Turkey and its Puppet
> >Denktash have made towards a solution.
>
> :) you choose the wrong person to defend these.. Find someone else
> to do it for you.
Agamemnon makes the mistake of identifying every Turkish-Cypriot on the
net with
a Denktash policy supporter, DESPITE the fact that he accepts that
Turkish cypriots
are not solidly behind Denktash...
> >
> >With Turkey out of Cyprus and nolonger a threat to anyone (which can
> >only be achieve when its arms link to America is broken), Greece will
> >not need to interfere in Cyprus affairs either.
> >
>
> Turkey was *not* in Cyprus when Greece begun her interference (see Greece
> & Eoka ties!).
>
Well allow me to rephrase what Agamemnon has said. A DEMOCRATIC Greek
government
will not need to interfere in Cyprus if Turkish forces are out of
Cyprus.
Don't forget that it was a military junta that initiated the Sampson
coup.
> >>stupid media thing.. simple as that. If someone put Oj Simpson's
> >>name there during the trial he would have gotten quite a few votes.
> >>
> >
> >So why isnt Louise Woodward in the poll then.
> >
>
> 'cause Americans lost already , Ataturk is a better entertainer and
> scientist then anyone else :) (unless bil gates comes up with some sort
> of IE that only works if you vote for him :)
>
Actually the poll-thing shows that there is a large number of Ataturk
fanatics on the
net. Nothing more. It might be that some computer literate maniac has
generated most
of these votes. Or it might be that some "patriotic" nutcase appealed to
all Turks
on the net to vote for Ataturk (without pointing out the relevant
categories)....
The whole thing is an embarassment for Turkey though, and I'm sure that
reasonable Turks everywhere are cringing.
> >>
> >There have never been any Turks. The ottoman empire was what used to be
> >the Byzantine empire. The people were not Turks but were concurred by
> >Mongoloids who brought no culture of their own with them. Their subjects
> >were forcibly Islamised and governed as separate regions and the empire
> >fell when the pashas rebelled.
>
> Ohh come on.. Ottoman empire had zillions of different communities
> etc in .. you are right.. it was like a big soup of cultures.
> if depended on 'ottomanising' the rest of the groups (not really
> turkifying. The big 'ulku' of turkifying all these people is
> a new fachist idea from late 19th century) But 'there have never been any
> turks', this is the funniest thing I heard recently. Forget ottoman
> empire, islam etc, what do you think "Gok*turk* " and the part within
> *'s there mean? Have you heard of Orkhun inscriptions?
Turks do indeed exist. Their national consciousness was indeed
"invented" by
Ataturk, but it was invented based on an actual past. Of course there
were
Turks in the middle ages! And later. The Turkish language family is a
separate
branch of the Uralo-Altaic languages. It seems improbable that there
were
NO people speaking Turkish in the 17th, say, century. As for the
"Mongoloid"
part, I have two objections. One: Turkic peoples are not originally
Mongolian
but rather Uralic, if one does have to categorize everybody into some
neat racial
classification (one doesn't), and Two: The derogatory use of the term
"Mongoloid"
I find offensive and racist. Also inaccurate if you consider that the
Chinese
(who are Mongolian people) -to paraphrase the common dismissive slogan
among Greeks
about Western europeans- were building palaces when our ancestors were
swinging
from trees... ;-)
Also, Agamemnon, please do take in mind that Modern Greeks are
"invented" too.
I mean we are a mixture of Greek, Albanian, Vlah, Slav and god knows
what else people
who at some point decided to claim a heritage based on the language (and
heritage,
no doubt) of the majority of the people living in the areas they
occupied, and on religious affiliation. No doubt there is a linguistic
and cultural continuity
from ancient times but that was just one of the elements of the mix of
myth,reality
and exaggeration that served as the ideological backbone for our
national
self consciousness.
>
> Ofcourse probably if you get a cut your blood flows blue with shades of
> white right? After all the Byzantine was very very pure :)
>
See above
I really think there are more points of agreement between us than of
disagreemnt.
Also -despite the rhetoric flourishes- I sense a convergence of opinion
between you and Agamemnon, if not on the past than for the future...
> Take care
You too
> turgut
mihalis
Turgut Durduran
In article <63ss1u$rbo$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>The were Air Strikes, Air Raids, and Turks Parachuting in all over
>Cyprus, and this started on Christmas Day 1963 when Turkey tried to
>launch a full scale invasion. .
What? You are joking I think.. Parachuting? All over Cyprus?
I think you are off by about 11 years!
>Before the air strikes there was intimidation with low level flights and
>TMT Terrorist Bombings of Christian and Muslim Cypriot targets.
>
Sure sure.. 21st December was the day when TMT did the 'stepping out'
nite right?
>Before Turkey started directly interfering in Cyprus affairs after
>independence and violating the UN Charter there was Peace.
>
>I didn't see the Greeks or the British stiking the Muslim Cypriots from
>the air or staging low overflights. The violence was orchestrated by the
>Turks.
But you *did* see the G/C's attacking T/C civilians. Or were
you asleep then?
>
>When Britain took over Cyprus there were only 12% or so Muslim Cypriots,
>after it left there were 18%. The Other 6% were imported Turks.
:) Sure. did they pay the correct import taxes and fees?
>>that is not true. Indeed there was little talk of "Turkish vs Greek" in
>>Cyprus, but mostly the talk about "Moslem vs Xtian". But the difference
>>was always there. It was not a difference of animosity, but rather two
>>different cultures, groups living together.
>
>Not so. The Old Muslim Cypriots wore exactly the same costumes and had
>the same culture as the Christians.
>
>It was only when the British brought in thousands of mainland Turks that
>the Trouble started.
incorrect again. Our cultures were much much similar than today's. I am a
big advocate of a "cypriot identity & culture" and I am critised for that
a lot. But you are telling untrue things. costumes had differences ranging
from the colour, different túJypes of veils used. The language
is different, along with a good deal of shared words, and lots of
bi-lingual people, and "linobambagis". Religion was different
with a lot of shared aspects from the 'other'. (see my homepage's
jokes section for the Cypriot bird story).
British *did not* bring so many mainland Turks.
needless to say the trouble had nothing to do with that.
They brought different identities to the island and that
was enough.
>>
>>He did that in theory *after* 1974. The steps that he should have
>>taken, if he really was sincere goes about the path of not letting
>>20% of the population of his republic live in enclaves, stop harrasing
>>them, put the mobs who harras them into jails, start a working
>republic,
>>etc etc. No need to tell what he did instead!
>>
>Makarios tried this in 62 or was it 63 when he proposed amendments to
>the Cyprus constitution to make Cyprus Governable. And I have already
>said what Kermitt, or do I mean Denktash did.
Tried what? The ammendments were *before* the main troubles begun,
in fact the troubles begun after the ammendments proposal immediately.
>
>Makarios should have overturned the illegal racist Cyprus Constitution
>and replaced it with Democratic majority rule which is what every other
>western democracy had. An 18% minority cannot dictate over an 82%
>majority.
>
Untrue, given the fact that Makarios was supporting, and closing
one eye for the majority's oppresion of the minority!
>>do not exagerrate (sp?) ok!
>>can you tell me which churches are brothels? which ones are pig stys
>(in
>>a place where there are no 4-legged pigs :))
>>
>OK Pig stys maybe not Sheep pens Yes.
Brothel? what about that one?
>If the Muslim Cypriots were not incited by Kermitt to attack the
>Christians they would have never been any reprisals. How do you expect
>fanatics to react when someone is staging mock air attacks almost every
>day. Turkey deliberately created circumstances where the Christians
>would attack the Muslims in order to alienate the Muslim Cypriots even
>further.
why did G/C's attack T/c's *before* the air attacks then?
>
>You enemy was never the Christian Cypriots it has always been Turkey.
I never had an enemy. And will never have one probably!
>
>EOKA was a movement to gain independence from Britain. The members
>wanted a free Cyprus and after Cyprus was free it was Cyprus business
>what it did, not Britains, Turkeys of Greeces. The Treaty of Guarantee
>as I have said is in violation of Article 2 Paragraph 4 of the UN
>Charter. Its up to the people of Cyprus to decide what happens not
>others.
Read Grivas memoirs! See how it was founded. See where
Greece interfered in Cyprus. See pre-British era (eg 1821 etc
when Ottomans killed some priests etc) to see Greece's
interference.
The point is , the people who screwed up our country include
GreeceþÎ & Turkey & Britain.. The first two are still continuing.
They should all take their noses off Cyprus.
>
>EOKA-B was an invention of the Dictators in Greece encouraged by
>Dictator monger America, and had nothing in common with aims of EOKA.
>America wanted another loyal Dictatorship to add to its collection.
>
In any case it existed.. Makarios went against it politically etc.
It ended up overthrowing him. You probably did not expect
T/C's or Turkey to sit down and watch EOKA-B kill people just
because it was made by america.
>>turks', this is the funniest thing I heard recently. Forget ottoman
>>empire, islam etc, what do you think "Gok*turk* " and the part within
>>*'s there mean? Have you heard of Orkhun inscriptions?
>>
>The Turks have never been united as nation, not under the ottomans, not
>under Turkey. The Turks were a tribe of nomads that migrated to Anatolia
>and then disappeared.
I though there was nothing as a "Turk".. Or are you changing
your mind :) So have you heard Gok*turk?
>I never said that.
>
Well then, does that mean you are *not* Greek?
>The Byzantine empire wasn't destroyed by the Ottomans it was destroyed
>by the Popes Crusader Scum several decades before the ottomans.
so? who cares who destroyed it..
Turgut
Turgut Durduran
In article <346231...@chem.fsu.edu>,
>
> However... A recent book by Greek Journalist Alexis Papahelas, who
>managed to
>find the declassified US State department records, states that the
>Americans
>accepted in the early 60's the unification of Cyprus with Greece as the
>only
>viable solution, with some trade offs by the Greek/Greek Cypriot side.
>Turkey
>it seems accepted that on the condition (which was rejected by Makarios)
>that
>Turkey keep military bases on the island, or gain control of a (small)
>part of
>Northen Cyprus. It seemed to the Americans quite probable that the
>Turkish
>side might accept NATO bases on the island instead of Turkish ones, but
>Makarios rejected that as well...
> All this off the top of my head but I can (I think) find the book and
>translate the relevant portions...
I think you are talking about the Acheson plan and other related
things.
>
> Hmmm, were they? Makarios I don't think can conceivably be called a
>fashist.
Grivas, Jorgadis etc..
I should have used "nationalist" rather.
>And the AKEL party regularly got ~30% of the vote... So I would venture
>to say
>that the MAJORITY of Greek Cypriots at least (that's the "side" I know
>something
>about), didn't jump into the arms of the fashists...
>
Well , they actually did quite heavily.. During the EOKA period.. And
afterwards. AKEL was under heavy pressure, a lot of violence was
taking against it etc etc. I meant to say 'nationalists' (for me
there is very little difference between the fashists, shovenists, and
nationalists). The dominating atmosphere , the rhetoric, and the
actions were quite fashistic (or nationalistic). AKEL still gets
a quite high percentage,but still you can see the heavy influence, and
dominance of extreme nationalism among G/C's. They are
incapable of, or not willing, to get rid of even a small mob at
the border not allowing people to cross back and forth. Argue,
push around the police etc. because of the political ïpressure!
>
> You have to realize though that Makarios had to "keep a balance"
>internaly
>and refrain from antagonizing the Right, both in Greece and in Cyprus.
>Furthermore
>there is enough evidence to show that Makarios viewed the Turkish
>minority
>as a tool of Turkish foreign policy, backed by the Americans who
>considered
>him a threat to regional stability and a Russophile, since back then for
>the
>US anyone that wasn't with them was against them.
> That's not an excuse for wrongdoings ofcourse, but I think that
>Makarios
>prevenyed much worse than he allowed.
Ofcourse, he was not a 'Grivas'. I never accept the 'had to keep a
balance' argument as an excuse for anything inthese discussion.
It is a very dangerous concept to use. You can pretty much
try to excuse everything using that. A serious, honest,
and not two-faced policy does not involve that.
> Agamemnon makes the mistake of identifying every Turkish-Cypriot on the
>net with
>a Denktash policy supporter, DESPITE the fact that he accepts that
>Turkish cypriots
>are not solidly behind Denktash...
Yep.. You are right. Classical problem when we get such an
excited arguments flow in the nationalist sense.
>
> Well allow me to rephrase what Agamemnon has said. A DEMOCRATIC Greek>> >stupid media thing.. simple as that. If someone put Oj Simpson's
>> >>name there during the trial he would have gotten quite a few votes.
>> >>
>> >
>> >So why isnt Louise Woodward in the poll then.
>> >
>>
>> 'cause Americans lost already , Ataturk is a better entertainer and
>> scientist then anyone else :) (unless bil gates comes up with some sort
>> of IE that only works if you vote for him :)
>>
>
[þ
>government
>will not need to interfere in Cyprus if Turkish forces are out of
>Cyprus.
> Don't forget that it was a military junta that initiated the Sampson
>coup.
We hope so atleast. I do not see a democratic, non-nationalist
Turkish or Greek government out there, neither one is coming soon.
The troubles will not be solved by just getting rid of Turkey &
greece from Cyprus. The problem (unfortunately) is much deep
rooted now. We need to work on individuals basis too.
> Actually the poll-thing shows that there is a large number of Ataturk
>fanatics on the
>net. Nothing more. It might be that some computer literate maniac has
>generated most
>of these votes. Or it might be that some "patriotic" nutcase appealed to
>all Turks
>on the net to vote for Ataturk (without pointing out the relevant
>categories)....
>The whole thing is an embarassment for Turkey though, and I'm sure that
>reasonable Turks everywhere are cringing.
Sure.. you can see that everyday there are newspaper articles etc
condeming this stupidity.. Ataturk mania is out there in Turkey now.
It is out there and growing fast.. Because they are using it
against the religious fundamentalism. All over the summer (when I was
in Cyprus) TV's were showing these dramatic-made videos of a girl
holding an ataturk picture against a Refah style crowd demonstrating.
newspapers giving out Ataturk this and that. etc etc.
>occupied, and on religious affiliation. No doubt there is a linguistic
>and cultural continuity
>from ancient times but that was just one of the elements of the mix of
>myth,reality
>and exaggeration that served as the ideological backbone for our
>national
>self consciousness.
You cany pretty much say this about every culture, nation etc
in these regions.. probably 'pure' groups are only left in
some isolated communities in Africa, Australia, etc etc. Certainly
not in Europe.. It is funny to read/listen to racist, nationalist
arguments of this sort in a discussion that the person writing
those claim to be a 'logical' person. Who cares whether Turks
where united all over the history or not (except from historical
curiosity, research etc. nothing to do with our issues here),
or whether Turks are all blue eyed or black haired, Mongoloid or Martian.
Only the racist, fashists of both sides care.
Turgut
Agamemnon
Turgut Durduran wrote in message <63tph2$883$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>In article <63ss1u$rbo$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
>Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>The were Air Strikes, Air Raids, and Turks Parachuting in all over
>>Cyprus, and this started on Christmas Day 1963 when Turkey tried to
>>launch a full scale invasion. .
>
>
>What? You are joking I think.. Parachuting? All over Cyprus?
>I think you are off by about 11 years!
>
I think not, Ive seen the pictures on the BBC.
>>Before the air strikes there was intimidation with low level flights
and
>>TMT Terrorist Bombings of Christian and Muslim Cypriot targets.
>>
>
>
>Sure sure.. 21st December was the day when TMT did the 'stepping out'
>nite right?
Yes indeed. There were secret meetings of the TMT to organise the
attacks and some may have even been under cover of a party.
>
>>Before Turkey started directly interfering in Cyprus affairs after
>>independence and violating the UN Charter there was Peace.
>>
>>I didn't see the Greeks or the British stiking the Muslim Cypriots
from
>>the air or staging low overflights. The violence was orchestrated by
the
>>Turks.
>
>But you *did* see the G/C's attacking T/C civilians. Or were
>you asleep then?
>
And vice versa. Look at Miami, Cubans and Caucasians killing eachother
every day over organised crime.
The Muslim Cypriot violence was orchestrated by Turkey, Denktash and his
TMT and his Mafia. Name one reputable leader that promotes a Murderer to
a ministerial position. The Murder by Kenam Akin was televised live. In
any real country that wasnt an organised Mafia, he would have bee put on
trial not promoted.
>>
>>When Britain took over Cyprus there were only 12% or so Muslim
Cypriots,
>>after it left there were 18%. The Other 6% were imported Turks.
>
>:) Sure. did they pay the correct import taxes and fees?
>
No they didn't. The immigrants didn't even pay taxes.
It was the fact that Turkey had direct control over the Illegal
immigrants that caused the Trouble.
In Hong Kong, China refuses to give citizenship to any of the illegal
immigrants, Asians and Britons that the British brought to the island,
and rightly so. The same should have been so in Cyprus.
>>Makarios tried this in 62 or was it 63 when he proposed amendments to
>>the Cyprus constitution to make Cyprus Governable. And I have already
>>said what Kermitt, or do I mean Denktash did.
>
>Tried what? The ammendments were *before* the main troubles begun,
>in fact the troubles begun after the ammendments proposal immediately.
>
It was Turkeys refusal to accept majority rule, via the amendments that
caused the Troubles.
Any attempt that Makarios made to solve any problem was objected to by
Turkey who was deliberately inciting hatred, and wanted this hatred and
violence to continue inorder to justify its plans from 1955 for and
invasion.
It messed up in 63, it half messed up in 74.
>>
>>Makarios should have overturned the illegal racist Cyprus Constitution
>>and replaced it with Democratic majority rule which is what every
other
>>western democracy had. An 18% minority cannot dictate over an 82%
>>majority.
>>
>
>Untrue, given the fact that Makarios was supporting, and closing
>one eye for the majority's oppresion of the minority!
>
The constitution was racist. The Armenians, Maronites and Roman
Catholics were all amalgamated and given the racist title Greek Cypriots
when most of them were not even Greek. The Muslims were all labelled
Turkish Cypriots when most of them wernt even Turkish.
There was forced apartheid.
So called GC's and TC's couldn't be members of the same party and fight
for the same seats on merit.
Every forum had to be split up into 5/8 GC and 3/8 TC. Turkeys puppets
were given 38% of the seats when they made up less them 18% of the
population (more than double). And not only that. In order to get
anything passed there had to be a majority on each side. so if only 1/3
the Muslim Cypriots were missing there was no progress.
This racist constitution should have been scraped and Makarios should
have locked up Denktash and his supports and everyone else that
supported violence and apartheid.
>Brothel? what about that one?
>
The church of St. Anastasia in Lapithos, in the Turkish occupied part of
Cyprus, will be turned into a tourist complex. People fornicating on
consecrated ground, a brothel. There are other examples in most occupied
Churches. Not one Church has been left untouched.
>>If the Muslim Cypriots were not incited by Kermitt to attack the
>>Christians they would have never been any reprisals. How do you expect
>>fanatics to react when someone is staging mock air attacks almost
every
>>day. Turkey deliberately created circumstances where the Christians
>>would attack the Muslims in order to alienate the Muslim Cypriots even
>>further.
>
>why did G/C's attack T/c's *before* the air attacks then?
>
As I have been telling you Dentash was a Mafioso, his Mafia attacked
Cypriots of all religions and Denkatsh has admitted to deliberatly
sloughtering his "own" people so as to bleme the "Greek" Cypriots.
Turkey was daily flying over Cyprus, the air strikes were known to be
imminent. Now you see why we need the S300's and why Turkey dosnt want
us to have them.
>>
>>You enemy was never the Christian Cypriots it has always been Turkey.
>
>
>I never had an enemy. And will never have one probably!
>
Beware there are TIT agents reading this group.
>>
>>EOKA was a movement to gain independence from Britain. The members
>>wanted a free Cyprus and after Cyprus was free it was Cyprus business
>>what it did, not Britains, Turkeys of Greeces. The Treaty of Guarantee
>>as I have said is in violation of Article 2 Paragraph 4 of the UN
>>Charter. Its up to the people of Cyprus to decide what happens not
>>others.
>
>Read Grivas memoirs! See how it was founded. See where
>Greece interfered in Cyprus. See pre-British era (eg 1821 etc
>when Ottomans killed some priests etc) to see Greece's
>interference.
>
Cyprus had a Greek culture for thousands of years, do you expect it to
let the ottomans destroy it.
>The point is , the people who screwed up our country include
>GreeceþÎ & Turkey & Britain.. The first two are still continuing.
>They should all take their noses off Cyprus.
>
They also include America
And its is America, Supporter of the Kisar, Supporter of Hitler,
Supporter of the Shar, Supporter of Noriaga, Supporter of Tiananmin
square massacres and Supporter of Saddam that is continuing to interfere
and does not want a free Cyprus.
With help form the stabilising influence of Russia and the EU, America
can be told to jump of Aphrodite's rock and drown.
>>
>>EOKA-B was an invention of the Dictators in Greece encouraged by
>>Dictator monger America, and had nothing in common with aims of EOKA.
>>America wanted another loyal Dictatorship to add to its collection.
>>
>
>In any case it existed.. Makarios went against it politically etc.
>It ended up overthrowing him. You probably did not expect
>T/C's or Turkey to sit down and watch EOKA-B kill people just
>because it was made by america.
>
Not only did America support the EOKA-B fascists it also supported the
Turkish fascists, the Greek fascists and every other fascist goning.
America is the main trobble maker
>>>turks', this is the funniest thing I heard recently. Forget ottoman
>>>empire, islam etc, what do you think "Gok*turk* " and the part within
>>>*'s there mean? Have you heard of Orkhun inscriptions?
>>>
>>The Turks have never been united as nation, not under the ottomans,
not
>>under Turkey. The Turks were a tribe of nomads that migrated to
Anatolia
>>and then disappeared.
>
>I though there was nothing as a "Turk".. Or are you changing
>your mind :) So have you heard Gok*turk?
>
There isn't such a thing as a Turk, the real Turks died out years,
centuries ago.
>>I never said that.
>>
>
>Well then, does that mean you are *not* Greek?
>
Greece is the sum of the people that have been in Greek lands and
preserved Greek Culture for over 10,000 years. (and it is important to
distinguish between Greek and Hellene. Greek, a people, Hellene a member
of an ancient Greek tribe)
>>The Byzantine empire wasn't destroyed by the Ottomans it was destroyed
>>by the Popes Crusader Scum several decades before the ottomans.
>
>so? who cares who destroyed it..
>
It wasnt the ottomans, they didn't have the strength or the culture.
Agamemnon
>Turgut
Agamemnon
Turgut Durduran wrote in message <63tqhd$r56$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>In article <346231...@chem.fsu.edu>,
>
>Well , they actually did quite heavily.. During the EOKA period.. And
>afterwards. AKEL was under heavy pressure, a lot of violence was
>taking against it etc etc. I meant to say 'nationalists' (for me
>there is very little difference between the fashists, shovenists, and
>nationalists). The dominating atmosphere , the rhetoric, and the
>actions were quite fashistic (or nationalistic). AKEL still gets
>a quite high percentage,but still you can see the heavy influence, and
>dominance of extreme nationalism among G/C's. They are
>incapable of, or not willing, to get rid of even a small mob at
>the border not allowing people to cross back and forth. Argue,
>push around the police etc. because of the political ïpressure!
>
>>
What!
The peaceful refugees and relatives of the 1619 missing persons are
there to tell the tourists of what is going on in Occupied Cyprus. After
hearing this mostly for the first time they choose not to support
Genocide.
Why dont you complain about the Turks not allowing refugees across the
green line to return to their own land and homes. And the refusal of the
Turks to allow the enclaved to have secondary education in the occupied
areas and their refusal to allow the enclaved that have had to be
educated in the free areas, because of this to return.
Agamemnon
Armin Forker
Turgut Durduran (durd...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: incorrect again. Our cultures were much much similar than today's. I am a
: big advocate of a "cypriot identity & culture" and I am critised for that
: a lot. But you are telling untrue things. costumes had differences ranging
: from the colour, different túJypes of veils used. The language
: is different, along with a good deal of shared words, and lots of
: bi-lingual people, and "linobambagis". Religion was different
: with a lot of shared aspects from the 'other'. (see my homepage's
: jokes section for the Cypriot bird story).
: British *did not* bring so many mainland Turks.
: needless to say the trouble had nothing to do with that.
: They brought different identities to the island and that
: was enough.
Theory: Like in the rest of Eastern Europe it was the ideology of
Nationalism that seeped into society and gave a name and a political
programme to differences and latent tensions that have always been there.
Before, there were a sovereign monarch or ruler and all people were his
subjects - equal in their lack of rights.
Then suudenly every person was entitled to be part of the sovereign body
of the people:
The idea of Democracy gave the power into the hand of a majority and
differences within the people became suddenly very important.
The next step to Nationalism was an easy one - especially in countries
with various ethnies.
I don't think the British can be blamed for this. The elite of Eastern
European countries was infiltrated by nationalism when they studied in
Western Europe or had otherwise contact with the mental mainstream of that
era.
Regarding `divide and conquer': It was a completely automatical process.
A ruler who wants to share government with the people has always to rely
on the loyal part of it. Neccesarily this is the part that can't expect
benefits from overcoming the control of that ruler, usually a minority.
Nothing else happens in every country in everyday politics.
Party A relies on those that don`t want party B to win the next election.
Some of you mention India or Ireland.
Like in Cyprus the British faced the problem to give power to people who
were deeply infested with nationalism, with minorioties that couldn't
expect anything good from it.
In Ireland there were the loyalists (usually protestants) in India the
muslims and in Cyprus the Turks. After the terror already had started it
would have been irresponsible behaviour if the British just had given
power to at that time already somewhat fanatized Greeks and left the
Turkish Cypriots at their mercy.
Consequence: I don`t think it is fair to blame it on the
British that Cypriots have quarrels.
: >OK Pig stys maybe not Sheep pens Yes.
: Brothel? what about that one?
I saw a lot of brothels in Northern Cyprus but they appeared to prefer new
concrete buildings rather than churches.
With one big room they don't seem that appropriate!
: The point is , the people who screwed up our country include
: GreeceþÎ & Turkey & Britain.. The first two are still continuing.
: They should all take their noses off Cyprus.
This is not always the best solution.
Remember what happened when the French, the British and the Americans
withdraw from Anatolia (stopping putting their nose into Ottoman/Turkish
affairs): the genocide of the Armenians.
Once nationalism hits a civilization that has not learned to know and
handle its dangers a disaster is not unlikely.
Atatuerk was the one who adopted nationalism for Turkey. Who could know
that Makarios would turn out to be better?
Agamemnon
Armin Forker wrote in message <63utf8$r...@news.rrz.Uni-Koeln.DE>...
>
>Some of you mention India or Ireland.
>Like in Cyprus the British faced the problem to give power to people
who
>were deeply infested with nationalism, with minorioties that couldn't
>expect anything good from it.
>In Ireland there were the loyalists (usually protestants) in India the
In Ireland the British created the loyalists by importing Scottish
Protestants.
In India the British tired to stamp out the Hindu Religion but failed to
Christianise the country so they let the Muslims Islamise it. The Lowest
Hindu caste the untouchables were segregated and became the first Indian
Muslims.
>muslims and in Cyprus the Turks. After the terror already had started
it
The British created the divide by importing Turks and segregating the
Muslim and Christian Cypriots and educating them respectively with
Turkish and Greek nationalism.
>would have been irresponsible behaviour if the British just had given
>power to at that time already somewhat fanatized Greeks and left the
>Turkish Cypriots at their mercy.
If the British had given Cyprus immediate independence with the Muslim
Cypriots only making up 12%, 6-8% of which were cryptochristians there
would have been no Cyprus problem.
Also in Africa the British created the poverty and wars by arbitreraly
drawing straight lines across a map and making each box a separate state
spitting tribes in half across borders and leaving some countries to
control the water supply other to control the agricultural land and
because of the ethnic hatred there was war and famine. The British and
the other colonialists wanted a weak Africa and created one.
In the middile east the British did much the same thing and put loyal
Dictators in place. thwer were nave an borders in Arabia befor the
British came.
And now you know where the Dictator makers in the USA got their ideas
from.to wreck South America.
Agamemnon
>
Armin Forker
Michael Panagiotakis (mih...@chem.fsu.edu) wrote:
: Armin Forker wrote:
: >
: > > Well it depends on how you define terrorism. A people's struggle for
: > > self-determination is not what I'd call "terrorism". In the same way
: > > Geprge Washington was considered a terrorist by the Brits, and
: > > resistance groups were considered terrorist by the Nazi's...
: >
: > The borderline between 'terrorism' and 'struggle for self determination'
: > is a thin one. Usually those demanding 'self determination' do this out of
: > their own mind (not democratically legalized (of course it is in many
: > cases impossible to get this legitimization)).
: >
: > However, the consequence must be to avoid anything coming close to
: > terrorism.
: >
: > In the case of the British in our century I dare say that they needn't to
: > be attacked with bombs and ambushes. They were civilized enough to accept
: > political pressure. Malta gained independence a few years after Cyprus
: > without a shot fired.
: Well that's all easy to say AFTER the fact. At that time I think it
: wasn't at all obvious that this would be the case. Look at Ireland
: do you think that the British would of just left (this century) if the
: opposition to their rule was not armed? I don't think so.
Well, even in England the old days of imperialism faded. Sooner or later
they would have had difficulties to justify their presence when in
elections it became evident that a majority wished them to go.
I can't remember any case of suppression of independence movements by the
British coming close to that of France (Algeria) or Portugal (Angola
etc.), not after WWII at least.
Of course it is very speculative, but my guess would be that the Greek
Cypriots did not stand that united behind the independence movement when
the struggle began.
So the Greek fighters had to invoke nationalism by stirring up hatred
against British and Turkish cypriots alike.
It is well known that nothing unites better than a common enemy.
(Out of this analogy I compared Grivas, Milosevic and Hitler.)
As far as I could see the British did a lot for the development of the
country. Even the most remote village has a fresh water supply with the
words 'ER' (Elizabeth Regina) on it.
: I repeat, attacking occupying forces in your own country should NOT
: be considered terrorism IMHO.
In the case of Cyprus it's not that clear what a 'occupying force' is.
In the time before national states became common it was possible to gain
possession of a territory without asking the inhabitants.
It was only later realized as something unjust.
Besides, to say something provocative: Sometimes an imposed foreign power
is better than a corrupt and/or ignorant local one.
Cyprus might have been better off when the British colonial government
had never left.
: > I think also the Greek Cypriots need to reconsider their sometimes
: > murderous past before they can expect the Turks to approach them.
: Yes, ofcourse - it goes both ways though...
: And don't forget the fashist/collaboratorationist groups on the Turkish
: Cypriot side...
I was merely picking on the Greeks more than on the Turks because the
Turkish guilt regarding Cyprus seems to be widely known and accepted
outside of Turkey/TRNC itself.
: > >> so the British more and more sustained
: > >> their government with the help of the Turkish part of the population.
: > >> This directed EOKA-A terror also on the Turkish.
: > >>
: > >> 3) After independence the Greek tried to get rid of the Turkish
: > >> population (ghettos, EOKA-B terrorism etc.)
: >
: > > True. But this had ceased around 1965.
: >
: > As far as I understand the Turkish Cypriots lived in Ghettos from 1967 (in
: > some regions earlier) to 1974.
: Agamemnon in this group claimed (I do NOT know personally if it is
: true)that this was a policy decision made by the Turkish Cypriot
: leadeship. I don't know. But definitely the Turkish Cypriots existed in
: rural parts of the island as well....
Amazingly they still live together (better: along) with the Greeks in two
villages.
: > > No doubt after the military coup in Cyprus Turkey had a right to
: > > intervene to protect the Turkish Cypriots. That this was not it's main
: > > aim though was demonstrated by the refusal to remove it's troops AFTER
: > > the coup failed. Indeed the invading Attila army advanced instead of
: > > retreating.... There is no evidence that by 1974 Makarios had any wish
: > > to "get rid of the turkish population".
: >
: > Makarios was in power from 1960 to 1974. He is directly responsible for
: > not having taken clear steps to settle the conflict peacefully.
: Makarios was in power after the junta collapsed in 1974 too.
Well, yes, but then the damage was already done.
: The role
: of Makarios in the Cyprus issue is too complex for the present
: discussion (I don't have that much time right now!). I'll just point
: out that Makarios was supported by the Greek left and Center (in
: Greece), and Grivas was always the Nationalists poster boy...
What was missing was a charismatic politician who could promote internal
peace (some Nelson Mandela). Apparently Yugoslavia has a similar problem
today.
An orthodox monk was right from the start not the best choice to play this
role.
: > He was a man of church; his background was that of a very poor peasant
: > family and of the life in the orthodox monastery. I think out of this
: > background he was incapable of accepting muslims as Cypriot citizens with
: > all rights (including special minority rights).
: > Could it be that his job was too big for his abilities - and still he is
: > hero number one for the Greek Cypriots
: I disagree with your assesment of Makarios. It's, as I said, a big
: issue, but I'll just state that in my opinion Makarios' downfall was due
: to the fact that he actively courted the USSR and wanted to make
: Cyprus a non-aligned country.
Yes, he didn't see the real dangers. I wonder what made him turn away from
the West. On the long term he should have seen that Western military
presence might be uncomfortable but not as dangerous as being 'neutral' in
a strategically important region. Being neutral could as well turn out to
mean 'enemy to everyone' and 'easy prey', the more so with vital
interests of two neighbouring local powers involved.
: The USA did not take kindly to these
: "extremist" (for the region) views and gave a green light for the
: Turkish "intervention" in 1974... If Makarios just acceded to NATO and
: American bases in the country and kept the communists at a safe dis-
: tance from government (in jail preferably for the USA), than the
: turkish intervention would never have been allowed...
I think you are right. And I think he could have foreseen it.
: > Please don't think that I approve this 'Realpolitik'. My statement was
: > somewhat cynical.
: > However, if two populations within one country have massacres every other
: > year the overall saldo of human suffering is lower when they get separated
: > in time. Of course this would mean a surrender of justice. But how much
: > bloodshed is acceptable to maintain justice?
: >
: > Imagine: Cyprus gets reunited and immediately terrorist on both sides pop
: > up and resume the killings. A baby in a bathtub here, a bombed bus there.
: > Wouldn't the island be better of with two seperated territories and UN in
: > the middle?
: >
: I might be an optimist here but I'm sure that these things can be
: avoided if there is political will to avoid them.
Yes, I agree. However, it only takes a very small minority to destroy a
system that depends on the goodwill of all.
If 99.9% of the Basques want to live in peace 0.1% of fanatical
ETA-terrorists can destroy it, to give another example.
: > > Since I don't believe that policies and decisions are
: > > something "out there", independent of our own actions, laws of nature
: > > that cannot be tampered with, but rather something that we (all
: > > humans)bear a responsibility to influence and change (or support as the
: > > case may be), I cannot accept this "the world is rotten anyway, so let's
: > > go watch TV" mentality. Anyway the idea that Darwinism is about "the
: > > strongest side winning" is rather 19th century, NOT what the modern
: > > evolutionary perspective is.
: >
: > I have the sad feeling that most people are incapable to 'bear the
: > responsibility' you are referring to. They see someone of another
: > race/nation/whatever and dislike him/her: That's basic human nature - we
: > like better what resembles ourselves. Then it just takes one Grivas or
: > Milosevic or Hitler and dislike turns into murderous hate.
: Don't mix different kinds of people on your list. Milosevic f.e.
: is a _cynical_ bastard not an ideological one. He would declare himself
: to be Croat if that kept him in power...
The reason why someone stirs up nationalist feelings don't influence the
result. It doesn't matter whether the propagandist believes in his own
words.
: > It is impossible to eliminate this danger and it requires a lot of
: > civilizatory work to overcome it. It will never vanish completely, though:
: > One serious economical crisis and very soon there will have to be someone
: > who blame it on: those strange others.
: >
: > This has nothing to do with '19th century' politics - it is human nature.
: > It has to be taken into account when thinking of solutions of quarrels
: > between ethnies.
: >
: > > Finally, do you realize that the statement: "lasting peace demands
: > > ethnic cleansing" can be used to justify Serb and Croat atrocities in
: > > Bosnia? Indonesian atrocities in Timor? and that it can be used as
: > > an argument by any blood crazed nationalist in defending massacres?
: >
: > No, I am not talking of massacres. 'Ethnic cleansings' would only make
: > sense when they diminuish the balance of human pain.
: > Think of an example: In Country A lives a well hated minority of Bs, in
: > country B one of As. Instead of suffering they decide to swap - and peace
: > is there ever after. Or: In country A lives the same minority of Bs - but
: > there is no country B to turn to. Then it could be in favour of all when
: > those B's received a territory of their own. You call it 'self
: > determination'.
: Well the problem with that is that usually only a small percentage of
: a majority would actually take arms against a minority. Instead of
: displacing inocents you can declare war on the aggressors. For
: example in a unified Cyprus if any terrorist actions are taken by
: any extremist Greeks against the Turkish Cypriots there should be
: severe punishment of the terrorists with the support of the mainstream
: GreekCypriot political parties.
How can this be something to be expected when criticism (let alone legal
prosecution) of members of the own group is regularly called 'treason'.
Wouldn't have the Turkish Cypriots to fear that after reunification the
executive forces of the country would turn a blind eye against Greek
assailants - probably very similar to pre 1974?
Then a 'peace implementation force', like in Bosnia would be needed. With
other words: colonialism. Let the British come back (they have better
things to do...)
: > Better would be to establish countries not on nations but on ideas but as
: > far as I can see this is not what will be achieved because it contradicts
: > human nature.
: Better still to decentralize existing countries and federate the whole
: world. I really don't believe in a unchanging "human nature". Not on
: the level of political reactions.
Agreed, I call it civilizatory progress. But one has always remember that
the dark instincts that turn nationalism into a nightmare are always
there, sleeping under a layer of reason and civilization.
: Ofcourse if noone believes it is
: feasable then it won't happen... that's why we have to "keep the
: faith":-)
I am very mildly optimistic.
: > Not even Canada or Switzerland have true internal peace. Should there be
: > a deep crisis I wouldn't be surprised if they faced civil war (like
: > Switzerland did already in the 1840s).
:
: Amazing! I never knew there was a civil war in Switzerland! Can you
: give any details , or suggest any references?
I don't have details at hand. I remember that the war broke out between
the catholic and the protestant cantons. The language was not that
important then. The solution they reached was indeed federalism - and
wealth. That always helps to make people tolerant.
Turgut Durduran
In article <63ujj1$e71$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Turgut Durduran wrote in message <63tqhd$r56$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>>In article <346231...@chem.fsu.edu>,
>>incapable of, or not willing, to get rid of even a small mob at
>>the border not allowing people to cross back and forth. Argue,
>>push around the police etc. because of the political ïpressure!
>>
>>>
>
>The peaceful refugees and relatives of the 1619 missing persons are
>there to tell the tourists of what is going on in Occupied Cyprus. After
>hearing this mostly for the first time they choose not to support
>Genocide.
1) They are not peaceful.
2) I am not a tourist going to North. I am a *Cypriot* (that RoC
claims I am a citizen of!) crossing to South. i.e moving within my country.
3) They break laws by not listening to the police. By pushing me (
a citizen of RoC) around. Not letting me move around in my country.
4) They shout, scream slogans, and some nasty things at
G/C's picking me up, and myself. (most of this appeared on TV
btw!)
So before you repeat this type of standard rhetoric, try asking
what I am talking about first. I have seen what they are doing
this summer. The things I am refering above happened to me.
For all I care, they are extreme nationalists, and are not
supported by AKEL. The point I made in the previous
message still stands correct.
>
>Why dont you complain about the Turks not allowing refugees across the
>green line to return to their own land and homes. And the refusal of the
>Turks to allow the enclaved to have secondary education in the occupied
>areas and their refusal to allow the enclaved that have had to be
>educated in the free areas, because of this to return.
What does this have to do with AKEL and its percentage?
I can complain about a lot of things.. But if they are relevant
to the issue.
Turgut
Turgut Durduran
In article <63ufub$de6$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>What? You are joking I think.. Parachuting? All over Cyprus?
>>I think you are off by about 11 years!
>>
>
>I think not, Ive seen the pictures on the BBC.
>
I think yes :) I have seen pictures of UFO's on BBC
aswell.. Should I believe them?
all over cyprus, parachuting ... heh heh..
no way man. You should read a bit more.. take some
time off BBC.
>>
>>Sure sure.. 21st December was the day when TMT did the 'stepping out'
>>nite right?
>
>Yes indeed. There were secret meetings of the TMT to organise the
>attacks and some may have even been under cover of a party.
Aha.. Like the Zionist conspiracy?
Which party? What party? Do you have any references to this?
Which of the attacks were staged by TMT? All? Some? None?
>>
>>But you *did* see the G/C's attacking T/C civilians. Or were
>>you asleep then?
>>
>
>And vice versa. Look at Miami, Cubans and Caucasians killing eachother
>every day over organised crime.
so? Remember you were saying Turkey *started* the violence!
And you are wrong..
>
>The Muslim Cypriot violence was orchestrated by Turkey, Denktash and his
>TMT and his Mafia. Name one reputable leader that promotes a Murderer to
>a ministerial position. The Murder by Kenam Akin was televised live. In
>any real country that wasnt an organised Mafia, he would have bee put on
>trial not promoted.
>
so? He should not be a minister anyways, he is not a Cypriot.. Regardless
of whether he is a murderer or not.
>>>
>>>When Britain took over Cyprus there were only 12% or so Muslim
>Cypriots,
>>>after it left there were 18%. The Other 6% were imported Turks.
>>
>>:) Sure. did they pay the correct import taxes and fees?
>>
>
>No they didn't. The immigrants didn't even pay taxes.
ohh ok. I knew it... that is why elderly Cypriots complain
about the discrimination about this issue. right?
Do you also happen to know which villages they settled in?
Which areas in Turkey they came from?
What were the numbers? (skip the percentages).
>It was the fact that Turkey had direct control over the Illegal
>immigrants that caused the Trouble.
I think you are off by about half a decade again..
did you see this on BBC aswell? :)
read what we are talking about:
***********v
***********>>
>>Tried what? The ammendments were *before* the main troubles begun,
>>in fact the troubles begun after the ammendments proposal immediately.
>>
>
>It was Turkeys refusal to accept majority rule, via the amendments that
>caused the Troubles.
>
>Any attempt that Makarios made to solve any problem was objected to by
>Turkey who was deliberately inciting hatred, and wanted this hatred and
>violence to continue inorder to justify its plans from 1955 for and
>invasion.
>It messed up in 63, it half messed up in 74.
>
You seem to forget what we are talking about. WE are talking about
what Makarios did to bring peace back. and you mentioned ammendments.
The main troubles begun *after* the amendments.. It does not
matter what the cause was (you are quite wrong about the
cause anyways), what matters is whether Makarios did anything to
solve it or not.. I do not think he has done any clear, and
honest action.
>So called GC's and TC's couldn't be members of the same party and fight
>for the same seats on merit.
In correct. They could be members of the same party. There were
quite a lot of T/C's and G/C's working together in AKEL.
Does the name Kavazoglu ring any bells? Do you know the story?
>
>Every forum had to be split up into 5/8 GC and 3/8 TC. Turkeys puppets
>were given 38% of the seats when they made up less them 18% of the
>population (more than double). And not only that. In order to get
>anything passed there had to be a majority on each side. so if only 1/3
>the Muslim Cypriots were missing there was no progress.
you gotta improve your knowledge..
You are close but not correct again :)
>
>The church of St. Anastasia in Lapithos, in the Turkish occupied part of
>Cyprus, will be turned into a tourist complex. People fornicating on
>consecrated ground, a brothel. There are other examples in most occupied
>Churches. Not one Church has been left untouched.
that is not a brothel. do not exagerrate.. They sell churches
and people buy and do whatever they like with them in US and
in Uk etc. They do not become brothels because of that.
>>
>>why did G/C's attack T/c's *before* the air attacks then?
>>
>As I have been telling you Dentash was a Mafioso, his Mafia attacked
>Cypriots of all religions and Denkatsh has admitted to deliberatly
>sloughtering his "own" people so as to bleme the "Greek" Cypriots.
>
so? again WHY DID G/C'S ATTACK T/C's *BEFORE* THE AIR ATTACKS THEN?
What you said is not an answe.
>Turkey was daily flying over Cyprus, the air strikes were known to be
>imminent. Now you see why we need the S300's and why Turkey dosnt want
>us to have them.
>
that is crap. no one needs anymore arms in Cyprus. You like wasting
your money, go ahead, waste it and buy S300. get nuclear weapons
too if you want to..
>>>
>>>You enemy was never the Christian Cypriots it has always been Turkey.
>>
>>
>>I never had an enemy. And will never have one probably!
>>
>Beware there are TIT agents reading this group.
So? They may consider myself as their enemy. That does not
mean I consider them as my enemy. I do not consider the people
(probably TIT, MIT, Special WArfare Dept, TMT2 etc related)
who bombed our car, fired machine guns at our party building etc
as my enemies. Apparently, they *do* consider me as their
enemy.
>
>Cyprus had a Greek culture for thousands of years, do you expect it to
>let the ottomans destroy it.
So stop lying then. You claimed Greece did not interfere. and EOKA
was purely a Cypriot thing. If you knew it was not then say it.
>
>Not only did America support the EOKA-B fascists it also supported the
>Turkish fascists, the Greek fascists and every other fascist goning.
>
>America is the main trobble maker
so? Did Makarios do really substantial things against that?
Kisinger was in Cyprus in June 1974.. he seems to have had
his hands in the coup etc (I was told this personally
by his right-hand person for Mideast, forgot his name now :)).
>>>>
>>>The Turks have never been united as nation, not under the ottomans,
>not
>>>under Turkey. The Turks were a tribe of nomads that migrated to
>Anatolia
>>>and then disappeared.
>>
>>I though there was nothing as a "Turk".. Or are you changing
>>your mind :) So have you heard Gok*turk?
>>
>
>There isn't such a thing as a Turk, the real Turks died out years,
>centuries ago.
I though there *was* nothing liek that? you keep switching eh :0
Are there any real Greeks alive?
>
>Greece is the sum of the people that have been in Greek lands and
>preserved Greek Culture for over 10,000 years. (and it is important to
>distinguish between Greek and Hellene. Greek, a people, Hellene a member
>of an ancient Greek tribe)
so? Why does not this apply for Turks?
>
>>>The Byzantine empire wasn't destroyed by the Ottomans it was destroyed
>>>by the Popes Crusader Scum several decades before the ottomans.
>>
>>so? who cares who destroyed it..
>>
>It wasnt the ottomans, they didn't have the strength or the culture.
>
In any case, who inherited the region? who inherited the money, power
etc in that region?
turgut
Agamemnon
Turgut Durduran wrote in message <63vrt9$qg2$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>In article <63ujj1$e71$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
>Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Turgut Durduran wrote in message <63tqhd$r56$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>>>In article <346231...@chem.fsu.edu>,
>>>dominance of extreme nationalism among G/C's. They are
>>>incapable of, or not willing, to get rid of even a small mob at
>>>the border not allowing people to cross back and forth. Argue,
>>>push around the police etc. because of the political ïpressure!
>>>
>>>>
>>What!
>>
>>The peaceful refugees and relatives of the 1619 missing persons are
>>there to tell the tourists of what is going on in Occupied Cyprus.
After
>>hearing this mostly for the first time they choose not to support
>>Genocide.
>
>1) They are not peaceful.
>2) I am not a tourist going to North. I am a *Cypriot* (that RoC
>claims I am a citizen of!) crossing to South. i.e moving within my
country.
I am a Cypriot and I am not allowed by the puppet occupation regime to
cross the Green Line and return to my land and property,
>3) They break laws by not listening to the police. By pushing me (
>a citizen of RoC) around. Not letting me move around in my country.
You friend Kenan Akin broke the law and Murdered Solomos Solomou in cold
blood, and all he did was to try to get back to his home on occupied
Cyprus.
>4) They shout, scream slogans, and some nasty things at
>G/C's picking me up, and myself. (most of this appeared on TV
>btw!)
>
Oh Yes and this murder and the bludgeoning to death of Tassos Isaac were
shown on live world wide TV by the way.
>So before you repeat this type of standard rhetoric, try asking
>what I am talking about first. I have seen what they are doing
>this summer. The things I am refering above happened to me.
I have written to the British Foreign Secretary on many occasions asking
to be allowed to return to my home, but the Turks wont guarantee my
safety, my freedom, my basic human rights. This has happened to me so
dont you talk to me about crossing into occupied Cyprus. You can go
there anytime you like, I cant, and its my country also.
>For all I care, they are extreme nationalists, and are not
>supported by AKEL. The point I made in the previous
>message still stands correct.
You are unwilling to put Kenan Akin et al, on trial for murder
Your point is meaningless unless you show agknoedgment for the crimes
of the occupation regime and campaign to bring them to justice.
The protesters on the Green Line are there obtain justice for their lost
relatives. Why don't you ask Denktash to hand himself and the murders to
the ECHR and stand stand trial for crimes against humanity.
>
>
>>
>>Why dont you complain about the Turks not allowing refugees across the
>>green line to return to their own land and homes. And the refusal of
the
>>Turks to allow the enclaved to have secondary education in the
occupied
>>areas and their refusal to allow the enclaved that have had to be
>>educated in the free areas, because of this to return.
>
>What does this have to do with AKEL and its percentage?
>I can complain about a lot of things.. But if they are relevant
>to the issue.
>
It has everything to do with it.
Until there is justice the protests will continue and you have only
Turkey to blame for the violence.
What ever the composition of the Cyprus parliament it is the PEOPLE who
hold the key to power not the politicians. The people will decide the
future of Cyprus, and they will never accept Denktash or Turkey.and if
this is forced on them in a "settlement" there will be wholesale
slaughter.
The British caused the whole problem by giving Denktash and Turkeys
other puppets too much power and this will never be allowed to happen
another time. Power to the People, by the People for the People and
stuff the politicians
Agamemnon
>
>Turgut
OGUZ
On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, Agamemnon wrote:
>
> You friend Kenan Akin broke the law and Murdered Solomos Solomou in cold
> blood, and all he did was to try to get back to his home on occupied
Was he now?... So are you telling us he was a chimpanzee, he saw a flag
pole mistook it for the tree he used to live in, climbed up it etc etc etc
He wanted to be a martyr and by God he succeeded. See you Greeks can do
some things correctly, when you really try.
What was at the top of that pole? What was he doing on TURKISH SOIL? Why
were all the Greeks from mainland Greece so violent and animalistic that
day?
> Oh Yes and this murder and the bludgeoning to death of Tassos Isaac were
> shown on live world wide TV by the way.
Eeeeh, again so what? You know why the world does nothing? I'll tell you
why! 'Cause what you Greeks did in the last 200 yrs to Turks is so
horrendous that the Tassos incident (provocated by himself I might add) is
a mere grain of sand compared to the California coast line of what the
greeks did to Turks.
Agamemnon, if you think Cyprus is one country then i recommend you go back
to your home in the north (if you honestly ever lived there)
I will be waiting for the results, but you arent' as drugged up as
Tassosalatas and Salmonoglous to even dare. I KNOW!!! send one of those
tuff 6' faggots you were talking about!!! We'll eat him alive!!! and you
can film it and repeat the video to the world over and over and over and
over... hoping some nation with real GUTS will come and handle us. but
guess what! There ain't know nation in the world who can. And we're gonna
get you one day or another. It's not gonna be nice like it was when the
innoccent Osmanli (Ottomans) were ruling the land. We've woken up to the
cruelty of the real world, and you can be sure you're gonna get our thanks
a thousand times over.
OGUZ
http://cord.iupui.edu/~soguz
Turgut Durduran
Agamemnon (argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk) wrote:
: >2) I am not a tourist going to North. I am a *Cypriot* (that RoC
: >claims I am a citizen of!) crossing to South. i.e moving within my
: country.
: I am a Cypriot and I am not allowed by the puppet occupation regime to
: cross the Green Line and return to my land and property,
Yes you are not. And we thus have a problem at hand here right?
Also a violation of your human rights. But keep in mind that
TRNC does not claim that you are a citizen of TRNC. But ROC claims
that I am a citizen of ROC! RoC claims I can go and do
whatever I want.
: >3) They break laws by not listening to the police. By pushing me (
: >a citizen of RoC) around. Not letting me move around in my country.
: You friend Kenan Akin broke the law and Murdered Solomos Solomou in cold
: blood, and all he did was to try to get back to his home on occupied
: Cyprus.
so? Kenan Akin is not a friend of mine for the first place. The
stupid fucker is far from being my friend. Not my enemy
either. (he attacked my father in the parliament just FYI!)
now, does that justify what those people at the border do?
: >4) They shout, scream slogans, and some nasty things at
: >G/C's picking me up, and myself. (most of this appeared on TV
: >btw!)
: >
: Oh Yes and this murder and the bludgeoning to death of Tassos Isaac were
: shown on live world wide TV by the way.
Yes, so what? What does this have to do with those people?
Do you believe in 'eye to eye, tooth for tooth'?
Is Isaac was murdered then those people can do those things?
: >So before you repeat this type of standard rhetoric, try asking
: >what I am talking about first. I have seen what they are doing
: >this summer. The things I am refering above happened to me.
: I have written to the British Foreign Secretary on many occasions asking
: to be allowed to return to my home, but the Turks wont guarantee my
: safety, my freedom, my basic human rights. This has happened to me so
: dont you talk to me about crossing into occupied Cyprus. You can go
: there anytime you like, I cant, and its my country also.
No I can not! I can not go anywhere I want neither in N. Cyprus
nor in S. Cyprus. My rights are violated further than yours when
it comes to this!
: >For all I care, they are extreme nationalists, and are not
: >supported by AKEL. The point I made in the previous
: >message still stands correct.
: You are unwilling to put Kenan Akin et al, on trial for murder
I am willing to do that. Who said I am not willing?
Why do you keep assuming things before I say them?
You can push me around with your 'classic nationalistic' rhetoric
like that. Remember, I do not support Denktash. Neither most
of the things that you keep complaining about.
: Your point is meaningless unless you show agknoedgment for the crimes
: of the occupation regime and campaign to bring them to justice.
Why?
: The protesters on the Green Line are there obtain justice for their lost
: relatives. Why don't you ask Denktash to hand himself and the murders to
: the ECHR and stand stand trial for crimes against humanity.
The protesters at the border do all those points I listed, which
you *did not* disagree. Rather quite poorly you tried to shift
to topic to some other issues. Unless you are ready to
acknowledge the wrongdoings, crimes etc of what you support
I'll never consider you as a honest person, neither a trustable
person when it comes to these issues.
: >What does this have to do with AKEL and its percentage?
: >I can complain about a lot of things.. But if they are relevant
: >to the issue.
: >
: It has everything to do with it.
: Until there is justice the protests will continue and you have only
: Turkey to blame for the violence.
NO! People who comit the violence are *always* first degree
to be blamed for it. No one, never can justify violence based
on what other people do!
Your nationalistic, and I would say outdated & poor arguments
on this issue will not hold here.
You still need to explain:
: >What does this have to do with AKEL and its percentage?
What you said does not even touch this issue!
Ofcourse, you seem to have trouble following the issues.
Rather you keep spitting out the rhetoric that you are
used to. You can go ahead and have this pissing contest
with other people on the net, who are more than willing
to spit back at you with the "opposite polarity" rhetoric.
But if you really want to understand, learn things about
Cyprus, and how Turkish Cypriots feel, or tell the same
things about Greek Cypriots to me. Than stop this.
Say what is there really. Follow the issues. Accept
your wrongdoings , or show me that they are not
really wrongdoings.
: What ever the composition of the Cyprus parliament it is the PEOPLE who
: hold the key to power not the politicians. The people will decide the
: future of Cyprus, and they will never accept Denktash or Turkey.and if
: this is forced on them in a "settlement" there will be wholesale
: slaughter.
And it will be a justified slaughter? Never!!
: The British caused the whole problem by giving Denktash and Turkeys
: other puppets too much power and this will never be allowed to happen
: another time. Power to the People, by the People for the People and
: stuff the politicians
You do not seem to like the idea of really giving power to the people though.
When you keep bringing arguments supporting violence, sensorship,
nationalism, fashistic attitudes people like Grivas, Makarios etc.
Turgut
Agamemnon
Turgut Durduran wrote in message <63vrkn$o2b$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>In article <63ufub$de6$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
>Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>What? You are joking I think.. Parachuting? All over Cyprus?
>>>I think you are off by about 11 years!
>>>
>>
>>I think not, Ive seen the pictures on the BBC.
>>
>
>I think yes :) I have seen pictures of UFO's on BBC
>aswell.. Should I believe them?
>
its only an Unidentified Flying Object if you dont know what it is. I
know what a parachute looks like.
>all over cyprus, parachuting ... heh heh..
>no way man. You should read a bit more.. take some
>time off BBC.
>
If my mother had been where she normally would had been during the
Turkish air raids she would have been dead. There were air strikes,
parachutists, rockets and bombings, and I have this from an eye witness.
>>>
>>>Sure sure.. 21st December was the day when TMT did the 'stepping out'
>>>nite right?
>>
>>Yes indeed. There were secret meetings of the TMT to organise the
>>attacks and some may have even been under cover of a party.
>
>
>Aha.. Like the Zionist conspiracy?
>Which party? What party? Do you have any references to this?
>Which of the attacks were staged by TMT? All? Some? None?
>
Denktash was always going to parties, getting drunk and fighting, it was
probably one off those.
>>>
>>>But you *did* see the G/C's attacking T/C civilians. Or were
>>>you asleep then?
>>>
>>
>>And vice versa. Look at Miami, Cubans and Caucasians killing eachother
>>every day over organised crime.
>
>
>so? Remember you were saying Turkey *started* the violence!
>And you are wrong..
>
So you are now telling me that the all the murders to happen in Cyprus
were nothing to do with crimianl actions, that there were no rapists, no
child moleters, no theives but only nationalists killng and robbing and
raping.
>
Turkey started the nationalist violence, the criminals started the
criminal violence and Dentash was in with both these camps. The last
thing I read he was a doubble agent or something.
>>
>>The Muslim Cypriot violence was orchestrated by Turkey, Denktash and
his
>>TMT and his Mafia. Name one reputable leader that promotes a Murderer
to
>>a ministerial position. The Murder by Kenam Akin was televised live.
In
>>any real country that wasnt an organised Mafia, he would have bee put
on
>>trial not promoted.
>>
>
>
>so? He should not be a minister anyways, he is not a Cypriot..
Regardless
>of whether he is a murderer or not.
So you are saying that the fact that he is not a Cypriot is more
important than him being murderer. If any British or US minister was
even accused of murder he would have to resign on the spot.
>
>>>>
>>>>When Britain took over Cyprus there were only 12% or so Muslim
>>Cypriots,
>>>>after it left there were 18%. The Other 6% were imported Turks.
>>>
>>>:) Sure. did they pay the correct import taxes and fees?
>>>
>>
>>No they didn't. The immigrants didn't even pay taxes.
>
>
>ohh ok. I knew it... that is why elderly Cypriots complain
>about the discrimination about this issue. right?
>
>Do you also happen to know which villages they settled in?
>Which areas in Turkey they came from?
>What were the numbers? (skip the percentages).
>
I gave you the percentage because they were imported in waves over many
years. They were spread all over the place, go and look in the births,
marriages and deaths records and you will find names coming in from
nowhere.
The same thing happened in Hong Kong, and China rightly refused to give
the immigrents Citizenship.
>
>>It was the fact that Turkey had direct control over the Illegal
>>immigrants that caused the Trouble.
>
> I think you are off by about half a decade again..
>
whats half a decade when im talking about imported Turks over a period
of over half a centuary.
>>
>>Any attempt that Makarios made to solve any problem was objected to by
>>Turkey who was deliberately inciting hatred, and wanted this hatred
and
>>violence to continue inorder to justify its plans from 1955 for and
>>invasion.
>>It messed up in 63, it half messed up in 74.
>>
>
>You seem to forget what we are talking about. WE are talking about
>what Makarios did to bring peace back. and you mentioned ammendments.
>The main troubles begun *after* the amendments.. It does not
What did you want him to do. Ask Tukey to come and take over Cyprus.
>matter what the cause was (you are quite wrong about the
>cause anyways), what matters is whether Makarios did anything to
>solve it or not.. I do not think he has done any clear, and
>honest action.
Makarios did everyting he podsibley could, short of Nuking Turkey and
that would have been the only solution because Turkey was not prepared
to take anything other than the concession of Cyprus to Turkey.
Tuekey wanted the violence to further its aims against Cyprus, and it
would have never alowed it to end under any circumstances.
23 years of Turkish occupation and not one concession, not one jesture,
not one agreement that Turkey has kept its word on.
This discussion should not be about Makarios it should be about Turkey.
Why wont Turkey allow Cyprus to join the EU.
Simple, because Cyprus will be free of the Threat of Turkey and Turkey
will be finished in Cyprus, no more interference because the EU charter
is universal and Turkey cannot re-negotiate it to its own racist ends as
it did the Cyprus Constitution
>
>>So called GC's and TC's couldn't be members of the same party and
fight
>>for the same seats on merit.
>
>
>In correct. They could be members of the same party. There were
>quite a lot of T/C's and G/C's working together in AKEL.
>Does the name Kavazoglu ring any bells? Do you know the story?
>
>
There was never any multiparty democracy on the grounds of Socialism,
Capitalism, Liberalism or any other ism other than racism.
Name me on "Greek" Cypriot that ever held a seat reseverd by the
constitution for a "Turkish" Cypriot.
>>
>>Every forum had to be split up into 5/8 GC and 3/8 TC. Turkeys puppets
>>were given 38% of the seats when they made up less them 18% of the
>>population (more than double). And not only that. In order to get
>>anything passed there had to be a majority on each side. so if only
1/3
>>the Muslim Cypriots were missing there was no progress.
>
>you gotta improve your knowledge..
>You are close but not correct again :)
>
For a qualified majority you required MORE than 2/3 of the vote in both
of Muslim and Christian blocks. If one Muslim Cypriot was missing from a
committee where they were allocated 3 seats you had stalemate after
stalemate
>
>>
>>The church of St. Anastasia in Lapithos, in the Turkish occupied part
of
>>Cyprus, will be turned into a tourist complex. People fornicating on
>>consecrated ground, a brothel. There are other examples in most
occupied
>>Churches. Not one Church has been left untouched.
>
>
>that is not a brothel. do not exagerrate.. They sell churches
>and people buy and do whatever they like with them in US and
>in Uk etc. They do not become brothels because of that.
>
The Churches in Occupied Cyprus are not yours to sell. The have never
been de-consecrated and any use other than worship is sacrilegious.
The Turks violated them and violated God and turned them into Brothels
>>>
>>>why did G/C's attack T/c's *before* the air attacks then?
>>>
>>As I have been telling you Dentash was a Mafioso, his Mafia attacked
>>Cypriots of all religions and Denkatsh has admitted to deliberatly
>>sloughtering his "own" people so as to bleme the "Greek" Cypriots.
>>
>
>so? again WHY DID G/C'S ATTACK T/C's *BEFORE* THE AIR ATTACKS THEN?
>
>What you said is not an answe.
>
Cant you read. The Turks were swooping over Cyprus preparing to attack.
you dont just stand there and ask to be attacked. You make sure you are
secure and defend yourself against any threat. The Muslim Cypriots were
made by the Turks into a Threat. The rest you can work out for yourself.
>>Turkey was daily flying over Cyprus, the air strikes were known to be
>>imminent. Now you see why we need the S300's and why Turkey dosnt want
>>us to have them.
>>
>
>that is crap. no one needs anymore arms in Cyprus. You like wasting
>your money, go ahead, waste it and buy S300. get nuclear weapons
>too if you want to..
>
>
Tell this to Turkey when it constantly buys arms and planes and missiles
from America and flies and use them over Cyprus.
>>>>
>>>>You enemy was never the Christian Cypriots it has always been
Turkey.
>>>
>>>
>>>I never had an enemy. And will never have one probably!
>>>
>>Beware there are TIT agents reading this group.
>
>So? They may consider myself as their enemy. That does not
>mean I consider them as my enemy. I do not consider the people
>(probably TIT, MIT, Special WArfare Dept, TMT2 etc related)
>who bombed our car, fired machine guns at our party building etc
>as my enemies. Apparently, they *do* consider me as their
>enemy.
>
>>
>>Cyprus had a Greek culture for thousands of years, do you expect it to
>>let the ottomans destroy it.
>
>
>So stop lying then. You claimed Greece did not interfere. and EOKA
>was purely a Cypriot thing. If you knew it was not then say it.
>
I was talking about the ottomans.
EOKA was a Cypriot organisation to fight against the British. It may
have had Greek supporters, it may have been supported by Greece, but it
was not invented by Greece. Unlike the TMT an invention of Turkey, run
by Turkey, consisting solely of Turks, not Cypriots.
>
>>
>>Not only did America support the EOKA-B fascists it also supported the
>>Turkish fascists, the Greek fascists and every other fascist goning.
>>
>>America is the main trobble maker
>
>so? Did Makarios do really substantial things against that?
>
>Kisinger was in Cyprus in June 1974.. he seems to have had
>his hands in the coup etc (I was told this personally
>by his right-hand person for Mideast, forgot his name now :)).
>
Kisinger was, correction IS a Bastard.
His hands are dripping in blood from Mars to Timbuktu.
>>>>>
>>>>The Turks have never been united as nation, not under the ottomans,
>>not
>>>>under Turkey. The Turks were a tribe of nomads that migrated to
>>Anatolia
>>>>and then disappeared.
>>>
>>>I though there was nothing as a "Turk".. Or are you changing
>>>your mind :) So have you heard Gok*turk?
>>>
>>
>>There isn't such a thing as a Turk, the real Turks died out years,
>>centuries ago.
>
>I though there *was* nothing liek that? you keep switching eh :0
The Turks were never a nation. in that sence there is no such thing as a
Turk. There is a huge difference between a tribe and a nation.
>Are there any real Greeks alive?
>
Yes, your talking to one.
>
>>
>>Greece is the sum of the people that have been in Greek lands and
>>preserved Greek Culture for over 10,000 years. (and it is important to
>>distinguish between Greek and Hellene. Greek, a people, Hellene a
member
>>of an ancient Greek tribe)
>
>
>so? Why does not this apply for Turks?
>
The Turks were never a nation. See my earlier post for the definition.
They came with nothing and left nothing, no culture, nothing.
The Greeks left Europe its Culture.
>
>>
>>>>The Byzantine empire wasn't destroyed by the Ottomans it was
destroyed
>>>>by the Popes Crusader Scum several decades before the ottomans.
>>>
>>>so? who cares who destroyed it..
>>>
>>It wasnt the ottomans, they didn't have the strength or the culture.
>>
>
>In any case, who inherited the region? who inherited the money, power
>etc in that region?
>
Inherited.
The region was is and will be Greek.
>
>turgut
>
Agamemnon
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/argyros.argyrou/
Armin Forker
Agamemnon (argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk) wrote:
: Armin Forker wrote in message <63utf8$r...@news.rrz.Uni-Koeln.DE>...
: >
: >Some of you mention India or Ireland.
: >Like in Cyprus the British faced the problem to give power to people
: who
: >were deeply infested with nationalism, with minorioties that couldn't
: >expect anything good from it.
: >In Ireland there were the loyalists (usually protestants) in India the
: In Ireland the British created the loyalists by importing Scottish
: Protestants.
Why should England have had an interest to create a Northern Ireland
problem?
The protestants came over the centuries, many with the indutrialization of
the Belfast region. Although I don't know for sure I am convinced that the
British government did not *send* them there.
: In India the British tired to stamp out the Hindu Religion but failed to
: Christianise the country so they let the Muslims Islamise it. The Lowest
: Hindu caste the untouchables were segregated and became the first Indian
: Muslims.
Apart from power politics and trying to maintain control over the land:
Much damage to old accustomed ways were imported with European ideals as
equality, human rights and (not the least) nationalism.
Every contact between civilizations creates winners and losers. You don't
have to insinuate bad will all the time.
: >muslims and in Cyprus the Turks. After the terror already had started
: it
: The British created the divide by importing Turks and segregating the
: Muslim and Christian Cypriots and educating them respectively with
: Turkish and Greek nationalism.
As far as I know the Turkish Cypriots came there as settlers over the
centuries.
: >would have been irresponsible behaviour if the British just had given
: >power to at that time already somewhat fanatized Greeks and left the
: >Turkish Cypriots at their mercy.
: If the British had given Cyprus immediate independence with the Muslim
: Cypriots only making up 12%, 6-8% of which were cryptochristians there
: would have been no Cyprus problem.
I assume in 1878 Cyprus was that backward (after 400 years of existence in
the shadow of world history) that the country's population would have had
difficulties to install a good government.
And, of course, the time was not ripe for imperial powers to even consider
'natives' becoming independent.
: Also in Africa the British created the poverty and wars by arbitreraly
: drawing straight lines across a map and making each box a separate state
: spitting tribes in half across borders and leaving some countries to
: control the water supply other to control the agricultural land and
: because of the ethnic hatred there was war and famine.
There was also a lot of ignorance involved. Imagine you get control over a
vast territory, whose natives apparently have no civilization, speak
languages you don't understand, belong to tribes whose structures you
don't understand. Without trying to justify anything it is nevertheless
*understandable* that they thought borders were not that important as the
governmental structure was new anyway.
Nationalism itself was hardly known at that time nor existed experience
how easily or not easily other countries could adopt a social and
political order which was generally accepted as superior at that time.
: The British and
: the other colonialists wanted a weak Africa and created one.
They found a weak Africa, wanted to get a grip on its wealth, and, yes,
made attempts to 'civilize' it. Other than other colonial powers they
always attempted to base the local government on 'natives'.
That's why formerly British colonies are still on average better off than
formerly French, let alone Portuguese colonies.
: In the middile east the British did much the same thing and put loyal
: Dictators in place. thwer were nave an borders in Arabia befor the
: British came.
Yes - the concept of tribes and local rulers wasn't anything Europeans
understood. Of course there were quickly locals who took the chance the
British offered. The Saudis for example hoped to inherit the entire
Arabian part of the Ottoman Empire in order to install their absolute
monarchy over it (definitely not to bring free elections and other things
we would consider valuable achievements).
: And now you know where the Dictator makers in the USA got their ideas
: from.to wreck South America.
Profit is their aim, not wreckage.
I agree that the policy of both the UK and USA have been very questionable
in the past. Who has power will try to do what benefits him.
National egoism is still the rule and considered as natural right - even
in EU.
However, in my opinion your painting in black and white does not give
justice to the situation. Especially you should not believe that Greeks
are different.
Agamemnon
Turgut Durduran wrote in message <6406pg$ctu$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>Agamemnon (argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk) wrote:
>: >2) I am not a tourist going to North. I am a *Cypriot* (that RoC
>: >claims I am a citizen of!) crossing to South. i.e moving within my
>: country.
>
>: I am a Cypriot and I am not allowed by the puppet occupation regime
to
>: cross the Green Line and return to my land and property,
>
>Yes you are not. And we thus have a problem at hand here right?
>Also a violation of your human rights. But keep in mind that
>TRNC does not claim that you are a citizen of TRNC. But ROC claims
The so called "TRNC" is an illegal entity. do I really have to repost UN
RES: 541 and 550 for the upteenth time.
An illegal entity does not have the right to citizenship.
>that I am a citizen of ROC! RoC claims I can go and do
>whatever I want.
>
There are Muslim Cypriot workers crossing the Border every day, they
dont seem to have a problem going where they want, until they enter the
occupied area. So I dont see what your problem is.
>
>: >3) They break laws by not listening to the police. By pushing me (
>: >a citizen of RoC) around. Not letting me move around in my country.
>
>: You friend Kenan Akin broke the law and Murdered Solomos Solomou in
cold
>: blood, and all he did was to try to get back to his home on occupied
>: Cyprus.
>
>
>so? Kenan Akin is not a friend of mine for the first place. The
>stupid fucker is far from being my friend. Not my enemy
>either. (he attacked my father in the parliament just FYI!)
>
>now, does that justify what those people at the border do?
>
It seems that I have to start quoting again.
UN Res 550:
"Reaffirms the call upon all States not to recognise the purported
state of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" set up by
secessionist acts and calls upon them not to facilitate or in any way
assist this the aforesaid secessionist entity;"
Allowing tourists to propup the ecconomy of the so called "TRNC" would
be a violation of this resolution. If the Cyprus authorities moved the
protesthers and lined the road with officers and baracades to speed up
the flow of "traffic" into occupied area, they could be seen as
assisting the illegal entity and violating UN res 541 and 550. The
Cyprus Government cannot be seen as undemining these resolutions since
this would give legitamasy to the illegal entity and undermine the
rights of the refugees to return home.
The protesters are no more breaking the law than the French Lorry Drives
at the crossing points at Calais (where do they get these names from,
Calais was the brother of Zutas (Zates) in Greek mythology I think).
If you were jostled or punched or whatever, that is no more than the
British Drivers got from the French, Infact I think that someone even
got knifed, but the French authorities did nothing to stop it.
The protest for the 1619 missing persons at the Ledra palace crossing is
a Peaseful protest and a leagal protest. Why should the Cyprus
authorities violate the rights of Cyprus Citizens to protest. If they
did they would be accused of the same humanrights abuses as Denktash.
>
>: >4) They shout, scream slogans, and some nasty things at
>: >G/C's picking me up, and myself. (most of this appeared on TV
>: >btw!)
>: >
>
>: Oh Yes and this murder and the bludgeoning to death of Tassos Isaac
were
>: shown on live world wide TV by the way.
>
>Yes, so what? What does this have to do with those people?
>Do you believe in 'eye to eye, tooth for tooth'?
>Is Isaac was murdered then those people can do those things?
>
There is no law against shouting in an open public space.
If you like I can get you some anti noise headphones that you can wear
which will digiatally filter out the noisy protesters in real time. They
work quite well acctually.
If the protestes were arrested or moved on more would replace them and
as I said the protestes have as much right to be there and ask to be let
in as you do. If the Turks would let them through without signing and
illegal declaration then they wouldnt be protessting, would they.
>
>
>: >So before you repeat this type of standard rhetoric, try asking
>: >what I am talking about first. I have seen what they are doing
>: >this summer. The things I am refering above happened to me.
>
>: I have written to the British Foreign Secretary on many occasions
asking
>: to be allowed to return to my home, but the Turks wont guarantee my
>: safety, my freedom, my basic human rights. This has happened to me so
>: dont you talk to me about crossing into occupied Cyprus. You can go
>: there anytime you like, I cant, and its my country also.
>
>
>No I can not! I can not go anywhere I want neither in N. Cyprus
>nor in S. Cyprus. My rights are violated further than yours when
>it comes to this!
>
Are you telling me that they are not letting you even enter into the
country or what.
Oh yes, If you are a freign citizen of Cypriot origin, since I think you
are in America (who dont allow dual nationality) inorder to reside
permantly in Cyprus for more than two months, you have to do your
national service. Have you done this
>
>
>: >For all I care, they are extreme nationalists, and are not
>: >supported by AKEL. The point I made in the previous
>: >message still stands correct.
>
>: You are unwilling to put Kenan Akin et al, on trial for murder
>
>
>I am willing to do that. Who said I am not willing?
>Why do you keep assuming things before I say them?
>You can push me around with your 'classic nationalistic' rhetoric
>like that. Remember, I do not support Denktash. Neither most
>of the things that you keep complaining about.
>
>: Your point is meaningless unless you show agknoedgment for the
crimes
>: of the occupation regime and campaign to bring them to justice.
>
>
>Why?
>
You cant critisise the Cypriot protesters and stay silent and not oppose
a regime that supports (are) murderers.
>: The protesters on the Green Line are there obtain justice for their
lost
>: relatives. Why don't you ask Denktash to hand himself and the murders
to
>: the ECHR and stand stand trial for crimes against humanity.
>
>
>The protesters at the border do all those points I listed, which
>you *did not* disagree. Rather quite poorly you tried to shift
>to topic to some other issues. Unless you are ready to
>acknowledge the wrongdoings, crimes etc of what you support
>I'll never consider you as a honest person, neither a trustable
>person when it comes to these issues.
>
OK
EOKA had some fascist elements that killed people wrongly, but the
majority were not fascists and did what had to be done inorder to remove
the British from Cyprus. the wernt any different from the ANC, and the
PLO.
EOKA-B were a bunch of fascists and killed both Muslim Cypriots and
Christian Cypriots. I dont support what they did and I dont support the
way they did it.
The Protesters at the Ledra palace are not EOKA, they are the relatives
of the 1619 missing persons and have not broken any laws. If you have
evidence of assault that will stand up in court the use it. I wont stand
in the way of justice as Denktash has in the case of Solomou and Isaac.
>: >What does this have to do with AKEL and its percentage?
>: >I can complain about a lot of things.. But if they are relevant
>: >to the issue.
>: >
>: It has everything to do with it.
>
>: Until there is justice the protests will continue and you have only
>: Turkey to blame for the violence.
>
>NO! People who comit the violence are *always* first degree
>to be blamed for it. No one, never can justify violence based
>on what other people do!
>
The individual is to blame for commitig the violent act. Tureky is to
blame for causing the violence.
Or are you going to tell me that Hitler had nothing to do with the
Genocide of the Jews. It was all the fault of the NAZI soldiers and no
one else. Or that Winston Churchill was a much to blame as Hitler.
>Your nationalistic, and I would say outdated & poor arguments
>on this issue will not hold here.
>
>You still need to explain:
>
>: >What does this have to do with AKEL and its percentage?
>
>What you said does not even touch this issue!
>
If any party thinks it can get somewhere by giving concession upon
concession
to the Turks without a single guarantee from the Turks then it is living
in cloud cuckoo land.
It dosnt work that way with the Turks. You give one concession and they
want more. You give another and they brake their word. Look are the lack
of respect for the UN, look at the lack of implementation of the and the
Makarios Denktash HLA and UN resolution 550 on the resettlement of
Varosha.
The people that oppose the connectionist approach to Turkey are realists
not fascists. Concessions and appeasement given to Saddam Hussein and
Hitler made them what they are. The approach failed and resulted in WW2
and the US-Gulf War.
You cant trust Thieves Murderers and Rapists.
Ok you might give them a second chance after they have served their
sentence but if they keep offending the only thing to do with them is to
lock them up and throw away the key.
Turkey has been given to many second chances and it is still
re-offending.
The time has come to buid Tureky an escapeproof cell.
The Trial and verdict have yet to come.
I am not supporting the actions of Cypriot fascists and their violence.
There are other ways to deal with Turkey. And Turkey dosnt like the fact
that I know its weakness.
I am saying that it is time to be a REALIST and examine Turkey under the
light of a supernova and reveal all of its failings..
>Ofcourse, you seem to have trouble following the issues.
>Rather you keep spitting out the rhetoric that you are
>used to. You can go ahead and have this pissing contest
>with other people on the net, who are more than willing
>to spit back at you with the "opposite polarity" rhetoric.
>But if you really want to understand, learn things about
>Cyprus, and how Turkish Cypriots feel, or tell the same
>things about Greek Cypriots to me. Than stop this.
>Say what is there really. Follow the issues. Accept
>your wrongdoings , or show me that they are not
>really wrongdoings.
>
>: What ever the composition of the Cyprus parliament it is the PEOPLE
who
>: hold the key to power not the politicians. The people will decide the
>: future of Cyprus, and they will never accept Denktash or Turkey.and
if
>: this is forced on them in a "settlement" there will be wholesale
>: slaughter.
>
>
>And it will be a justified slaughter? Never!!
>
I didn't say the slaughter would be justified.
And dont think the pasifict supporters of AKEL will stop this, because
even if every Cypriot became a pacifist, Turkey would Slaughter them in
the streets as it did with the Armenians.
I am making a prediction and so far my track record has been 100%.
>: The British caused the whole problem by giving Denktash and Turkeys
>: other puppets too much power and this will never be allowed to happen
>: another time. Power to the People, by the People for the People and
>: stuff the politicians
>
>You do not seem to like the idea of really giving power to the people
though.
>When you keep bringing arguments supporting violence, sensorship,
>nationalism, fashistic attitudes people like Grivas, Makarios etc.
>
My arguments are realism.
Turkey will not rest until it has exterminated every Cypriot and turned
Cyprus into a Turkish colony unless it is stood up to.
Agamemnon
>Turgut
Turgut Durduran
In article <6405op$35a$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>all over cyprus, parachuting ... heh heh..
>>no way man. You should read a bit more.. take some
>>time off BBC.
>>
>If my mother had been where she normally would had been during the
>Turkish air raids she would have been dead. There were air strikes,
>parachutists, rockets and bombings, and I have this from an eye witness.
You know what... I hate to tell you this but you are lying. I am
saying this from eye witnesses, history books, and whatever you like.
There were air strikes on certain areas .. no parachuting as you
described it . (may be Cengiz Topel only) . contrary to
your claim about *all over cyprus* etc. There were napalm
bombs used in certain areas etc.
>
>Denktash was always going to parties, getting drunk and fighting, it was
>probably one off those.
You probably know this through an 'eye witness' or BBC aswell :)
I think you are getting funnier. The question is still there:
This is what you said and my questions:
*****************
>
>>>>
>>>>Sure sure.. 21st December was the day when TMT did the 'stepping out'
>>>>nite right?
>>>
>>>Yes indeed. There were secret meetings of the TMT to organise the
>>>attacks and some may have even been under cover of a party.
>>
>>
>>Aha.. Like the Zionist conspiracy?
>>Which party? What party? Do you have any references to this?
>>Which of the attacks were staged by TMT? All? Some? None?
>>
*******************
>>so? Remember you were saying Turkey *started* the violence!
>>And you are wrong..
>>
>So you are now telling me that the all the murders to happen in Cyprus
>were nothing to do with crimianl actions, that there were no rapists, no
>child moleters, no theives but only nationalists killng and robbing and
>raping.
may be someone could help me here. I think he does not write
in English.. Probably some new dialect.. Could someone
describe me how one can come up with what he is saying from
what I have left above? This guy is amazing!
>Turkey started the nationalist violence, the criminals started the
>criminal violence and Dentash was in with both these camps. The last
>thing I read he was a doubble agent or something.
Ohh.. you seem to read a lot of 'world news' style papers,
and watch such programs... Anything else? Did you see Elvis
walking in Nicosia? did you know that Gorbachev's father
was from Lysi? (ofcourse if you really know where Lysi is)
>>so? He should not be a minister anyways, he is not a Cypriot..
>Regardless
>>of whether he is a murderer or not.
>
>So you are saying that the fact that he is not a Cypriot is more
>important than him being murderer. If any British or US minister was
>even accused of murder he would have to resign on the spot.
>
You really do have an amazing logic. I am talking about
him being a minister. I haven't ranked things in an
order of importance. When talking about him being a minister
(and he was a minister several times before he played
part in Solomou's murder BTW!) , the fact that he is from
Turkey makes quite bit of a difference.
>I gave you the percentage because they were imported in waves over many
>years. They were spread all over the place, go and look in the births,
>marriages and deaths records and you will find names coming in from
>nowhere.
>
>The same thing happened in Hong Kong, and China rightly refused to give
>the immigrents Citizenship.
You seem to enjoy making up things, and think that you'll
get around doing so. Do not insult our inteliggence. You have
just made ridiculous comments, at least come up with something
better, may be something like "I saw it in Chinese TV" ...
Have you look at the births marriages etc records? or
do you know someone who did? Did he/she write a book? Article
or something about this? How do you know this?
>>>It was the fact that Turkey had direct control over the Illegal
>>>immigrants that caused the Trouble.
>>
>> I think you are off by about half a decade again..
>>
>whats half a decade when im talking about imported Turks over a period
>of over half a centuary.
See above. Those questions apply again.
Also, why were they illegal? who decided they were illegal?
How did Turkey have the power of importint people to Cyprus
illegally when British were ruling the island?
>>You seem to forget what we are talking about. WE are talking about
>>what Makarios did to bring peace back. and you mentioned ammendments.
>>The main troubles begun *after* the amendments.. It does not
>
>What did you want him to do. Ask Tukey to come and take over Cyprus.
>
If you have more memory than an old commodore 64, or if you
ever bother reading messages before you reply, you may realise
that I have told you what I wanted him to do. Go look
at the older postings in this thread.
>Makarios did everyting he podsibley could, short of Nuking Turkey and
>that would have been the only solution because Turkey was not prepared
>to take anything other than the concession of Cyprus to Turkey.
What did he do?
So far you haven't told us anything that he did in that period.
you mentioned ammendments proposal which happened *before*
that period, and the acceptance of a federation which happened
*after* that period.
>This discussion should not be about Makarios it should be about Turkey.
Why not? Makarios claimed to be the president of *all* Cypriots.
You have been claiming that he wanted to bring peace, and
he did all he could. But so far you have no examples.
how could one be a president of a country, accept half of
his government go away, break his constitution, let 18%of his
population live in enclaves, constantly harras them, do not
go against fachist terorists who take these actions against
the minority and be considered "normal".
I am not gonna let you go away from these points. We can
discuss Turkey and her interference etc. But first
either accept what I am saying on Makarios issue, or support
your claims.
>>In correct. They could be members of the same party. There were
>>quite a lot of T/C's and G/C's working together in AKEL.
>>Does the name Kavazoglu ring any bells? Do you know the story?
>>
>>
>There was never any multiparty democracy on the grounds of Socialism,
>Capitalism, Liberalism or any other ism other than racism.
>
>Name me on "Greek" Cypriot that ever held a seat reseverd by the
>constitution for a "Turkish" Cypriot.
You seem pull out things out of your stomach and spit them out
to the newsgroup and wait for me to sit down and accept them.
You said they *cannot be members of the same party*, I said
you are incorrect. Do you accept this or not?
Stop attempting to change the point raised.
Did I ever say G/C's can take T/C seats in the parliament?
>>that is not a brothel. do not exagerrate.. They sell churches
>>and people buy and do whatever they like with them in US and
>>in Uk etc. They do not become brothels because of that.
>>
>
>The Churches in Occupied Cyprus are not yours to sell. The have never
>been de-consecrated and any use other than worship is sacrilegious.
>
>The Turks violated them and violated God and turned them into Brothels
I think you have some trouble of understanding ( this message
of full of these comments, but this is the only thing I can
come up with to explain your comments). You said that
we turned them into *BROTHELS* simple as that. Everyone
knows what a *BROTHEL* is. Now , either give me an example
that is a *BROTHEL* or stop demagogical arguments about
violating God etc. Who is God? Where is God? which God?
I agree, churhes in Cyprus belong to the church of Cyprus and
we can not sell them. I agree, places that people consider
holy , are historical etc deserve respect. Much more than
we gave them in North. I agree, it is a humanity crime to
destroy them like that. So quite repeating this over and
over again to me. But, adress the points I raised to you
(or just start a new thread and we'll talk about the
other points) .,... The point I made on this is that
you have *exagerrated* .. It is wrong to do that.
It is wrong to use such sensitive objects for political
purposes. It is wrong to exploit them.
>>
>Cant you read. The Turks were swooping over Cyprus preparing to attack.
>you dont just stand there and ask to be attacked. You make sure you are
>secure and defend yourself against any threat. The Muslim Cypriots were
>made by the Turks into a Threat. The rest you can work out for yourself.
May be I should repeat again:
>>so? again WHY DID G/C'S ATTACK T/C's *BEFORE* THE AIR ATTACKS THEN?
, and may be this will help. the key words you should read are
"*BEFORE*" and "ATTACK". You answer addresses "after" and "defend".
So try it once more.
>>that is crap. no one needs anymore arms in Cyprus. You like wasting
>>your money, go ahead, waste it and buy S300. get nuclear weapons
>>too if you want to..
>>
>>
>Tell this to Turkey when it constantly buys arms and planes and missiles
>from America and flies and use them over Cyprus.
I tell it :). so what? Can you tell the same to RoC? or you
like double standarts?
>EOKA was a Cypriot organisation to fight against the British. It may
>have had Greek supporters, it may have been supported by Greece, but it
>was not invented by Greece. Unlike the TMT an invention of Turkey, run
>by Turkey, consisting solely of Turks, not Cypriots.
We are talking about Greece's *interference* remember. We are
not talking about their inventions. Did you read Grivas memoirs?
Take a look there. You can see a (I would like to assume it is
honest) account of how EOKA was formed. Also do you know who
Grivas was? How long he lived in Cyprus? What things he did in
Greece?
One more incorrect claim by you. TMT consisted *SOLELY* of
Turks not Cypriots. Wrong... Denktas= Cypriot, Arif Hasan
Tahsin = Cypriot, Burhan Nalbantoglu=Cypriot, Tremeseli=Cypriot.
There are many more names I could list here for you who were
quite high people in TMT who were Cypriots.
>
>>Are there any real Greeks alive?
>>
>Yes, your talking to one.
Aha.. so you never mixed with anyone else. You come directly from
Aristo (or from even earlier Greeks). You still worshop aphrodite
and the rest of the gang. All the greeks are united in one country.
(see Cyprus that is not) They are all and always have been
one big nation etc etc. (I am just stating the definitions
you gave). Unless one single of these is wrong, you are not
a real Greek, as after all according to your definition there
is not such thing as a Greek then!
ok enough racism. I have had enough of your poor trials
to bring out 'skull-chin type' style racism .
>Inherited.
>
>The region was is and will be Greek.
>
:) you seem to have shutdown understanding and memory mode again.
Remember we were talking about who destroyed Byzantine, what
Ottomans got out of it etc.
so how long back in history does your claim about "the region was"
Greek go?
Turgut
Turgut Durduran
In article <640gm8$5ps$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>: I am a Cypriot and I am not allowed by the puppet occupation regime
>to
>>: cross the Green Line and return to my land and property,
>>
>>Yes you are not. And we thus have a problem at hand here right?
>>Also a violation of your human rights. But keep in mind that
>>TRNC does not claim that you are a citizen of TRNC. But ROC claims
>
>The so called "TRNC" is an illegal entity. do I really have to repost UN
>RES: 541 and 550 for the upteenth time.
>
>An illegal entity does not have the right to citizenship.
So then TRNC does not *have* to let you in. after all
it can break any law it wants to as an illegal entity.
>
>>that I am a citizen of ROC! RoC claims I can go and do
>>whatever I want.
>>
>There are Muslim Cypriot workers crossing the Border every day, they
>dont seem to have a problem going where they want, until they enter the
>occupied area. So I dont see what your problem is.
Your memory seems to last only two seconds :)
I won't waste my time repeating the point we were
taking about. See the earlier posts/
[snip a lot of quotes that are irrelevant]
>The protesters are no more breaking the law than the French Lorry Drives
>at the crossing points at Calais (where do they get these names from,
>Calais was the brother of Zutas (Zates) in Greek mythology I think).
Wrong! They are breaking laws.
your argument about tourists is totally irrelevant. I am not
a tourist there. I am not talking about people going to
North. I am talking about a Cypriot from north going to south.
>
>If you were jostled or punched or whatever, that is no more than the
>British Drivers got from the French, Infact I think that someone even
>got knifed, but the French authorities did nothing to stop it.
so? are they justified to do that?
>
>The protest for the 1619 missing persons at the Ledra palace crossing is
>a Peaseful protest and a leagal protest. Why should the Cyprus
>authorities violate the rights of Cyprus Citizens to protest. If they
>did they would be accused of the same humanrights abuses as Denktash.
>
it is not a 'Peaseful' protest, neither 'peaceful'. it breaks
laws. (that does not make the protest itself illegal btw!).
It is not peaceful. do you know what peaceful means?
>If the protestes were arrested or moved on more would replace them and
>as I said the protestes have as much right to be there and ask to be let
>in as you do. If the Turks would let them through without signing and
>illegal declaration then they wouldnt be protessting, would they.
funny.. you know nothing about the situation in Cyprus. you
believe the crap those fashists at the border come up with.
They do not make anyone sign any illegal declaration. that happened
for a very very short time long long time ago. since then
the type of people at the border now keep saying that. it is
plainly *wrong* and no-one can know this better than I do.
I deal with G/C's and T/C's crossing that border almost
on a daily basis during summer.
Protesters have rights to protest. Just like I have the
right to move around. I am all in for protestors (not
these ones, I do not particularly like fashist protests).
I also have the right not to be touched, pushed around,
threatened etc. Just like any other Cypriot there. I also
have the right to follow the legal procedures and get
permission and cross to south. They do not have the
right to break those rights of mine! They do not
have the right to be 'unpeaseful' as you say :)
>>No I can not! I can not go anywhere I want neither in N. Cyprus
>>nor in S. Cyprus. My rights are violated further than yours when
>>it comes to this!
>>
>
>Are you telling me that they are not letting you even enter into the
>country or what.
>
>Oh yes, If you are a freign citizen of Cypriot origin, since I think you
>are in America (who dont allow dual nationality) inorder to reside
>permantly in Cyprus for more than two months, you have to do your
>national service. Have you done this
no no.. I am officially a citizen of both TRNC and RoC. I only
study in US. I haven't done my military service. RoC does not
want me there (they do not take T/c's now) , and TRNC allows
me to delay it as long as I study. You claimined I can
go *anywhere* I wanted. That is incorrect. theoretically
I can go to RoC, but inpractice there are quite a few
difficulties RoC raises against T/C's. and why would I want
to live in such a racist environment (personally I may
have less trouble than a usual T/C due to my last name,
and my involvement in bi-communal stuff, but in general
as a T/C there are a lot of troubles). Then I am
also talking about good deal of TRNC being military zones,
me not being allowed to exist TRNC to cross to south
whenever I want to etc. Also me not being able to
travel around with my TRNC passport.
>
>You cant critisise the Cypriot protesters and stay silent and not oppose
>a regime that supports (are) murderers.
Remember this part of my message that you skipped in your reply:
***************
>>
>>: You are unwilling to put Kenan Akin et al, on trial for murder
>>
>>
>>I am willing to do that. Who said I am not willing?
>>Why do you keep assuming things before I say them?
>>You can push me around with your 'classic nationalistic' rhetoric
>>like that. Remember, I do not support Denktash. Neither most
>>of the things that you keep complaining about.
>>
********
so the question stands again. as you made such claims once more!
how do youknow I stay silent? did you ask me? did you look
around to see what things I say in different mailing lists?
or looked at my homepage? may be read my articles?
>
>EOKA had some fascist elements that killed people wrongly, but the
>majority were not fascists and did what had to be done inorder to remove
>the British from Cyprus. the wernt any different from the ANC, and the
>PLO.
>
ok good..
>EOKA-B were a bunch of fascists and killed both Muslim Cypriots and
>Christian Cypriots. I dont support what they did and I dont support the
>way they did it.
>
ok.. I agree.
>The Protesters at the Ledra palace are not EOKA, they are the relatives
>of the 1619 missing persons and have not broken any laws. If you have
>evidence of assault that will stand up in court the use it. I wont stand
>in the way of justice as Denktash has in the case of Solomou and Isaac.
ok thanks for the invitation. I have other things I can
take to courts though.
now may be we can get somewhere slowly. Do you see
the difference in the way we write? I am asking you
these things. I am telling you certain things. You
very rarely say " I disagre because this this is wrong".
you rather insist on saying "but this this this is
wrong ... why don't we talk about that". Why do you
think I would be willing to do that when you
do not accept/reject the things really?
You could have asked me about what I think of Kenan Akin,
or missing people instead of saying 'you do that, you do
this ' blah blah. most of what you accuse me of, you are
wrong. I do a lot of things.
>The individual is to blame for commitig the violent act. Tureky is to
>blame for causing the violence.
>
>Or are you going to tell me that Hitler had nothing to do with the
>Genocide of the Jews. It was all the fault of the NAZI soldiers and no
>one else. Or that Winston Churchill was a much to blame as Hitler.
I did not say Turkey had nothing to do with those. I disagreed
with you saying *only* Turkey is to blame. do you see the
difference?
Soldiers and wars are different. Although ideally I would like
to see a world when this difference is lifted. Soldiers
receive orders. soldiers are forced to obey those orders etc.
They also usually follow some form of internationally accepted
legal rules. But then, there are war crimes, such as
breaking geneva conventions etc.
Civil wars, and fighting like the wya we had it in Cyprus is quite
different though. It was much more disorganised, gangs of TMT,
EOKA, EOKA-B etc etc were not obeying any form of laws. There
was no war in Cyprus (except from Turkey's and Greece's interventions etc).
There is a big distinction out there.
ohh btw, yes, actually, I *do* think that the allies commited
lots of serious humanitarian crimes during WWII.. One example
would be the dropping of the atomic bombs in Japan.
>If any party thinks it can get somewhere by giving concession upon
>concession
>to the Turks without a single guarantee from the Turks then it is living
>in cloud cuckoo land.
Ok. so you think AKEL does that?
I do not think they do. Can you give me more examples?
>
>It dosnt work that way with the Turks. You give one concession and they
>want more. You give another and they brake their word. Look are the lack
>of respect for the UN, look at the lack of implementation of the and the
>Makarios Denktash HLA and UN resolution 550 on the resettlement of
>Varosha.
>
that is true. High Level Agreements should have been implemented.
I am skipping your racist comments about Turks, Turkey etc. They
do not worth talking about . you have some point in what you are
saying, but with this racist rhetoric it does not get anywhere.
>
>And dont think the pasifict supporters of AKEL will stop this, because
>even if every Cypriot became a pacifist, Turkey would Slaughter them in
>the streets as it did with the Armenians.
>
>I am making a prediction and so far my track record has been 100%.
First of all unfortunately not all AKEL supporters are pacifists.
I wish they were. We need more pacifists in Cyprus. Much more
than we have now. So that nationalist, violent rhetorics
won't survive in there. Neither would Turkey's or Greece's
expansionist, colonialist, 'mother-landist' attitudes
would survive.
Armenian genocide is an interesting issue to consider. really
an important crime. however, it does not have much to do with
Cyprus. I do not think it has to do with it as much as you
like it to be so. May be treatment of Kurds in Turkey is
more relevant. Or Western Thrace.. Or Albanians in Greece.
Or Greeks in Turkey. etc..
What does this show me? it just shows that I do not
want Turkey or Greece to play 'mother' to me anymore. I want
to have my own country, demilitarised, united, democratic.
so thatI can get rid of nationalistic, shovenist (sp?), and
other similar waves there.
I rather disregard your excuse (rather poor I would say) about why
you keep trying to justify, or find excuses for violent things.
Turgut
Agamemnon
THE HISTORIC EVOLUTION OF THE TURKISH-CYPRIOT COMMUNITY AND THE
CRYPTOCHRISTIANS
(To understand the historical context of how war came to Cyprus in 1974
we examine the relations between Greeks and Turks on the island. In this
issue we host an article by Mr Savvas P. Mastrappas condensed from the
original in Ardin magazine . Ed.)
The Turkish-Cypriot community was originally created by mass and
mandatory conversions to Islam, or islamizations, of the Greek and other
Christian populations of Cyprus since the 16th century. Since that time
the community has been in close contact with Turkey. However during the
last decades the contact has intensified especially through a continuous
Turkish propaganda through the educational system, a propaganda which
reveals the geostrategic intentions of Turkey against Cyprus.
August 1571 marks the end of Venice's dominion over Cyprus and the
beginning of Ottoman rule. Slaughtering and severe pillaging following
the Turkish invasion increased the death toll dramatically. In an effort
to lift Cyprus out of economic misery, the Sultan commanded during the
years 1571-1581 mandatory transfers of people from other parts of the
Ottoman Empire to Cyprus. The majority of people that settled in Cyprus
at that time were Greeks, Christian Armenians, Minor Asia inhabitants,
Jews and a few Muslim Turks. The majority of today's Turkish-Cypriot
population are Muslims of Greek origin. Their conversion occurred in a
variety of ways: either in the course of punishments of unsuccessful
revolts or following regular mass abductions of children (Paidomazwma);
there was also voluntary islamization as a means to avoid the heavy
taxation imposed by Moslem authorities on non-believers.
A considerable number of islamized people, however, preserved secretly
their former faith and worshipping habits for a long period of time.
These secret Christians, or Cryptochristians, were called "Linovamvakoi"
in Cyprus since they resemble a cloth with a side of linen (Lino)
covered by a side of cotton (Vamvaki) in that they are only able to show
one side, one facet, at a time. It is estimated that in the nineteenth
century the population of Cryptochristians in Cyprus was 10,000-15,000
Cryptochristians out of a total of 32,000 Muslims.
When the British established sovereignty over Cyprus in 1878, they
officially adopted a neutral stance on the matter; in practice, however,
their policy was anti-Greek and eventually succeeded in converting the
Cryptochristians completely: The administration built on earlier efforts
by local Turkish religious leaders, or Hodjas, who had tried repeatedly
to transplant a Turkish conscience into the minds and hearts of the
Cryptochristians by working through the educational system. The British
appointed a Muslim board of education which systematically proposed
building Turkish schools in villages with a Cryptochristian majority.
These efforts received support from the British, because the British
regime had an interest in creating a politically strong and
arithmetically big Turkish community that would weaken the demands of
the Greek majority's right to self-determination.
In the long run the educational policy proved fruitful for the British.
After 1923 and the establishment of the New Turks in Ankara, their
agents worked with the extremist Turkish-Cypriot groups, with continued
backing by the British, to continue a strong propaganda within the
Turkish populations and the Cryptochristian villages. By the time of the
Turkish invasion on the island in 1974 the Cryptochristian community had
been further alienated, and following the invasion, it has been
completely cut off from the Greek Christians in the free part of the
island.
Modern Turkish and Turkish-Cypriot historians have argued that the
"ancestors of the current Turkish- Cypriots were Turkish or Muslim
populations that were brought into Cyprus," however, this has not been
proven. This argument is simply an effort to distort historical reality
and it is an opinion that was shaped in order to support the
expansionist policies and geostrategic intentions of the Turkish state
against Cyprus in particular, and Hellenism in general. [MB; Ardin]
Diaspora Newsletter, Issue 59.
http://www.yale.edu/eox/Diaspora/index.html
Agamemnon
Turgut Durduran wrote in message <640th3$ird$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>In article <6405op$35a$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
>Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>>all over cyprus, parachuting ... heh heh..
>>>no way man. You should read a bit more.. take some
>>>time off BBC.
>>>
>>If my mother had been where she normally would had been during the
>>Turkish air raids she would have been dead. There were air strikes,
>>parachutists, rockets and bombings, and I have this from an eye
witness.
>
>
>You know what... I hate to tell you this but you are lying. I am
>saying this from eye witnesses, history books, and whatever you like.
>There were air strikes on certain areas .. no parachuting as you
>described it . (may be Cengiz Topel only) . contrary to
>your claim about *all over cyprus* etc. There were napalm
>bombs used in certain areas etc.
>
>
>>
>>Denktash was always going to parties, getting drunk and fighting, it
was
>>probably one off those.
>
>You probably know this through an 'eye witness' or BBC aswell :)
>I think you are getting funnier. The question is still there:
>
SEE MY OTHER POST FOR FULL REPLY
SEE OTHER POST REFERRED TO ABOVE
>
>>>so? He should not be a minister anyways, he is not a Cypriot..
>>Regardless
>>>of whether he is a murderer or not.
>>
>>So you are saying that the fact that he is not a Cypriot is more
>>important than him being murderer. If any British or US minister was
>>even accused of murder he would have to resign on the spot.
>>
>
>You really do have an amazing logic. I am talking about
>him being a minister. I haven't ranked things in an
>order of importance. When talking about him being a minister
>(and he was a minister several times before he played
>part in Solomou's murder BTW!) , the fact that he is from
>Turkey makes quite bit of a difference.
>
The fact that he is a murderer is completely Discredits the Danktash
regime.
>
>>I gave you the percentage because they were imported in waves over
many
>>years. They were spread all over the place, go and look in the births,
>>marriages and deaths records and you will find names coming in from
>>nowhere.
>>
>>The same thing happened in Hong Kong, and China rightly refused to
give
>>the immigrents Citizenship.
>
>
>You seem to enjoy making up things, and think that you'll
>get around doing so. Do not insult our inteliggence. You have
>just made ridiculous comments, at least come up with something
>better, may be something like "I saw it in Chinese TV"
I sat through over Six hours of coverage of the handover ceremony on the
BBC and if you ask them for a transcript of the commentary you will find
what have said about the Hong Kong immigrants brought in by Britain, and
Chinas response is true.
...
>Have you look at the births marriages etc records? or
>do you know someone who did? Did he/she write a book? Article
>or something about this? How do you know this?
>>>>It was the fact that Turkey had direct control over the Illegal
>>>>immigrants that caused the Trouble.
>>>
>>> I think you are off by about half a decade again..
>>>
>>whats half a decade when im talking about imported Turks over a period
>>of over half a centuary.
>
>See above. Those questions apply again.
>
SEE MY OTHER OTHER POST
>Also, why were they illegal? who decided they were illegal?
They were brought in by an occupying regime, of-cause they were illegal.
>How did Turkey have the power of importint people to Cyprus
I have told you allredy THE BRITISH IMPORTED THE TURKS
>illegally when British were ruling the island?
>
>>>You seem to forget what we are talking about. WE are talking about
>>>what Makarios did to bring peace back. and you mentioned ammendments.
>>>The main troubles begun *after* the amendments.. It does not
>>
>>What did you want him to do. Ask Tukey to come and take over Cyprus.
>>
>
>If you have more memory than an old commodore 64, or if you
>ever bother reading messages before you reply, you may realise
>that I have told you what I wanted him to do. Go look
>at the older postings in this thread.
>
>>Makarios did everyting he podsibley could, short of Nuking Turkey and
>>that would have been the only solution because Turkey was not prepared
>>to take anything other than the concession of Cyprus to Turkey.
>
>What did he do?
>So far you haven't told us anything that he did in that period.
>you mentioned ammendments proposal which happened *before*
>that period, and the acceptance of a federation which happened
>*after* that period.
>
During this period after Denktash and co walked out of the government.
Makarios produced an economic miracle.
Without Turkish interference in the Budget, Cyprus was on the way to
becoming the most properous nation in Europe (as it is now since it was
the first to meet the Maastricht Criteria) and on the way to making an
application to become a full member of the EEC.
The Cypriots became more prosperous the standard of living improved,
Cyprus was on its way to prosperity. But was Turkey prepared to accept a
prosperous Cyprus that could defend itself, was America.
A minority of Turkish fascists wernt going to let Cyprus prosper under
"Greek" Cypriot majority rule so they incited violence between the
remaining Greek fascists that were almost eliminated by the prosperity,
and the Muslim Cypriots, by bombing their own people, to provoke
reprisals. Denktash admitted to this on Television in a Channel 4
documentery on the missing persons and I have the Video Tape.
The Turkish invasion finally Destroyed this economic miracle and set
Cyprus back nearly two decades.
>>This discussion should not be about Makarios it should be about
Turkey.
>
>Why not? Makarios claimed to be the president of *all* Cypriots.
>You have been claiming that he wanted to bring peace, and
>he did all he could. But so far you have no examples.
>how could one be a president of a country, accept half of
>his government go away, break his constitution, let 18%of his
The Constitution was in violation of the UN Charter and therefore
illegal (see my earlier posts). Denktash and co violated the
Constitution by withdrawing from the Government. Turkey violated the
Constitution be unilateral action and air raids on Cyprus that were on
even discussed with Greece and Britain and were a violation of Article 2
Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter.
>population live in enclaves, constantly harras them, do not
Denktash and the TMT created the enclaves.
The TMT was armed by Turkey and was a part of the Turkish military
command structure.
Unless you are suggesting that a minuscule force of national Guard could
attempt to disarm the Turks and disband the enclaves violating the UN
peace keeping mandate, and risking war with Turkey, there was nothing
that Makarios could do until the National Gourd was Strengthened and the
UN Force was given a new Peace Making mandate.
>go against fachist terorists who take these actions against
>the minority and be considered "normal".
>
Makarios reformed the economy and those that were not fascists
benefited. In due course the fascists would have seen sense and joined
the rest of the population
>I am not gonna let you go away from these points. We can
>discuss Turkey and her interference etc. But first
>either accept what I am saying on Makarios issue, or support
>your claims.
>
>>>In correct. They could be members of the same party. There were
>>>quite a lot of T/C's and G/C's working together in AKEL.
>>>Does the name Kavazoglu ring any bells? Do you know the story?
>>>
>>>
>>There was never any multiparty democracy on the grounds of Socialism,
>>Capitalism, Liberalism or any other ism other than racism.
>>
>>Name me on "Greek" Cypriot that ever held a seat reseverd by the
>>constitution for a "Turkish" Cypriot.
>
>You seem pull out things out of your stomach and spit them out
>to the newsgroup and wait for me to sit down and accept them.
>You said they *cannot be members of the same party*, I said
>you are incorrect. Do you accept this or not?
Accepted. OK
>Stop attempting to change the point raised.
>Did I ever say G/C's can take T/C seats in the parliament?
>
>>>that is not a brothel. do not exagerrate.. They sell churches
>>>and people buy and do whatever they like with them in US and
>>>in Uk etc. They do not become brothels because of that.
>>>
>>
>>The Churches in Occupied Cyprus are not yours to sell. The have never
>>been de-consecrated and any use other than worship is sacrilegious.
>>
>>The Turks violated them and violated God and turned them into Brothels
>
>I think you have some trouble of understanding ( this message
>of full of these comments, but this is the only thing I can
>come up with to explain your comments). You said that
>we turned them into *BROTHELS* simple as that. Everyone
>knows what a *BROTHEL* is. Now , either give me an example
>that is a *BROTHEL* or stop demagogical arguments about
>violating God etc. Who is God? Where is God? which God?
>
Im researching it. I will post an article when ready
>I agree, churhes in Cyprus belong to the church of Cyprus and
>we can not sell them. I agree, places that people consider
>holy , are historical etc deserve respect. Much more than
>we gave them in North. I agree, it is a humanity crime to
>destroy them like that. So quite repeating this over and
>over again to me. But, adress the points I raised to you
>(or just start a new thread and we'll talk about the
>other points) .,... The point I made on this is that
>you have *exagerrated* .. It is wrong to do that.
>It is wrong to use such sensitive objects for political
>purposes. It is wrong to exploit them.
>
>>>
>>Cant you read. The Turks were swooping over Cyprus preparing to
attack.
>>you dont just stand there and ask to be attacked. You make sure you
are
>>secure and defend yourself against any threat. The Muslim Cypriots
were
>>made by the Turks into a Threat. The rest you can work out for
yourself.
>
>May be I should repeat again:
>
>>>so? again WHY DID G/C'S ATTACK T/C's *BEFORE* THE AIR ATTACKS THEN?
>
Again the Turkish air force flew mock boming runs over Cyprus for weeks.
The Christian Cypriots expected an immanent attack under Turkish air
cover so they took action to defend themselfes from such an attak.
The Cypriot intelligence knew that there was to be a strike but they
didnt know when.
The Turkish Air force was ordered to intimidate until either the
Christian Cypriot fascists fired first or D Day (December 25) which was
unknown to all but Turkey.
Turkeys back to the same old tactics trying to incite another war by
Attacking the Greek Defence Ministers Transport.
>, and may be this will help. the key words you should read are
>"*BEFORE*" and "ATTACK". You answer addresses "after" and "defend".
>So try it once more.
>
>
>>>that is crap. no one needs anymore arms in Cyprus. You like wasting
>>>your money, go ahead, waste it and buy S300. get nuclear weapons
>>>too if you want to..
>>>
>>>
>>Tell this to Turkey when it constantly buys arms and planes and
missiles
>>from America and flies and use them over Cyprus.
>
>
>I tell it :). so what? Can you tell the same to RoC? or you
>like double standarts?
>
Is you that have double Standards. Turkey has been arming itself for
decades and you expect Cyprus to sit there unarmed.
Go and tell Turkey to reduce its arms to the same level as Cyprus first.
>>EOKA was a Cypriot organisation to fight against the British. It may
>>have had Greek supporters, it may have been supported by Greece, but
it
>>was not invented by Greece. Unlike the TMT an invention of Turkey, run
>>by Turkey, consisting solely of Turks, not Cypriots.
>
>We are talking about Greece's *interference* remember. We are
>not talking about their inventions. Did you read Grivas memoirs?
>Take a look there. You can see a (I would like to assume it is
>honest) account of how EOKA was formed. Also do you know who
>Grivas was? How long he lived in Cyprus? What things he did in
>Greece?
>
I dont care about General Grivas.
The supporters of EOKA wanted independence from the British.
What Grivas wanted he didnt get.
>One more incorrect claim by you. TMT consisted *SOLELY* of
>Turks not Cypriots. Wrong... Denktas= Cypriot, Arif Hasan
>Tahsin = Cypriot, Burhan Nalbantoglu=Cypriot, Tremeseli=Cypriot.
>There are many more names I could list here for you who were
>quite high people in TMT who were Cypriots.
>
>>
I do not Class Denktash as a Cypriot. He wants to be a citizen of a
Greater Turkey. Hes a Turk.
>>>Are there any real Greeks alive?
>>>
>>Yes, your talking to one.
>
>Aha.. so you never mixed with anyone else. You come directly from
I already told you what I call a Greek and it has nothing to do with
worshipping Aphrodite.
>Aristo (or from even earlier Greeks). You still worshop aphrodite
>and the rest of the gang. All the greeks are united in one country.
>(see Cyprus that is not) They are all and always have been
Cyprus is Greek. It does not have to be Governed by Greece to be Greek.
Greeks are people united by a common Cultural heritage.
In fact I will go so far as to say that most so called Turks that are
not Kurds are realy Greeks.
>one big nation etc etc. (I am just stating the definitions
>you gave). Unless one single of these is wrong, you are not
>a real Greek, as after all according to your definition there
>is not such thing as a Greek then!
>
>ok enough racism. I have had enough of your poor trials
>to bring out 'skull-chin type' style racism .
>
>>Inherited.
>>
>>The region was is and will be Greek.
>>
>
>:) you seem to have shutdown understanding and memory mode again.
>Remember we were talking about who destroyed Byzantine, what
>Ottomans got out of it etc.
>
>so how long back in history does your claim about "the region was"
>Greek go?
>
Over 10,000 years.
Agamemnon
>Turgut
Agamemnon
Turgut Durduran wrote in message <640th3$ird$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Denktash was always going to parties, getting drunk and fighting, it
was
>>>probably one off those.
>>
>>You probably know this through an 'eye witness' or BBC aswell :)
>>I think you are getting funnier. The question is still there:
>>
<snip>
>>>so? Remember you were saying Turkey *started* the violence!
>>>And you are wrong..
>>>
<snip>
>>Turkey started the nationalist violence, the criminals started the
>>criminal violence and Dentash was in with both these camps. The last
>>thing I read he was a doubble agent or something.
>Ohh.. you seem to read a lot of 'world news' style papers,
>and watch such programs... Anything else? Did you see Elvis
>walking in Nicosia? did you know that Gorbachev's father
>was from Lysi? (ofcourse if you really know where Lysi is)
Denktash admits being Polycarpos Yorgadjis's agent
Columnist Sener Levent, writing in Avrupa (7.11.97) in his column
"Angle",
speaks about the political killings within the Turkish Cypriot community
in
which the perpetrators still remain at large, and demands that light be
shed on these crimes. He then says: "Let me tell you about an incident
that
happened at the presidential palace, in recent years, which I have heard
from someone.
During a dinner meeting with the participation of former TMT fighters,
Kenan Coygun, one of the TMT leaders who is known in our community with
the
name of BOZKURT, had asked Denktash:
- Who was Yorgadjis's spy? You know Yorgadjis, the famous EOKAIST and
the
real name of the "Akritas", and the Interior Minister of the Republic of
Cyprus...
Denktash replied:
- I was.
"Bozkurt", looking irked, leaned back and replied:
- I knew it.
Denktash answered:
- If you knew it, why didn't you shoot me?
Following this reply, the atmosphere became electrified. Kenan Coygun
said:
"Which one of you I was going to shoot?" and jumped up, but people
present
there calmed the atmosphere. This incident was told to somebody by late
Ismail Sadikoglu before his death and in turn I learnt it from another
person. I have asked Tremeseli whether it is true or not."
From the Republic of Cyprus Press and Information Office (PIO)
at http://www.pio.gov.cy/
georgios Sidiropoulos
What?
georgios Sidiropoulos
Agamemnon is right
Turgut Durduran
No this one is not ok :)
1) Dispora newsletter is not a source of anything.
2) This debate about how much of Linobambagis (much more
reliable sources such as stuff from 19th century journals
exist) and how much of the T/C population actually
came from Turkey or is/was Linobambagis is the most
twisted /racist debate. Personally I know some
linobambagi people. They ask/beg/prefer that
their names are not released, and their unique
cultural situation is not discussed in this way.
they are telling that they suffered quite a
bit, and they do not trust either side at this
point. (there are several interviews with
unnamed linobambagis that a T/C writer who
died 5 years ago conducted).
3) The paragraph I left contradicts yourself.
i.e about Turks that were imported in mass numbers.
4) There are quite detailed reports, and
number of how many Turks, from where, from which
occupancies, which families, under what conditions
were brought during *Ottoman* period (not British as you
say).
In any case, this is an interesting issue definitely.
I would be proud if there were quite few T/C's
who were converts like this. After all, that is
a good argument that we are 'enemy brothers'
anyways. but it is not an important issue.
What matters now is that T/C's consider
themselves as T/C's and G/c's consider themselves
as G/C's. The rest of the racist rhetoric about
how old Greek culture is , Turkish culture is,
who won what, who is what is what it is , i.e
racism!
Turgut
In article <6413jq$ags$2...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
Turgut Durduran
ok.. interesting. Sener amca (uncle sener) :) says these things.
I do not believe this much though. The stuff about
criminals at large is certainly correct.
Turgut
In article <6413jo$ags$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Turgut Durduran wrote in message <640th3$ird$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Denktash was always going to parties, getting drunk and fighting, it
>was
>>>>probably one off those.
>>>
>>>You probably know this through an 'eye witness' or BBC aswell :)
>>>I think you are getting funnier. The question is still there:
>>>
><snip>
>
>>>>so? Remember you were saying Turkey *started* the violence!
>>>>And you are wrong..
>>>>
>
><snip>
>
>
>>>Turkey started the nationalist violence, the criminals started the
>>>criminal violence and Dentash was in with both these camps. The last
>>>thing I read he was a doubble agent or something.
>
>>Ohh.. you seem to read a lot of 'world news' style papers,
>>and watch such programs... Anything else? Did you see Elvis
>>walking in Nicosia? did you know that Gorbachev's father
>>was from Lysi? (ofcourse if you really know where Lysi is)
>
ēr??|>
_________________________________________________________________________
Turgut Durduran
In article <641g48$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
georgios Sidiropoulos <xenok...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Agamemnon is right
Agamemnon is left.
RACER
It's nice and all but if it was not divided into two, you would not have
any country at all.
Agamemnon
Turgut Durduran wrote in message <6421u7$e85$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>In article <6413ju$ags$3...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
>Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>>You really do have an amazing logic. I am talking about
>>>him being a minister. I haven't ranked things in an
>>>order of importance. When talking about him being a minister
>>>(and he was a minister several times before he played
>>>part in Solomou's murder BTW!) , the fact that he is from
>>>Turkey makes quite bit of a difference.
>>>
>>
>>The fact that he is a murderer is completely Discredits the Danktash
>>regime.
>
>Sure it does. But there are quite few other things to
>discredit that anyways. But could you still explain me
>the logic that you use when you make the conclusions
>that you make that I quoted in the previous message?
>
The fact thet he is a Turkish import makes gives him no right to govern
in Cyprus. The fact that he is a murderer gives him no right to govern
anywhere, not even in Turkey. And going by his loutish behaviour before
the murder of Solomou he should have been called to the "bar of the
house" by the "speaker" and expelled years ago.
>> ...
>>>Have you look at the births marriages etc records? or
>>>do you know someone who did? Did he/she write a book? Article
>>>or something about this? How do you know this?
>
>
>Remember this question. what happened to that?
>
This is what I have heard from people living in Cyprus at the time. We
arnt all authors. And where do you think authors get their material
from. They talk to people who where there. The fact that the Bithish had
a polict throught the empire of importig foreigners to control the
indigenous people, which even extended to the import (leagal this time)
of Jamaicans and Asians to Britain in the1950's to control the masses
and create a new undreclass, compounds the evidence.
>
>>
>>SEE MY OTHER OTHER POST
>
>I did not see this about British important ones.
>
>>
>>>Also, why were they illegal? who decided they were illegal?
>>
>>They were brought in by an occupying regime, of-cause they were
illegal.
>
>
>No Britain was not occupying Cyprus at that time. They
>anexxed it to Britain during WWI and for all the practical
>matters of that time they owned it.
>
>Legality is not one of the dream issues that you talk about.
>Just because Britain was not a Cypriot regime, it doe snot
>make anything they do illegal.
>
The British did not own Cyprus. The Cypriots own Cyprus. Britain was an
illegal occupier in over 50 countries. If the UN Charter had been around
when Britain started its colonisation it would have been convicted of
violation after violation. The fact there wasn't a "UN" does not justify
Britains actions, they were still illegal in common law.
Now look at Zimbabwe where the British gave stolen land to White
farmers. The Land is not theirs and Mugabee has promised to return the
land to its original inhabitants. Mugabee has also said that Britain
should compensate the White farmers, since it committed the crime.
>>During this period after Denktash and co walked out of the government.
>>Makarios produced an economic miracle.
>>
>>Without Turkish interference in the Budget, Cyprus was on the way to
>>becoming the most properous nation in Europe (as it is now since it
was
>>the first to meet the Maastricht Criteria) and on the way to making an
>>application to become a full member of the EEC.
>>
>>The Cypriots became more prosperous the standard of living improved,
>>Cyprus was on its way to prosperity. But was Turkey prepared to accept
a
>>prosperous Cyprus that could defend itself, was America.
>>
>>A minority of Turkish fascists wernt going to let Cyprus prosper under
>>"Greek" Cypriot majority rule so they incited violence between the
>>remaining Greek fascists that were almost eliminated by the
prosperity,
>>and the Muslim Cypriots, by bombing their own people, to provoke
>>reprisals. Denktash admitted to this on Television in a Channel 4
>>documentery on the missing persons and I have the Video Tape.
>>
>>The Turkish invasion finally Destroyed this economic miracle and set
>>Cyprus back nearly two decades.
>>
>
>ok.. the question was:
>
>************************
>>>>Makarios did everyting he podsibley could, short of Nuking Turkey
and
>>>>that would have been the only solution because Turkey was not
prepared
>>>>to take anything other than the concession of Cyprus to Turkey.
>>>
>>>What did he do?
>>>So far you haven't told us anything that he did in that period.
>>>you mentioned ammendments proposal which happened *before*
>>>that period, and the acceptance of a federation which happened
>>>*after* that period.
>>
>
>*************
>
>I do not see how the economic miracle, and the reasons
>why it was in trouble explain that. Could you be
>more explanatory?
>
>
The reason why the economy was in trouble was due to Denktash and co's
repeated vetoing of the Budget. the financial crisis caused public
unrest like all economic crises. Makisios cured the economy and reduced
to unrest.
Are you a capitalist or a Communist. The whole ethos of Capitalism is
that free enterprise brings peace.
>
>>
>>The Constitution was in violation of the UN Charter and therefore
>>illegal (see my earlier posts). Denktash and co violated the
>>Constitution by withdrawing from the Government. Turkey violated the
>>Constitution be unilateral action and air raids on Cyprus that were
on
>>even discussed with Greece and Britain and were a violation of Article
2
>>Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter.
>>
>
>so? Makarios was still the president. He *did* not change
>the constitution (hetried) constituion was perfectly legal.
>If someone violates the constition that does not give
>right to anyone else to violate the constition so the
>question for you is still:
>
>****************
>>>Why not? Makarios claimed to be the president of *all* Cypriots.
>>>You have been claiming that he wanted to bring peace, and
>>>he did all he could. But so far you have no examples.
>>>how could one be a president of a country, accept half of
>>>his government go away, break his constitution, let 18%of his
>*****************
>
Makarios was an idiot. Not my words but my Grandfaters (who knew
Makarios)quoted via my Dad sort off.
He proved his stupidity by sitting around and letting Turkey do what it
pleased. My words.
>
>
>
>>>population live in enclaves, constantly harras them, do not
>>
>>Denktash and the TMT created the enclaves.
>>
>
>
>so? They were still RoC citizens, and it was RoC's duty
>to take care of them. If I go out and set-up enclaves
>and stick in people all over the place and let them
>live miserably, the local govt will come and start
>taking measures against me.
>
You are ignoting the fact thet Turkey was poised and ready to attack
Cyprus at any excuse. The enclaves were another provocation.
Makarios should have armed Cyprus and made allies with Turkeys enemies
in-order to protect Cyprus, then he could have dealt with Denktash and
co.
>>>go against fachist terorists who take these actions against
>>>the minority and be considered "normal".
>>>
>>Makarios reformed the economy and those that were not fascists
>>benefited. In due course the fascists would have seen sense and joined
>>the rest of the population
>>
>
>Reforming economy is one of the ways of trying to improve
>the situation in a civil war situation. But it definitely
>does not substitute goind against, chasing, arresting,
>punishing etc terorist groups. The question still stands.
>
see above.
>>Im researching it. I will post an article when ready
>>
>
>ok :)
>
>>Again the Turkish air force flew mock boming runs over Cyprus for
weeks.
>>The Christian Cypriots expected an immanent attack under Turkish air
>>cover so they took action to defend themselfes from such an attak.
>>
>
>I do not think much of defense related things were done.
>
>>The Turkish Air force was ordered to intimidate until either the
>>Christian Cypriot fascists fired first or D Day (December 25) which
was
>>unknown to all but Turkey.
>
>well, they did *attack* before Turkey striked right? This is the
>trouble. Turkey may have provocated. And she indeed did that.
>But that is not an excuse for attacking other civilians. That
>is why I do not accept your reasoning on this issue. Do you
>see the point?
>
I see the point, and you know what protective measures agaist Tureky I
think should have been taken..
>>>I tell it :). so what? Can you tell the same to RoC? or you
>>>like double standarts?
>>>
>>Is you that have double Standards. Turkey has been arming itself for
>>decades and you expect Cyprus to sit there unarmed.
>>
>>Go and tell Turkey to reduce its arms to the same level as Cyprus
first.
>>
>
>No there is no double standart in this. Turkey & RoC should not
>arm. They should demilitarise the island. That is all about it.
>I do not buy the argument about the usual arms race. Turkey arming
>is not a reason for RoC to arm like that, and vice versa.
You know my view.
>Certainly not the way both parties are arming themselves.
>No one should have right to play such games about our lives ..
>i.e Cypriot lives.
>
Who is selling the Arms to Turkey and Greece. The Dictator makes,
America. How about some action in the Senate and in the Ballot Box in 3
years. Wonky willy Clinton is a complete asshole. This is the year of
Cyprus 1996. This is the year of Cyprus 1997. And now, This is the Year
of Cyprus 1998. 1999. 2000. 2001 Clinton wont be there.
>
>>I dont care about General Grivas.
>>
>>The supporters of EOKA wanted independence from the British.
>>
>>What Grivas wanted he didnt get.
>
>Actually I care about Grivas. and I think we should care about
>him. He created, controlled EOKA and controlled it with a strong grip.
>That discredit on EOKA and its aims. similar to your logic
>about having a murderered minister and totally discrediting
>TRNC because of that. EOKA had a fashist, murderer and what
>not leader. I also do not agree with methods of EOKA.
>
>>I do not Class Denktash as a Cypriot. He wants to be a citizen of a
>>Greater Turkey. Hes a Turk.
>
>It does not matter what he wants. May be he is like Grivas,
>who lived for so long in Greece, formed armies in Greece,
>fought there etc, and suddenly begun claiming how much
>he loved Cyprus. Denktash certainly is much better than that.
>I give him credit on this. He is a Cypriot. He lives in cyprus.
>He does a lot of things which are bad in my view, but
>may be good in his view for Cyprus.
>
Denktah hates the Muslim Cypriots as much as he hates the Greeks.
>>Cyprus is Greek. It does not have to be Governed by Greece to be
Greek.
>
>
>anyways, I 'll cut the endless loop here. we are back to the
>begining. You are skipping the criteria you listed to be
>Greek or Turk etc. we had enough of racism.
>
>>
>>In fact I will go so far as to say that most so called Turks that are
>>not Kurds are realy Greeks.
>
>what is so special about Kurds?
The Kursd are Persianoid
>People who live in Hatay, who are quite close to Syrians are
>also Greeks?
They are Greeks. It says so in the Bible. Read Acts and look for
Antioch.
>What about "cerkez" people?
>What about Checen's living in Turkey?
>What about Ozbeks?
>What about Kazaks?
>
Minoities turkey will soner or later Ex-ter-min-ate.
>>>so how long back in history does your claim about "the region was"
>>>Greek go?
>>>
>>Over 10,000 years.
>>
>
>what about before then?
>
No one there. No Archeological record hasd been found proving any
civilisation before ~10,000 years in Greece all of it). Just your basic
Homo Sapiens.
Agamemnon
>Turgut
Turgut Durduran
In article <6413ju$ags$3...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>him being a minister. I haven't ranked things in an
>>order of importance. When talking about him being a minister
>>(and he was a minister several times before he played
>>part in Solomou's murder BTW!) , the fact that he is from
>>Turkey makes quite bit of a difference.
>>
>
>The fact that he is a murderer is completely Discredits the Danktash
>regime.
Sure it does. But there are quite few other things to
discredit that anyways. But could you still explain me
the logic that you use when you make the conclusions
that you make that I quoted in the previous message?
>I sat through over Six hours of coverage of the handover ceremony on the
>BBC and if you ask them for a transcript of the commentary you will find
>what have said about the Hong Kong immigrants brought in by Britain, and
>Chinas response is true.
:) .. ok, another misundertanding. I am not refering to Hong Kong
or China. The stuff about 'I saq it in the Chinese TV' was
he just an ironic comment about your logic.
> ...
>>Have you look at the births marriages etc records? or
>>do you know someone who did? Did he/she write a book? Article
>>or something about this? How do you know this?
Remember this question. what happened to that?
>
>SEE MY OTHER OTHER POST
I did not see this about British important ones.
>
>>Also, why were they illegal? who decided they were illegal?
>
>They were brought in by an occupying regime, of-cause they were illegal.
No Britain was not occupying Cyprus at that time. They
anexxed it to Britain during WWI and for all the practical
matters of that time they owned it.
Legality is not one of the dream issues that you talk about.
Just because Britain was not a Cypriot regime, it doe snot
make anything they do illegal.
>During this period after Denktash and co walked out of the government.
>Makarios produced an economic miracle.
>
>Without Turkish interference in the Budget, Cyprus was on the way to
>becoming the most properous nation in Europe (as it is now since it was
>the first to meet the Maastricht Criteria) and on the way to making an
>application to become a full member of the EEC.
>
>The Cypriots became more prosperous the standard of living improved,
>Cyprus was on its way to prosperity. But was Turkey prepared to accept a
>prosperous Cyprus that could defend itself, was America.
>
>A minority of Turkish fascists wernt going to let Cyprus prosper under
>"Greek" Cypriot majority rule so they incited violence between the
>remaining Greek fascists that were almost eliminated by the prosperity,
>and the Muslim Cypriots, by bombing their own people, to provoke
>reprisals. Denktash admitted to this on Television in a Channel 4
>documentery on the missing persons and I have the Video Tape.
>
>The Turkish invasion finally Destroyed this economic miracle and set
>Cyprus back nearly two decades.
>
ok.. the question was:
************************
>>>Makarios did everyting he podsibley could, short of Nuking Turkey and
>>>that would have been the only solution because Turkey was not prepared
>>>to take anything other than the concession of Cyprus to Turkey.
>>
>>What did he do?
>>So far you haven't told us anything that he did in that period.
>>you mentioned ammendments proposal which happened *before*
>>that period, and the acceptance of a federation which happened
>>*after* that period.
>
*************
I do not see how the economic miracle, and the reasons
why it was in trouble explain that. Could you be
more explanatory?
>
>The Constitution was in violation of the UN Charter and therefore
>illegal (see my earlier posts). Denktash and co violated the
>Constitution by withdrawing from the Government. Turkey violated the
>Constitution be unilateral action and air raids on Cyprus that were on
>even discussed with Greece and Britain and were a violation of Article 2
>Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter.
>
so? Makarios was still the president. He *did* not change
the constitution (hetried) constituion was perfectly legal.
If someone violates the constition that does not give
right to anyone else to violate the constition so the
question for you is still:
****************
>>Why not? Makarios claimed to be the president of *all* Cypriots.
>>You have been claiming that he wanted to bring peace, and
>>he did all he could. But so far you have no examples.
>>how could one be a president of a country, accept half of
>>his government go away, break his constitution, let 18%of his
*****************
>>population live in enclaves, constantly harras them, do not
>
>Denktash and the TMT created the enclaves.
>
so? They were still RoC citizens, and it was RoC's duty
to take care of them. If I go out and set-up enclaves
and stick in people all over the place and let them
live miserably, the local govt will come and start
taking measures against me.
>>go against fachist terorists who take these actions against
>>the minority and be considered "normal".
>>
>Makarios reformed the economy and those that were not fascists
>benefited. In due course the fascists would have seen sense and joined
>the rest of the population
>
Reforming economy is one of the ways of trying to improve
the situation in a civil war situation. But it definitely
does not substitute goind against, chasing, arresting,
punishing etc terorist groups. The question still stands.
>Im researching it. I will post an article when ready
>
ok :)
>Again the Turkish air force flew mock boming runs over Cyprus for weeks.
>The Christian Cypriots expected an immanent attack under Turkish air
>cover so they took action to defend themselfes from such an attak.
>
I do not think much of defense related things were done.
>The Turkish Air force was ordered to intimidate until either the
>Christian Cypriot fascists fired first or D Day (December 25) which was
>unknown to all but Turkey.
well, they did *attack* before Turkey striked right? This is the
trouble. Turkey may have provocated. And she indeed did that.
But that is not an excuse for attacking other civilians. That
is why I do not accept your reasoning on this issue. Do you
see the point?
>>I tell it :). so what? Can you tell the same to RoC? or you
>>like double standarts?
>>
>Is you that have double Standards. Turkey has been arming itself for
>decades and you expect Cyprus to sit there unarmed.
>
>Go and tell Turkey to reduce its arms to the same level as Cyprus first.
>
No there is no double standart in this. Turkey & RoC should not
arm. They should demilitarise the island. That is all about it.
I do not buy the argument about the usual arms race. Turkey arming
is not a reason for RoC to arm like that, and vice versa.
Certainly not the way both parties are arming themselves.
No one should have right to play such games about our lives ..
i.e Cypriot lives.
>I dont care about General Grivas.
>
>The supporters of EOKA wanted independence from the British.
>
>What Grivas wanted he didnt get.
Actually I care about Grivas. and I think we should care about
him. He created, controlled EOKA and controlled it with a strong grip.
That discredit on EOKA and its aims. similar to your logic
about having a murderered minister and totally discrediting
TRNC because of that. EOKA had a fashist, murderer and what
not leader. I also do not agree with methods of EOKA.
>I do not Class Denktash as a Cypriot. He wants to be a citizen of a
>Greater Turkey. Hes a Turk.
It does not matter what he wants. May be he is like Grivas,
who lived for so long in Greece, formed armies in Greece,
fought there etc, and suddenly begun claiming how much
he loved Cyprus. Denktash certainly is much better than that.
I give him credit on this. He is a Cypriot. He lives in cyprus.
He does a lot of things which are bad in my view, but
may be good in his view for Cyprus.
>Cyprus is Greek. It does not have to be Governed by Greece to be Greek.
anyways, I 'll cut the endless loop here. we are back to the
begining. You are skipping the criteria you listed to be
Greek or Turk etc. we had enough of racism.
>
>In fact I will go so far as to say that most so called Turks that are
>not Kurds are realy Greeks.
what is so special about Kurds?
People who live in Hatay, who are quite close to Syrians are
also Greeks?
What about "cerkez" people?
What about Checen's living in Turkey?
What about Ozbeks?
What about Kazaks?
>>so how long back in history does your claim about "the region was"
>>Greek go?
>>
>Over 10,000 years.
>
what about before then?
Turgut
Turgut Durduran
In article <6429ai$h...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
RACER <MX-R...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>It's nice and all but if it was not divided into two, you would not have
>any country at all.
Why so?
BTW, Agammenon's story about denktash being Yorgadis spy is
apparently an old one. Told by several other ex-TMT people like
Arif Hasan Tahsin. There has been no other backing other than
the 'yes I am' words from the conversation reported.
Turgut
Turgut Durduran
In article <642iir$moi$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
>The fact thet he is a Turkish import makes gives him no right to govern
>in Cyprus. The fact that he is a murderer gives him no right to govern
>anywhere, not even in Turkey. And going by his loutish behaviour before
>the murder of Solomou he should have been called to the "bar of the
>house" by the "speaker" and expelled years ago.
ok, you know we agreed on this issue a while ago :) My question
was why you came up with the idea that I am saying that he is
a murderer is a minor issue etc. I was not saying that. anyways,
I guess we can move on from this point.
>This is what I have heard from people living in Cyprus at the time. We
>arnt all authors. And where do you think authors get their material
>from. They talk to people who where there. The fact that the Bithish had
>a polict throught the empire of importig foreigners to control the
>indigenous people, which even extended to the import (leagal this time)
>of Jamaicans and Asians to Britain in the1950's to control the masses
>and create a new undreclass, compounds the evidence.
Sure we are not all authors. Neither I want to be one. But
you told me go and take a look at the marriage records etc and
that I'll see names that come out from nowhere. You must
have some reason to believe that I'll see that. More than
just hearing things from people. The claim of the British importing
a lot of mainland turks is a big one. and if it exists, I am quite
sure that it should be documented, commented about etc in books,
articles research materials etc. Personally I believe I read
a lot about Cyprus and I never seen that claim laid out. So
that is why I am asking.
>The British did not own Cyprus. The Cypriots own Cyprus. Britain was an
>illegal occupier in over 50 countries. If the UN Charter had been around
>when Britain started its colonisation it would have been convicted of
>violation after violation. The fact there wasn't a "UN" does not justify
>Britains actions, they were still illegal in common law.
You are being over idealistic. Whatever was around during those
times defined the legality of the events of that time. Take a
look at the Hong Kong handover, that you watched in TV. When was
that deal made? Why was it still a legal deal? Why can Greece
and Turkey lay claims over some goat-house islands in the Aegean?
These are all based on the legalities of agreements, and events
of that period. British *owned* Cyprus at that time, and whoever
they brought in was legal. may be you can argue it was wrong,
immoral, unfair, etc etc. but you have very little to
talk about their legality.
>The reason why the economy was in trouble was due to Denktash and co's
>repeated vetoing of the Budget. the financial crisis caused public
>unrest like all economic crises. Makisios cured the economy and reduced
>to unrest.
>
>Are you a capitalist or a Communist. The whole ethos of Capitalism is
>that free enterprise brings peace.
Which we all know that it is bulshit.. Your beloved US (you seem
to hate US a lot. you keep shouting at it) is the mother of capitalism.
Is she bringing peace ?
Let's say I am neither capitalist or communist. I am a leftist
though.
Economy was in trouble, there were many reasons.. There was
a civil war. Denktash & Co (actually Kucuk & co would be more
relevant here as I pointed out to you earlier) had nothing
to do with RoC govt after 1963..
Curing economy is only a possible one step for ending a civil war.
However, obviously Makarios was not giving anything out of this
miracle-cake to T/C population that was living in the enclaves.
If you still claim he did everything he could possibly do, you
should show more substantial moves.
>Makarios was an idiot. Not my words but my Grandfaters (who knew
>Makarios)quoted via my Dad sort off.
>
>He proved his stupidity by sitting around and letting Turkey do what it
>pleased. My words.
ok.I thought you said he did a lot of things, including that
economy miracle, and all those steps for peace. Are you taking
those claims back? I do not think he was an idiot. But
rather he was not as 'angelic' as you like to talk about him.
He did co-operate with the fashist groups. He just was not
as much of a fashist himself so he would not get to enosis
etc by going around killing people.
>You are ignoting the fact thet Turkey was poised and ready to attack
>Cyprus at any excuse. The enclaves were another provocation.
>
>Makarios should have armed Cyprus and made allies with Turkeys enemies
>in-order to protect Cyprus, then he could have dealt with Denktash and
>co.
Makarios should have protected his citizens .. he should have
ensured their security. He should have arrested all the
fashist groups in Cyprus. He should have re-created the
dead baby, i.e RoC. He should have told Turkey & Greece to
hell. He should have been more brave. etc etc etc etc.
BTW, arming Cyprus, making alies with the 'enemy of my enemy'
is a very backward reasoning. Kinda like what is happening
in Cyprus now with both sides. it just creates a big
arms race, and ready-to-fight countries. and a devastating
war if it happens. It never brings peace.
>Who is selling the Arms to Turkey and Greece. The Dictator makes,
>America. How about some action in the Senate and in the Ballot Box in 3
>years. Wonky willy Clinton is a complete asshole. This is the year of
>Cyprus 1996. This is the year of Cyprus 1997. And now, This is the Year
>of Cyprus 1998. 1999. 2000. 2001 Clinton wont be there.
qofcourse, we seem to agree that Uncle Sam still likes to play
with people's lives. long-live capitalism :)
You think it matters whether Clinton is there or somebody else
is there? not really.
>
>Denktah hates the Muslim Cypriots as much as he hates the Greeks.
I doubt that.
>
>They are Greeks. It says so in the Bible. Read Acts and look for
>Antioch.
ohh come on.. such a reliable source.. should I also start
believing in heaven and hell because bible says so? and all the
rest of the fairy tales there?
I respect everyone and their religious beliefs. I respect
bible, koran, veda's etc etc. But I do not respect them
as sources of historical reference for this type of
issues. Sorry..
>
>>What about "cerkez" people?
>>What about Checen's living in Turkey?
>>What about Ozbeks?
>>What about Kazaks?
>>
>Minoities turkey will soner or later Ex-ter-min-ate.
>
so .. are those people Greeks?
Are Ozbeks and Kazaks minorities in Turkey?
Be more careful with your statements.
some more racism skipped at the end.
Turgut
georgios Sidiropoulos
Turgut Durduran wrote:
> Agamemnon is left.
Smart Turk
Agamemnon
georgios Sidiropoulos wrote in message
<643voe$r...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>Turgut Durduran wrote:
>
>> Agamemnon is left.
>
>
>Smart Turk
Agamemnon is Actually Social Democrat, which in the UK puts me to the
left of newLabour.
Agamemnon
Nikos Sarantakos
>The Turks were never a nation. See my earlier post for the
definition.
>
They came with nothing and left nothing, no culture, nothing.
----------
Unfortunately, some fellow Greeks think it is up to them to
decide who is worthy of being deemed a nation, which
culture is worthy and which is not, what name should
other countries adopt, whether a language will be
deemed a language or a dialect, etc.
Turks have left their mark in Greece. It is true that we could do
without them :-) but it is comic to deny their culture and
influence.
Nikos Sarantakos
Nikos Sarantakos
On 7 Nov 1997 01:22:53 GMT, durd...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Turgut
Durduran) wrote:
>
>Well , they actually did quite heavily.. During the EOKA period.. And
>afterwards. AKEL was under heavy pressure, a lot of violence was
>taking against it etc etc. I meant to say 'nationalists' (for me
>there is very little difference between the fashists, shovenists, and
>nationalists). The dominating atmosphere , the rhetoric, and the
>actions were quite fashistic (or nationalistic). AKEL still gets
>a quite high percentage,but still you can see the heavy influence, and
>dominance of extreme nationalism among G/C's. They are
>incapable of, or not willing, to get rid of even a small mob at
>the border not allowing people to cross back and forth. Argue,
>push around the police etc. because of the political ïpressure!
I am not so sure as to the dominance of extreme nationalism among
G/Cs. In various Greek and Cypriot forums I see shrill voices
raised against 'epanaproseggistes' (partisans of a re-approachment of
the two communities), so I presume that there have to be a lot of
them.
But in any case, I was fascinated by the views of both of you here and
the sober way of conversing. Seems to me a good idea...
Nikos Sarantakos
.
RACER
Turgut Durduran wrote:
>
> In article <6429ai$h...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> RACER <MX-R...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >any country at all.
>
Why so? Simply because 450K greek cypriots were going to eat 150K Turks
alive while Brits were watching with great pleasure. Let's face it
Greeks would never overcome their sense of insecurity and inferiority
against Turks and will show it whenever they think they have the
upperhand.
Turgut Durduran
In article <34662d82...@news.innet.lu>,
Nikos Sarantakos <sar...@innet.lu> wrote:
>
>I am not so sure as to the dominance of extreme nationalism among
>G/Cs. In various Greek and Cypriot forums I see shrill voices
>raised against 'epanaproseggistes' (partisans of a re-approachment of
>the two communities), so I presume that there have to be a lot of
>them.
>
Unfortunately, they are not as strong as we would like them to be.
I know many many G/C's that would be labeled as such. I guess
I could even claim I am friends with many that are 'top' (whatever
that means!) in those ranks. Both in North and South our voices
are quite heavily supressed, and we are working against it. One of
the means, is to increase the amount of let's say 'progressive' media.
If you wonder why I used quotes for 'top' and 'progressive' , just
like I do not like the labels posed by the 'others' on us, I do not
like the ones we tend to give to ourselves.
>But in any case, I was fascinated by the views of both of you here and
>the sober way of conversing. Seems to me a good idea...
>
>Nikos Sarantakos
I would like to hear more people's views aswell :) What do you
think of this issues? :)
Regards,
Turgut
Turgut Durduran
In article <645blp$o...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
RACER <MX-R...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Why so? Simply because 450K greek cypriots were going to eat 150K Turks
>alive while Brits were watching with great pleasure. Let's face it
>Greeks would never overcome their sense of insecurity and inferiority
>against Turks and will show it whenever they think they have the
>upperhand.
I haven't seen any G/C eating anyone so far. Except from eating
delicious 'seftali kebab' (you probably have no clue what it is :)).
why do you think they have an 'inferiority'? specially when
many claim 'superiority' over us!
I do not think they are unjustified if they feel insecure though.
specially when there is constant talk of war and arming going
on.
Turgut
Turgut Durduran
In article <644av2$8hu$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Agamemnon is left.
>>
>>
>>Smart Turk
>
>Agamemnon is Actually Social Democrat, which in the UK puts me to the
>left of newLabour.
>
>Agamemnon
>
Good for you :) How much left of New labour? As much as to
read socialist worker? no?
Turgut
PS: BTW, for that person who answered before you did. He should learn
how to understand ironies.
Agamemnon
Turgut Durduran wrote in message <644qol$1ko$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>In article <644av2$8hu$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
>Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Agamemnon is left.
>>>
>>>
>>>Smart Turk
>>
>>Agamemnon is Actually Social Democrat, which in the UK puts me to the
>>left of newLabour.
>>
>>Agamemnon
>>
>
>
>Good for you :) How much left of New labour? As much as to
>read socialist worker? no?
>
Not that far.
Agamemnon
Armin Forker
Agamemnon (argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk) wrote:
: Cyprus is Greek. It does not have to be Governed by Greece to be Greek.
: Greeks are people united by a common Cultural heritage.
: In fact I will go so far as to say that most so called Turks that are
: not Kurds are realy Greeks.
Hey, this is the mental solution for Greek nationalists:
Set Turkey = Greece
and befriend them.
Honestly, for me as a foreigner there is no real difference between Turkey
and Greece: both exclusively construct buildings using concrete frames
filled up with brick (hence the towns look the same), their folk music and
costumes are indistinguishable. Old women wear black full body bags; both
peoples are very patriarchalistic - old men have all the power.
Maybe because of their similarity they hate each other so much.
It is hard to see a trace of Hellenic culture in Greece as well as
Turkey today (apart from buildings and ruins). Monotheistic religions have
ruined Hellenisic philosophy. Justinian already closed the last school of
philosophy. The Byzantine imperium had very little in common with
ancient Greece.
: >:) you seem to have shutdown understanding and memory mode again.
: >Remember we were talking about who destroyed Byzantine, what
: >Ottomans got out of it etc.
: >
: >so how long back in history does your claim about "the region was"
: >Greek go?
: >
: Over 10,000 years.
As far as I remember the Greek invaded Cyprus not sooner than about
2500 B.C. (+/-1000 years).
They adopted Aphrodite from the local people (who apparently were much
more sexually liberal than Greeks would ever be) and made her a
goddess within the Greek pantheon to make the assimilation of the locals
easier.
--
........................................................
Armin Forker, 51580 Dorn [Rheinland]
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5313/contact.htm
........................................................
Agamemnon
Turgut Durduran wrote in message <64752e$btk$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>In article <646beg$plf$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
>Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Good for you :) How much left of New labour? As much as to
>>>read socialist worker? no?
>>>
>>
>>Not that far.
>>
>>Agamemnon
>
>In any case, judging from your rhetoric, and your homepage,
>you do not sound to be left of newlabour even. What up with
>all that 'nationalist' pages, military forces etc.
>
Return Links (that whats usually expected if someone links to your
page). And in any case there is some interesting Information on those
pages.
>Turgut
Have you seen newLabour lately.
Theyre covering themselves from head to toe in the Union Jack.
In the election campaign they associated themselves in a PPB with the
British Bulldog, usually considered as nationalistic symbol and
associated with Winston Churchill.
And now every time a minister is interviewed, hes sitting infront of a
Royal Coat of Arms or a Union Jack.
And who said that nationalism was exclusively right wing. NAZI stands
for National Socialist Party.
Agamemnon
Agamemnon
Akin on Interpol's list
According to KIBRIS (10.11.97) the so-called minister of agriculture and
forestry of the pseudostate Kenan Akin, is afraid of leaving the
occupied area for fear of arrest by Interpol.
Kenan Akin and the so-called commander of the rapid deployment force of
the pseudostate Ertan Emanet are on Interpol's list for their part in
the cold- blooded killing of Solomos Solomou in Dherinia.
KIBRIS says that Kenan Akin is on Interpol's red bulletin. In an
interview to Turkish daily SABAH, reports KIBRIS, Akin said: "I did not
do it. I was not there. If I had been there I would have done the same
thing. I wish I had done this honourable action. I wish I had the honour
of doing it. One has to kiss the land that pulled the trigger".
Akin went on and said:: "Shame on Turkey's Interpol.
This is tantamount to executing someone without trial. With the
one-sided application of the Greek Cypriot side we have been included on
the red bulletin. The Greek Cypriots doctored the picture. Turkey should
have done something on this issue.
Unfortunately it did not!"
Meanwhile, the head of the Interpol's Turkish branch, Ihsan Yilmazturk,
has said that they have protested Interpol's stance to the General
Secretariat of Interpol. He alleged that the arrest warrant issued by
Interpol is against the accepted procedures.
KIBRIS says that in the face of Interpol's arrest warrants, Akin's and
Emanet's leaving the occupied area is prohibited.
--------------------------------
MAINLAND PSEUDO-MINISTER ADMITS HE CANNOT TOLERATE TURKISH CYPRIOT
WORKERS
YENIDUZEN (18/2/97) reports under the banner headlines "Racism - This
kind" and says that the so-called Minister of Agriculture of the pseudo
state, mainland Turk, Kenan Akin, who is one of the assassins of Solomos
Solomou, said he could never tolerate Turkish Cypriot workers and that
within a month he had dismissed seven Turkish Cypriot workers and
replaced them with mainland Turks.
He even said he cannot tolerate Turkish Cypriot cleaners. The paper says
that Akin's actions were criticized at the pseudo-Assembly and he was
accused of racism.
---------------------------------
Cyprus reveals Turkish killers
Nicosia, Sep 10 1996 (CNA) -- The Cyprus government revealed today the
identities of two of the killers of 26-year-old Greek Cypriot Solomos
Solomou, who was murdered by the Turks, on August 14, during a peaceful
anti-occupation demonstration, in the UN-controlled buffer zone, in
Dherynia.
They are Kenan Akin, from Turkey, the so-called minister of agriculture,
forests and energy of the illegal occupation regime, and Erdal Emanet,
from Turkey, the commander of the regime's special forces.
Government Spokesman Yiannakis Cassoulides said investigations into the
identities of the other killers, who were seen live on Cyprus television
channels to open fire at Solomou continue.
The Spokesman said the identities of the two killers confirmed that the
perpetrators were not Cypriots but from Turkey.
''This confirms our firm position that our conflict is not with the
Turkish Cypriots,'' Cassoulides said.
He added ''whatever developments we have... the fervent desire of the
Cyprus government and the Cyprus people, as a whole, is to find a
peaceful political solution to the Cyprus problem.''
The Cypriot official stressed that the need for a political settlement,
reconciliation between the two communities (Greek and Turkish Cypriot)
and peace on the island, ''remains the corner stone of our policy''.
Presenting pictures to the journalists showing Akin aiming at Solomou
with his pistol from a balcony overlooking the scene where Solomou was
murdered, Cassoulides said there is no doubt that Akin was involved in
the murder.
Standing on the same balcony were the then Commander of the Turkish
occupation forces, Lieutenant General Hassan Kundaci, the Commander of
the 28th division of the occupation army, Major General Mehmet Karli,
and the Chief of the so-called Turkish Cypriot police Attila Saab.
Cassoulides said Akin was born in Adana, Turkey, on January 20, 1953. In
1974 he took part in the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.
Since then he settled in the Turkish-occupied areas. He became a
so-called deputy of the Turkish settlers' ''Rebirth Party''.
In 1991 he was elected general secretary of the party. Later his party
was merged with the Democratic Party, which is headed today by
Denktash's son Serdar.
A few days after the murder of the Greek Cypriot youth, Akin was
appointed so-called minister of agriculture, forests and energy of the
Turkish occupation regime, which is recognised only by Turkey.
In 1986, Akin attacked a so-called policeman and in 1987 a Turkish
Cypriot lawyer. While in the illegal assembly, he attacked the New
Cyprus party leader Albay Durduran.
---------------------------------
Mihalis Panagiotakis
Well... I see that everybody has been quite busy over the Weekend..!
Let me try to jump into this discussion (again!)
Armin Forker wrote:
> : > In the case of the British in our century I dare say that they needn't to
> : > be attacked with bombs and ambushes. They were civilized enough to accept
> : > political pressure. Malta gained independence a few years after Cyprus
> : > without a shot fired.
>
> : Well that's all easy to say AFTER the fact. At that time I think it
> : wasn't at all obvious that this would be the case. Look at Ireland
> : do you think that the British would of just left (this century) if the
> : opposition to their rule was not armed? I don't think so.
>
> Well, even in England the old days of imperialism faded. Sooner or later
> they would have had difficulties to justify their presence when in
> elections it became evident that a majority wished them to go.
> I can't remember any case of suppression of independence movements by the
> British coming close to that of France (Algeria) or Portugal (Angola
> etc.), not after WWII at least.
While it is true that the British usually avoided violent
confrontations
and campaign of extermination/deculturalization (what a word...!)in most
cases
(see Ireland and the Opium wars for counterexamples though) I very much
disagree
about the Brits being realy good chaps about it and leaving their
colonies
through political pressure. It seems incredible to me to think that
Brittain would
have ever left Ireland if it wasn't for the fact that the continuing
ARMED uprisings of the Irish made continuing the occupation a financial
and political
nightmare.
>
> Of course it is very speculative, but my guess would be that the Greek
> Cypriots did not stand that united behind the independence movement when
> the struggle began.
I think that the G/C were pretty much united on that...
> So the Greek fighters had to invoke nationalism by stirring up hatred
> against British and Turkish cypriots alike.
I might be completely wrong on this (I'd like to hear Turgut's
viewpoint) but
as far as I know EOKA did not stirr hatred against Turkish Cypriots to
begin with.
> It is well known that nothing unites better than a common enemy.
> (Out of this analogy I compared Grivas, Milosevic and Hitler.)
>
> As far as I could see the British did a lot for the development of the
> country. Even the most remote village has a fresh water supply with the
> words 'ER' (Elizabeth Regina) on it.
Well yes... and by the 1950's every Greek village had a fresh water
fountain
made by the Greek gvnt. That hardly prooves anything...
>
> : I repeat, attacking occupying forces in your own country should NOT
> : be considered terrorism IMHO.
>
> In the case of Cyprus it's not that clear what a 'occupying force' is.
> In the time before national states became common it was possible to gain
> possession of a territory without asking the inhabitants.
> It was only later realized as something unjust.
Yes. And often the inhabitants would rise against their rulers...
>
> Besides, to say something provocative: Sometimes an imposed foreign power
> is better than a corrupt and/or ignorant local one.
> Cyprus might have been better off when the British colonial government
> had never left.
That's an interesting point. Let me point out that Nehru once did a
study
on the effects of British colonialism in India. He found out that the
prosperity of a region was in inverse proportion to the number of years
it had
been under Brittish control. The firt regoon to be colonized Bengal was
the
poorest. BEFORE the British came Bengal was the richest part of india,
depending
on a textile industry that produced top quality products. The brits
suppresed
this industry quickly realizing that these guys were producing better
and
cheaper products than the home-brittish industry. So they turned the
whole
area into a plantation, send the raw materials home and forced the
locals
to buy the finished product IMPORTED from Britain. The local economy was
ruined and the Brits made a tidy profit out of it...
>
> : > > No doubt after the military coup in Cyprus Turkey had a right to
> : > > intervene to protect the Turkish Cypriots. That this was not it's main
> : > > aim though was demonstrated by the refusal to remove it's troops AFTER
> : > > the coup failed. Indeed the invading Attila army advanced instead of
> : > > retreating.... There is no evidence that by 1974 Makarios had any wish
> : > > to "get rid of the turkish population".
> : >
> : > Makarios was in power from 1960 to 1974. He is directly responsible for
> : > not having taken clear steps to settle the conflict peacefully.
>
> : Makarios was in power after the junta collapsed in 1974 too.
>
> Well, yes, but then the damage was already done.
But you are assuming that the Turkish side WANTED this whole thing to
be settled
peacefully. That, I think, was not the case.
Makarios BTW was not the only player in this game, as I pointed out in
another
posting he had to keep internal G/C balances AND try to keep Cyprus
"nonaligned"
as well.
>
> : The role
> : of Makarios in the Cyprus issue is too complex for the present
> : discussion (I don't have that much time right now!). I'll just point
> : out that Makarios was supported by the Greek left and Center (in
> : Greece), and Grivas was always the Nationalists poster boy...
>
> What was missing was a charismatic politician who could promote internal
> peace (some Nelson Mandela). Apparently Yugoslavia has a similar problem
> today.
> An orthodox monk was right from the start not the best choice to play this
> role.
I most definitely do not believe in charismatic polititians. Mandela is
succesful
because he is the product of the anti-appartheid movement and gave a
voice to
the goals and ideals of this movement. Mandela would not have been there
if
thousands of South Africans hadn't given their lives in the struggle
against
the racist S.A. gvt.
It seems to me that the only reason Makarios failed was because the US
and their nationalist stooges in Greece and Turkey did not want him to
succeed.
>
> : > He was a man of church; his background was that of a very poor peasant
> : > family and of the life in the orthodox monastery. I think out of this
> : > background he was incapable of accepting muslims as Cypriot citizens with
> : > all rights (including special minority rights).
> : > Could it be that his job was too big for his abilities - and still he is
> : > hero number one for the Greek Cypriots
> : I disagree with your assesment of Makarios. It's, as I said, a big
> : issue, but I'll just state that in my opinion Makarios' downfall was due
> : to the fact that he actively courted the USSR and wanted to make
> : Cyprus a non-aligned country.
>
> Yes, he didn't see the real dangers. I wonder what made him turn away from
> the West. On the long term he should have seen that Western military
> presence might be uncomfortable but not as dangerous as being 'neutral' in
> a strategically important region. Being neutral could as well turn out to
> mean 'enemy to everyone' and 'easy prey', the more so with vital
> interests of two neighbouring local powers involved.
Well Makarios, I believe, did not see much point in changing one
colonial
regime for another. He obviously saw (and dissaproved) of the way Greece
was
run as an American protectorate, and also he had a huge local Communist
party
that would react (maybe even violently) to a US takeover of the island.
>
> : The USA did not take kindly to these
> : "extremist" (for the region) views and gave a green light for the
> : Turkish "intervention" in 1974... If Makarios just acceded to NATO and
> : American bases in the country and kept the communists at a safe dis-
> : tance from government (in jail preferably for the USA), than the
> : turkish intervention would never have been allowed...
>
> I think you are right. And I think he could have foreseen it.
>
> : > Please don't think that I approve this 'Realpolitik'. My statement was
> : > somewhat cynical.
> : > However, if two populations within one country have massacres every other
> : > year the overall saldo of human suffering is lower when they get separated
> : > in time. Of course this would mean a surrender of justice. But how much
> : > bloodshed is acceptable to maintain justice?
> : >
> : > Imagine: Cyprus gets reunited and immediately terrorist on both sides pop
> : > up and resume the killings. A baby in a bathtub here, a bombed bus there.
> : > Wouldn't the island be better of with two seperated territories and UN in
> : > the middle?
> : >
>
> : I might be an optimist here but I'm sure that these things can be
> : avoided if there is political will to avoid them.
>
> Yes, I agree. However, it only takes a very small minority to destroy a
> system that depends on the goodwill of all.
>
> If 99.9% of the Basques want to live in peace 0.1% of fanatical
> ETA-terrorists can destroy it, to give another example.
Not really. The only thing they can do is damage. They're rapidly
losing popular support and are turning into some sort of local mafia, as
far as I know.
>
> : > It is impossible to eliminate this danger and it requires a lot of
> : > civilizatory work to overcome it. It will never vanish completely, though:
> : > One serious economical crisis and very soon there will have to be someone
> : > who blame it on: those strange others.
> : >
> : > This has nothing to do with '19th century' politics - it is human nature.
> : > It has to be taken into account when thinking of solutions of quarrels
> : > between ethnies.
> : >
> : > > Finally, do you realize that the statement: "lasting peace demands
> : > > ethnic cleansing" can be used to justify Serb and Croat atrocities in
> : > > Bosnia? Indonesian atrocities in Timor? and that it can be used as
> : > > an argument by any blood crazed nationalist in defending massacres?
> : >
> : > No, I am not talking of massacres. 'Ethnic cleansings' would only make
> : > sense when they diminuish the balance of human pain.
> : > Think of an example: In Country A lives a well hated minority of Bs, in
> : > country B one of As. Instead of suffering they decide to swap - and peace
> : > is there ever after. Or: In country A lives the same minority of Bs - but
> : > there is no country B to turn to. Then it could be in favour of all when
> : > those B's received a territory of their own. You call it 'self
> : > determination'.
>
> : Well the problem with that is that usually only a small percentage of
> : a majority would actually take arms against a minority. Instead of
> : displacing inocents you can declare war on the aggressors. For
> : example in a unified Cyprus if any terrorist actions are taken by
> : any extremist Greeks against the Turkish Cypriots there should be
> : severe punishment of the terrorists with the support of the mainstream
> : GreekCypriot political parties.
>
> How can this be something to be expected when criticism (let alone legal
> prosecution) of members of the own group is regularly called 'treason'.
Well the Cypriot gvt. has maintained the position that it is the
Government
of ALL cypriots. The official languages of the R.o.C. remain two (Greek
and Turkish) and the University of Cyprus is bilingual. Sure there are
extremists but they do NOT set the tone for the government.
>
> Wouldn't have the Turkish Cypriots to fear that after reunification the
> executive forces of the country would turn a blind eye against Greek
> assailants - probably very similar to pre 1974?
> Then a 'peace implementation force', like in Bosnia would be needed. With
> other words: colonialism. Let the British come back (they have better
> things to do...)
>
I would argue that the Greek side would have a VERY strong motive to
keep
revanchism under control.
> ........................................................
> Armin Forker, 51580 Dorn [Rheinland]
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5313/contact.htm
> ........................................................
Michael Panagiotakis.
Mihalis Panagiotakis
Turgut Durduran wrote:
> =
> In article <63ujj1$e71$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
> Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Turgut Durduran wrote in message <63tqhd$r56$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
> >>In article <346231...@chem.fsu.edu>,
> >>dominance of extreme nationalism among G/C's. They are
> >>incapable of, or not willing, to get rid of even a small mob at
> >>the border not allowing people to cross back and forth. Argue,
> >>push around the police etc. because of the political =EFpressure!
> >>
> >>>
> >What!
> >
> >The peaceful refugees and relatives of the 1619 missing persons are
> >there to tell the tourists of what is going on in Occupied Cyprus. Aft=
er
> >hearing this mostly for the first time they choose not to support
> >Genocide.
> =
> 1) They are not peaceful.
> 2) I am not a tourist going to North. I am a *Cypriot* (that RoC
> claims I am a citizen of!) crossing to South. i.e moving within my cou=
ntry.
> 3) They break laws by not listening to the police. By pushing me (
> a citizen of RoC) around. Not letting me move around in my country.
> 4) They shout, scream slogans, and some nasty things at
> G/C's picking me up, and myself. (most of this appeared on TV
> btw!)
> =
> So before you repeat this type of standard rhetoric, try asking
> what I am talking about first. I have seen what they are doing
> this summer. The things I am refering above happened to me.
> For all I care, they are extreme nationalists, and are not
> supported by AKEL. The point I made in the previous
> message still stands correct.
> =
Wait! Turgut although you are right that attacks against your person
(and anybody
else for that matter) should have been stopped by the police, I find it
hard to
attribute the demonstrators fury to nationalism. They are the relatives
of people
killed or missing during the invasion. Surely you understand the
emotional
aspect of their reaction. What would you do if ,god forbid, a close
relative of
your's was murdered and the culprits were beyond any form of punishment.
Would you just sit back and do nothing. Although I disagree with any
acts
of violence these people may have commited, I can understand their pain
and
frustration. Don't you?
> >
> >Why dont you complain about the Turks not allowing refugees across the=
> >green line to return to their own land and homes. And the refusal of t=
he
> >Turks to allow the enclaved to have secondary education in the occupie=
d
> >areas and their refusal to allow the enclaved that have had to be
> >educated in the free areas, because of this to return.
> =
> What does this have to do with AKEL and its percentage?
> I can complain about a lot of things.. But if they are relevant
> to the issue.
> =
> Turgut
Turgut Durduran
In article <646beg$plf$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>Good for you :) How much left of New labour? As much as to
>>read socialist worker? no?
>>
>
>Not that far.
>
>Agamemnon
In any case, judging from your rhetoric, and your homepage,
you do not sound to be left of newlabour even. What up with
all that 'nationalist' pages, military forces etc.
Turgut
Mihalis Panagiotakis
Armin Forker wrote:
>
> Agamemnon (argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : Armin Forker wrote in message <63utf8$r...@news.rrz.Uni-Koeln.DE>...
>
> : >
> : >Some of you mention India or Ireland.
> : >Like in Cyprus the British faced the problem to give power to people
> : who
> : >were deeply infested with nationalism, with minorioties that couldn't
> : >expect anything good from it.
> : >In Ireland there were the loyalists (usually protestants) in India the
>
> : In Ireland the British created the loyalists by importing Scottish
> : Protestants.
>
> Why should England have had an interest to create a Northern Ireland
> problem?
> The protestants came over the centuries, many with the indutrialization of
> the Belfast region. Although I don't know for sure I am convinced that the
> British government did not *send* them there.
I think that Agamemnon is right, the protestants in Ireland were
settled there
by the british. Don't forget that in the North before the trouble in the
60's
Catholic Irish lived in ghettos and were the lower class. One could send
this
to soc.culture.irish and find out...(It would probably start a flame war
though:-))
>
> : In India the British tired to stamp out the Hindu Religion but failed to
> : Christianise the country so they let the Muslims Islamise it. The Lowest
> : Hindu caste the untouchables were segregated and became the first Indian
> : Muslims.
>
> Apart from power politics and trying to maintain control over the land:
> Much damage to old accustomed ways were imported with European ideals as
> equality, human rights and (not the least) nationalism.
> Every contact between civilizations creates winners and losers. You don't
> have to insinuate bad will all the time.
Here Agamemnon is wrong. Islam in India dates back to the Mongol
invasions and
Baber. Certainly by the time the brits came it was well established in
India
(and beyond... Indonesia is the most populous muslim nation).
But Armin YOU are assuming that India was some sort of barbaric
wasteland
brought to civilisation by the enlightened Europeans. Nothing could be
further
from the truth. India by the time the Europeans came had already 4000
years
of history behind it and it is (succesfully I think) being argued that
the
living conditions of it's textile industry workforce were far better
than those
of the British working class. As for equality and human rights, I think
that
Ghandi taught the west what it means to be civilized and not the other
way around.
>
> : >muslims and in Cyprus the Turks. After the terror already had started
> : it
>
> : The British created the divide by importing Turks and segregating the
> : Muslim and Christian Cypriots and educating them respectively with
> : Turkish and Greek nationalism.
>
> As far as I know the Turkish Cypriots came there as settlers over the
> centuries.
>
> : >would have been irresponsible behaviour if the British just had given
> : >power to at that time already somewhat fanatized Greeks and left the
> : >Turkish Cypriots at their mercy.
>
> : If the British had given Cyprus immediate independence with the Muslim
> : Cypriots only making up 12%, 6-8% of which were cryptochristians there
> : would have been no Cyprus problem.
>
> I assume in 1878 Cyprus was that backward (after 400 years of existence in
> the shadow of world history) that the country's population would have had
> difficulties to install a good government.
> And, of course, the time was not ripe for imperial powers to even consider
> 'natives' becoming independent.
The second point is valid the first is not. At that time noone would
talk about
independence anyway but rather union with Greece. Same as in my home
island
Crete, which before the population exchanges of 1923 had a 15% (?)
muslim
population. However the majority of the population (Christian) demanded
unification
with Greece and after many and bloody revolts against the Ottomans,
finaly succeded
in doing it before WWI.
>
> : Also in Africa the British created the poverty and wars by arbitreraly
> : drawing straight lines across a map and making each box a separate state
> : spitting tribes in half across borders and leaving some countries to
> : control the water supply other to control the agricultural land and
> : because of the ethnic hatred there was war and famine.
>
> There was also a lot of ignorance involved. Imagine you get control over a
> vast territory, whose natives apparently have no civilization, speak
> languages you don't understand, belong to tribes whose structures you
> don't understand. Without trying to justify anything it is nevertheless
> *understandable* that they thought borders were not that important as the
> governmental structure was new anyway.
Well that is simply not so. The British had a very good grasp of local
antagonisms
(created some of them themselves) and planned to play one country, or
tribe against
another so as to retain control of the region even after they moved out.
Also don't forget that the most recent case of inter-tribal hate
(Hutu-Tutsi, in
Ruanda) was reinforced and pushed to the extreme by the Belgians on
purpose
in order for them to be able to play one group against another. That's
enlightened
Europeans for you!
>
> Nationalism itself was hardly known at that time nor existed experience
> how easily or not easily other countries could adopt a social and
> political order which was generally accepted as superior at that time.
>
> : The British and
> : the other colonialists wanted a weak Africa and created one.
>
> They found a weak Africa, wanted to get a grip on its wealth, and, yes,
> made attempts to 'civilize' it. Other than other colonial powers they
> always attempted to base the local government on 'natives'.
> That's why formerly British colonies are still on average better off than
> formerly French, let alone Portuguese colonies.
And the Brits just before they left Ghana in the early sixties made
sure they
overmined the gold deposits to depletion JUST after they decided to
actually leave.
Other than that I'd argue that Senegal is better off than Nigeria f.e.
Also don't forget that the destruction of two of the Portugese colonies
was
an American achievement. In Angola the CIA (and South Africa) backed and
sustained
the Unita rebels to destabilize the legitimate Angolan gvt. because of
it's
socialist policies, East Timor was invaded with US blessings by
Indonesia and
the local population is being exterminated at an unparalleled rate
(20-25% of
the population dead through murder, disease and hardship.) It isn't
really
Portugal's fault (not that they were in any sense GOOD colonialists...)
>
> : In the middile east the British did much the same thing and put loyal
> : Dictators in place. thwer were nave an borders in Arabia befor the
> : British came.
>
> Yes - the concept of tribes and local rulers wasn't anything Europeans
> understood. Of course there were quickly locals who took the chance the
> British offered. The Saudis for example hoped to inherit the entire
> Arabian part of the Ottoman Empire in order to install their absolute
> monarchy over it (definitely not to bring free elections and other things
> we would consider valuable achievements).
But the Brits actively refused to talk to the democratic and secular
forces in
the region, much preffering to do buisness with local chieftains and
royals
whom they could and did control through bribery.
>
> : And now you know where the Dictator makers in the USA got their ideas
> : from.to wreck South America.
>
> Profit is their aim, not wreckage.
Yes but if wreckage is the price for profitmaking they encourage it.
> I agree that the policy of both the UK and USA have been very questionable
> in the past. Who has power will try to do what benefits him.
> National egoism is still the rule and considered as natural right - even
> in EU.
>
>
> --
Agamemnon
Turgut Durduran wrote in message <648i6s$58k$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>In article <6479mc$4ci$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
>Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Return Links (that whats usually expected if someone links to your
>>page). And in any case there is some interesting Information on those
>>pages.
>
>
>well, actually you may know that I link to eveywhere.
>sorry, correction, I used to, when I had time to update
>my homepage continously. But your page seems to have
>the general feel of being connected to nationalist pages.
>(along with Cyprus & Greece maps on the background, which
Which are there to show that Cyprus is one whole, irrespective of the
Turkish occupation.
>usually suggests a desire for Enosis)
Next you'll be saying that the EU wants Enosis.
>
>>
>>And who said that nationalism was exclusively right wing. NAZI stands
>>for National Socialist Party.
>
>
>well, and EDEK , Lysarides' party is a leftist party supposedly.
>But for all practical purposes, I consider those as 'leftist
>on the face' . do you get what I mean?
Yep.
>
Agamemnon
PS. Did you know that the Turkish embassy is Treating to sue my ISP "for
miss-representing the "TRNC"", and is now attempting to send me letters
from its solicitors.
Do they have a policy of booby-trapping their letters and how do I open
them without getting blown up.
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/argyros.argyrou/turkey
Turgut Durduran
In article <6479me$4ci$2...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>In 1986, Akin attacked a so-called policeman and in 1987 a Turkish
>Cypriot lawyer. While in the illegal assembly, he attacked the New
>Cyprus party leader Albay Durduran.
>---------------------------------
Actually, Al*p*ay Durduran, not Al*b*ay Durduran.. creates
confusion many many times as Albay means a colonel .
Turgut Durduran
Turgut Durduran
In article <3467D1...@chem.fsu.edu>,
Mihalis Panagiotakis <mih...@chem.fsu.edu> wrote:
> Wait! Turgut although you are right that attacks against your person
>(and anybody
>else for that matter) should have been stopped by the police, I find it
>hard to
>attribute the demonstrators fury to nationalism. They are the relatives
>of people
>killed or missing during the invasion. Surely you understand the
>emotional
>aspect of their reaction. What would you do if ,god forbid, a close
>relative of
>your's was murdered and the culprits were beyond any form of punishment.
>Would you just sit back and do nothing. Although I disagree with any
>acts
>of violence these people may have commited, I can understand their pain
>and
>frustration. Don't you?
I understand their pain, their frustration, what they are going through.
But that does not mean that this particular crowd is not a nationalist
one. Reasons:
1) First of all being in that situation does not make you automatically
a nationalist. Just to clarify so that you won't think I am putting
people in that basket based on generalisations. I have known a lot
of G/C's and T/C's in that situation who are not nationalists. Many
are actually peace-makers.
2) The booklets, the other materials they distribute, what they all us
suggest they are nationalists. First of all they like arguing a lot
about whether T/C's are Cypriots, Turks, G/C's etc etc. i.e they
are racists. They do a lot of rhetoric about joining motherland greece,
this and that. Quite a lot of talk about taking things
back by war whenever the time comes etc.
3) Their supporters are nationalist groups. Specially DISY, DIKO
style ones. (more right wing side of it)
4) This is what leftists in south call them :) (bad argument right ;)
5) They did not treat T/c's nicely at all.
Do you think I am justified based on these?
actually, the usual border demonstraing crowd is not a really
big group anyways. just a lot of influence.
Turgut
Agamemnon
Turgut Durduran wrote in message <648r8r$98t$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>In article <648org$ivq$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
>Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Which are there to show that Cyprus is one whole, irrespective of the
>>Turkish occupation.
>
>Why is map of greece there ?
>this reasoning does not explain that right?
>
The Title of the page is "The Cyprus and Hellenic Index"
Cyprus and Greece. Map of Cyprus, Map of Greece. Culture of
Cyprus=Culture of Greece.
Where on my pages do I mention supporting Enosis.
>(btw, nothing wrong with having a map of Greece, but *usually*
>people who want enosis, etc use that symbolism. That is
>why I am asking you these.)
>
Why do I want Enosis when if Cyprus joins the EU, Greece and Cyprus will
have two votes between them, and an Extra EU commissioner. And why
should Cyprus ruin its economy by joining Greece. Ancient Greece was
made up of separate independent City States, but the people were still
Greek and there was a Greek national Identity. Two or more Greek States
which can cooperate are more powerful than one.
Agamemnon
Agamemnon
Turgut Durduran wrote in message <6492un$hhe$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>In article <6491l4$keq$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
>Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>The Title of the page is "The Cyprus and Hellenic Index"
>
>understood.
>
>>
>>Cyprus and Greece. Map of Cyprus, Map of Greece.
>
>understood.
>
>>Culture of
>>Cyprus=Culture of Greece.
>>
In General:
Same language (Cyprus dialect is closer to ancient Greek than modern
Greek is)
Same ancient Gods.
Same food
Same style of Music
>
>no understood :)
>not agreed.
>have you ever eaten seftalia in Greece?
>
Who invented the Fez: The Greeks
Who invented the Turban: The Greeks
Greek Delight not Turkish Delight
Greek Coffee not Turkish Coffee
Most things that you think are Turkish are actually Greek.
The ottomans brought no culture with them so they adopted other peoples
culture. The took Islam from the Arabs and almost everything else from
the Greeks.
>
>Greek culture <> Culture of Greece.
Greek Culture is the Culture of all of Greeces inhabitents.
>Greek cultuer = culture of Greeks.
That sounds racist.
Greek Culture = Culture of Greeks, Arabs, Italians, Muslims, Christians,
Blacks Whites living in Greece.
Have you heard any Greek Music lately. Theres influences form Rock,
Reggae, Arabic, Italian and Latin music.
>
>>Where on my pages do I mention supporting Enosis.
>>
>
>well, sometimes I like to try the usual 'hmmm, he says "x"
>so he must be also "y". like all the others saying "x"' logic.
>Remember you were telling me quite a few things that I "support",
>without ever me telling those. similar logic eh :)
>
>>Why do I want Enosis when if Cyprus joins the EU, Greece and Cyprus
will
>>have two votes between them, and an Extra EU commissioner. And why
>>should Cyprus ruin its economy by joining Greece. Ancient Greece was
>>made up of separate independent City States, but the people were still
>>Greek and there was a Greek national Identity. Two or more Greek
States
>>which can cooperate are more powerful than one.
>
>well, may be you do not want Enosis as union with Greece directly. But
>you do sound like (now that you say the above) you actually
>want the union, but indirectly, and accompained with apower game,
>i.e the EU votes. Don't you think it is bit of an insult for RoC
>to say 'will have two votes between them and an Extra EU commissioner'?
>After all RoC is supposed to be an *independent* state when in EU.
>
Have you watched the Eurovision Song contest.
Theres a pattern to the voting based on where the country is and who its
friends are.
All the Scandinavian Countries vote for each other.
All the Balkan countries vote for each other
Cyprus votes for Greece. Greece votes for Cyprus.
Everyone hates Germany.
Everyone likes the Republic of Ireland
And the winner is always a song sung in English.
Now why is this.
The countries that support one another have a common cultural identity.
Its always an English song that wins (5 in the past six years) because
everyone undersantds English.
Everyone Remembers WW1 and 2 so they dont vote for the Germans.
When Britain was under the Tories and opposed to Europe the British
entry didn't get many votes and was even beaten an many occasions by
Greece and Cyprus.
When Tony Blair took over the UK won and set a points record.
Now tell me why Greece and Cyprus shouldent have the right to co-operate
together.
Why should English be the dominant culture in Europe, why not Greek.
Agamemnon
>
>Turgut
Agamemnon
chetin wrote in message <346861...@ozemail.com.au>...
>Turgut Durduran wrote:
>>
>> In article <6479me$4ci$2...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
>> Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>> >In 1986, Akin attacked a so-called policeman and in 1987 a Turkish
>> >Cypriot lawyer. While in the illegal assembly, he attacked the New
>> >Cyprus party leader Albay Durduran.
>> >---------------------------------
>
>Alpay Durduran, the leader of the New Cyprus Party was elected
>by his people; so how could you consider the assembly
>where A.Durduran was a member as "illegal".
>
>Çetěn
The "assembly" was not voted in by the Muslim Cypriots. It was voted in
by Illegal Turkish Immigrants who outnumber the Muslim Cypriots.
The "assembly" is not recognised under the Cyprus Constitution not by
theh UN. The seats of the Muslim Cypriots are still reserved for them in
the legitimate Cyprus Parliament
Agamemnon
Agamemnon
Kenan Akin asked to resign
YENIDUZEN (11.11.97) reports under the banner headlines "Kenan Akin,
Resign", refers to Kenan Akin's statement that "I would have liked to
kill
the Greek Cypriot on the flag pole" (see Turkish bulletin No. 208/97 dd
8-9-
10/11/97 item six: Tr.
note) and says that the so-called Minister of agriculture of the
pseudostate, Kenan Akin, should resign as soon as possible.
YENIDUZEN then produces the written statement by Republican Turkish
Party
General Secretary Ferdi Sabit Soyer, who said:
"Esteemed Kenan Akin, who is a member of the TRNC's Council of
Ministers,
has succeeded in entering Interpol's red bulletin as well. Of course
without any doubt, people cannot be declared guilty without trial.
However,
to prove this, all the available legal procedures should be put into
practice. As long as this is not done, the allegation remains and the
accused stays condemned in peoples' conscience. Therefore, at this
moment
it is not only Kenan Akin who is condemned. Since he is one of the
members of the Council of Ministers, it is the Turkish Cypriot
community's
institutions that are on Interpol's red bulletin.
>From this perspective, the issue is very serious. Especially at a time
when
difficulties exist because of the Cyprus problem, for a minister to come
up
and make a statement saying: `I don't care, if this is the case. I do
not
go to Europe', is a disgrace. This logic not only will help those who
want
to brand the TRNC as a heaven for criminals but it will also put Turkey
into a difficult situation before the international public opinion and
the
international law. For this reason, the placing of a minister's name on
a
red bulletin cannot be overlooked through epic statements and primitive
chauvinism. Besides, the president who approves the Council of
Ministers,
the NUP and the DP as well are responsible for this situation. Moreover,
esteemed Kenan Akin's statement that `If I had been there, I would have
killed him', while denying his involvement in the incident, is
sufficient
reason not to keep him to that post even for five minutes.
What is necessary should be done as soon as possible without resorting
to
epic and chauvinistic statements. This is necessary for political
ethics.
Esteemed Kenan Akin should resign. This incident demonstrates how wrong
was
the stance adopted against the Greek chauvinism during the August 1996
Dherinia events. It proves and confirms that acting in anger,
emotionally,
is harmful to the community in the short and medium term". (MY)
Cyprus PIO
Michael Panagiotakis
chetin wrote:
> When Turks conquered Cyprus in 1571, from the Venetians; for the first
>
> time in Cyprus' history they created an 'EASTERN ORTHODOX NATION' by
>
> appointing and recognizing the Archbishop of the Autocephalous Orthodox
> Church as the head of the 'ortodox millet,' causing the cultivation of
> the
> Ortodox values;
>
> which meant in practice the study of the Greek language, and literature,
>
> and the history. Thus induced them to create a 'national identity' which
>
> never existed before.
Well the arts and letters and sciences and whatever else you can
imagine *flourished* in Crete under the Venetians rule, especially
after the fall of Constantinople when revolts against the Venetians
ceased as there was no other alternative... The begginings of modern
greek literature can be traced there as well as the begginings of a
"national identity"... The island prospered and contributed scholars,
poets, musicians, painters (Theotokopoulos f.e.), while perserving
absolutely its Orthodox faith. After the fall of the islands to the
Ottomans all this ended abruptly. Nothing.
You can understand then why I would be highly sceptical about the
claims about Ottoman influence in Cyprus....
BTW what are "Orthodox Values"? How come I'm Greek and don't share
them....?
>
> ".... It's Church was an autocephalous member of the
>
> Holy Eastern Orthodox Church, and thus religion combined
>
> with language to foster the idea that the Cypriotes were
>
> Greek in origin. That there was real racial affinity with
>
> the Hellenic stock there is nothing to prove;
>
> the anthropological evidence, so far as it goes, seems to
>
> favour the contrary view...."
>
> (Sir George Hill, A History of Cyprus, page 488)
Religion+Language+Mores and Customs = National Identity. All this
"racial affinity with the Hellenic stock" is racist claptrap, pure
and simple. Besides there were Greeks in Cyprus during the Classical
age. What happened to them? They commited mass suicide or something?
>
> In 1821, the Greeks revolted against the Ottoman Turks. After six years
>
> of fighting with the help of Britain, France and Russia an independent
>
> State of Greece established. In 1864 Britain handed the Ionian islands
>
> to Greece, in 1881 Selanik and Epirus were united with the Greek State.
Thesaloniki and Epirus were united with the Greek state after the
Balkan wars (1912-1913).
>
> The growing national pride and the self confidence drove them to adopt
>
> the belief in the necessity of building up a "'Greater Greek State' of
> the
>
> two continents and the five seas" ("MEGALO IDEA") to cover all the GREEK
>
> SPEAKING Ortodox world.
>
> And my dear friend, all these caused the Greek Nationalism to give
>
> birth to a baby by the name of 'ENOSIS' in Cyprus. AND THIS IS WHEN THE
> CYPRUS CONFLICT HAS STARTED.
Well step back for a second and take a calmer look at it: The whole
concept of Megali Idea was ofcourse nationalist nonsense, rather
dangerous nationalist nonsense at that, and caused Greece much hardship
and suffering. It must be admitted that its inconceivable for the Greek
Army to try to march to Ankara as it did in the early 20's with dire
consequences. BUT if one believes in majority rule how can one deny the
majority of the population of an island their right to
self-determination? If the majority of Cypriots at the time wanted
(for whatever reasons) to join with Greece, why is that so irrational?
I agree that in such circumstances the rights of any minorities must
be provided for, but -again I take as an example Crete: the Muslim popu-
lation there (around 15%) lived as far as I know unharassed lives
for the ten years they were residing inside the Greek state, until
the population exchanges in 1923. Why could that not have been the
case in Cyprus.
>
> > >
> > > Of course it is very speculative, but my guess would be that the Greek
> > > Cypriots did not stand that united behind the independence movement when
> > > the struggle began.
> >
> > I think that the G/C were pretty much united on that...
>
> you are wrong, because the aim of the greek cypriots wasn't to
> gain independence; they only wanted to be united with greece (enosis)
Everybody was united against the Brits aiming at either independece
or "Enosis".
>
> >
> > > So the Greek fighters had to invoke nationalism by stirring up hatred
> > > against British and Turkish cypriots alike.
> >
> > I might be completely wrong on this (I'd like to hear Turgut's
> > viewpoint) but
> > as far as I know EOKA did not stirr hatred against Turkish Cypriots to
> > begin with.
>
> greek cypriots didn't need EOKA to stirr hatred against turkish cypriots
> which has already existed. the greek cypriot terorism against
> turkish cypriots in 1912 is a fine example to this when
> "....5 people killed and 134 were wounded, could not but have
> increased Turkish fears that as a minority in a Greek State,
> they would be unable to protect themselves.
> ....For the history-conscious Greeks, the presence of the Turks
> was....a reminder, of a barbaric military conquest...."
> [Greek Cypriot author:Z.STAVRINIDES,
> The Cyprus Conflict,National Identity
> and Statehood]
>
You seem to believe that everybody on the Greek/Cypriot side is
as nationalist as yourself. What about AKEL? Did they "hate
the Turks" too?
> >
> > > It is well known that nothing unites better than a common enemy.
> > > (Out of this analogy I compared Grivas, Milosevic and Hitler.)
> > > : > > No doubt after the military coup in Cyprus Turkey had a right to
> > > : > > intervene to protect the Turkish Cypriots. That this was not it's main
> > > : > > aim though was demonstrated by the refusal to remove it's troops AFTER
> > > : > > the coup failed. Indeed the invading Attila army advanced instead of
> > > : > > retreating.... There is no evidence that by 1974 Makarios had any wish
> > > : > > to "get rid of the turkish population".
> > > : >
> > > : > Makarios was in power from 1960 to 1974. He is directly responsible for
> > > : > not having taken clear steps to settle the conflict peacefully.
> > >
> > > : Makarios was in power after the junta collapsed in 1974 too.
> > >
> > > Well, yes, but then the damage was already done.
> >
> > But you are assuming that the Turkish side WANTED this whole thing to
> > be settled
> > peacefully. That, I think, was not the case.
>
> it is true that the turkish cypriots WANTED this whole thing to be
> settled
> peacefully but it wasn't the case with Makarios as was cited by
> John Reddaway:
> "Until this small Turkish Community, forming part of the Turkish race,
> which has been the terrible enemy of Hellenism is expelled, the duty
> to the heroes of EOKA can never be considered as terminated".
> { (from Makarios' speech on 4 September 1962,)
> 'Burdened with Cyprus: The British Connection', page 194}
First of all I did not say turkish Cypriots but "Tukish side".
Turkey was not interested in a solution.
As for the quote: what turkish community is he refering to? Does
he mean ALL of T/C? I'm not saying he didn't but the context would be
useful.
>
> > Makarios BTW was not the only player in this game, as I pointed out in
> > another
> > posting he had to keep internal G/C balances AND try to keep Cyprus
> > "nonaligned as well.
>
> so you reckon these were good reasons to try to get rid of the
> turkish population.
Nope. Not at all.
>
> > It seems to me that the only reason Makarios failed was because the US
> > and their nationalist stooges in Greece and Turkey did not want him to
> > succeed.
>
> it is true that Turkey didn't want Makarios to succeed...
> Because " Makarios's central interest was to block off Turkish
> intervension so he and his Greek-Cypriots could go on happly massacring
> Turkish-Cypriots"
> {Former U.S.Under Secretary of State,
> GEORGE W. BALL's Memories,
> 'The Past Has Another Pattern', W.W.Norton
> and Company, New York, Page345}
>
I wouldn't trust Ball's opinion about Makarios on anything. In his
eyes as well as most American diplomats he was a mortal enemy since
he "threatened" to become "nonaligned". Second don't forget that this
is coming from a man who had no problems with Grivas at all ( he was
a hero of the west: Nazi collaborator, loyal American friend, and
a good Greek nationalist ;-) ).
> > > Yes, he didn't see the real dangers. I wonder what made him turn away from
> > > the West. On the long term he should have seen that Western military
> > > presence might be uncomfortable but not as dangerous as being 'neutral' in
> > > a strategically important region. Being neutral could as well turn out to
> > > mean 'enemy to everyone' and 'easy prey', the more so with vital
> > > interests of two neighbouring local powers involved.
> >
> > Well Makarios, I believe, did not see much point in changing one
> > colonial
> > regime for another. He obviously saw (and dissaproved) of the way Greece
> > was
> > run as an American protectorate, and also he had a huge local Communist
> > party
> > that would react (maybe even violently) to a US takeover of the island.
>
> on one hand he was actively courted with the USSR; on the other hand
> he was getting the full support of USA through Greece's influence on the
> States while 'selling' the so called Cyprus as a non-aligned country.
> And he only played this game to be able to reach his ambition
> which was to make Cyprus a Greek island.
He was most definitely NOT getting the full support of the USA on
anything. The US suggested to the Greek gvt. to topple Makarios
and that they would make sure that Turkry didn't react... In my
next posting I'll include quotes from a rather relevant book...
> > >
> > > : The USA did not take kindly to these
> > > : "extremist" (for the region) views and gave a green light for the
> > > : Turkish "intervention" in 1974... If Makarios just acceded to NATO and
> > > : American bases in the country and kept the communists at a safe dis-
> > > : tance from government (in jail preferably for the USA), than the
> > > : turkish intervention would never have been allowed...
>
> most probable it was not the USA who gave a green light for the
> Turkish intervension. I believe that it was the _USSR,_ since Ecevit
> (a social democrat) was the head of the government in Turkey hoping
> to end the fascist extensions of the Greek junta to restore the
> "leftist" Makarios' regime.
Wow! The USSR giving the green light to a NATO country to invade
another.... Sorry but that is simply wrong. The USSR stayed pretty much
out of it all the way. Turkey, (and Greece) especially those days did
not make a single move without consulting with the US big brother...
We were protectorates Chetin, don't you realise? Ofcourse we had
some deciding power over minor or even not so minor matters, but in
decisions that might actually threaten the stability of the Western
Alliance? No way would they allow anything to interfere with that.
See Lyndon Johnson's letter to Inonu of June 5th of 1964 and inonu's
reaction...
As for Ecevit being a "Social Democrat" first of all that does not in
ANY way imply Soviet ties;second he was the most right wing
"social democrat" ever (until Blair I guess);third the turkish Army
always ran things from backstage and they most decidedly were NOT
Sovietophiles...
> > Not really. The only thing they can do is damage. They're rapidly
> > losing popular support and are turning into some sort of local mafia, as
> > far as I know.
>
> well, instead of taking the risks to just to find out that; wouldn't
> be wiser to live in peace as good neighbours.
Who's we? The settlers and the G/C? You see if there weren't any
Turkish settlers this whole thing would be easier. But the Denktash
regime depends on their vote so I guess there's no way he would agree
to their removal.
>
> > >
> > > : > It is impossible to eliminate this danger and it requires a lot of
> > > : > civilizatory work to overcome it. It will never vanish completely, though:
> > > : > One serious economical crisis and very soon there will have to be someone
> > > : > who blame it on: those strange others.
> > > : >
> > > : > This has nothing to do with '19th century' politics - it is human nature.
> > > : > It has to be taken into account when thinking of solutions of quarrels
> > > : > between ethnies.
> > > : >
> > > : > > Finally, do you realize that the statement: "lasting peace demands
> > > : > > ethnic cleansing" can be used to justify Serb and Croat atrocities in
> > > : > > Bosnia? Indonesian atrocities in Timor? and that it can be used as
> > > : > > an argument by any blood crazed nationalist in defending massacres?
> > > : >
> > > : > No, I am not talking of massacres. 'Ethnic cleansings' would only make
> > > : > sense when they diminuish the balance of human pain.
> > > : > Think of an example: In Country A lives a well hated minority of Bs, in
> > > : > country B one of As. Instead of suffering they decide to swap - and peace
> > > : > is there ever after. Or: In country A lives the same minority of Bs - but
> > > : > there is no country B to turn to. Then it could be in favour of all when
> > > : > those B's received a territory of their own. You call it 'self
> > > : > determination'.
>
> such an agreement reached in Vienna on 2/8/1975, whereby
> a regrouping procces took place in Cyprus whereby the
> Turkish Cypriots moved to the North and the Greek Cypriots
> to the South.
> But then you can not categorize it as an 'ethnic cleansing' since
> it is an agreed procedure to protect an ethnic group from
> massacres.
AGREED PROCEDURE!? If the turkish army hadn't invaded in the first
place there wouldn't have been any "threat of massacres" now would
there? And what about the stolen properties in N.Cyprus? How about
the people murdered, raped and mutilated after the invasion of a
foreign army? Ethnic cleansing is the forceful removal of native
populations from their homes based on nationality. How are the
Turkish Army atrocities NOT ethnic cleansing...?
> > Well the Cypriot gvt. has maintained the position that it is the
> > Government
> > of ALL cypriots. The official languages of the R.o.C. remain two (Greek
> > and Turkish) and the University of Cyprus is bilingual. Sure there are
> > extremists but they do NOT set the tone for the government.
>
> But it seems like you don't want to remember the fact that the
> Turkish Cypriots who were ousted from the so called Cypriot goverment
> have now established their own State which- no matter what- they are not
> going to give up.
Were it really the Government of the Turkish Cypriots and not of the
Turkish settlers I could conceivably understand an argument for it's
legitimacy. It's not, therefore I fail to see what you are talking
about. It would be a good Idea if BOTH Greece and Turkey just buggered
off and let the Cypriots (T&G) decide for themselves. The Invasion
issues could be settled then between G/C individuals and the Turkish
gvt. in international courts (in some sort of class action), the
T/C's would be able to do likewise to any Greek or G/C person,
institution or agency, and the two communities could then decide to
either live together, as most of them did, most of the time for quite a
number of years Greek and Turkish propaganda nonwithstanding.
>
> > >
> > > Wouldn't have the Turkish Cypriots to fear that after reunification the
> > > executive forces of the country would turn a blind eye against Greek
> > > assailants - probably very similar to pre 1974?
> > > Then a 'peace implementation force', like in Bosnia would be needed. With
> > > other words: colonialism. Let the British come back (they have better
> > > things to do...)
> > >
> > I would argue that the Greek side would have a VERY strong motive to
> > keep
> > revanchism under control.
>
> in a previous posting; Mihalis Panagiotakis wrote:
>
> "Wait! Turgut although you are right that attacks against your person
> (and anybody else for that matter) should have been stopped by the
> police,
> I find it hard to attribute the demonstrators fury to nationalism. They
> are the relatives of people killed or missing during the invasion.
> Surely
> you understand the emotional aspect of their reaction. What would you do
> if ,
> god forbid, a close relative of your's was murdered and the culprits
> were
> beyond any form of punishment.
> Would you just sit back and do nothing. Although I disagree with any
> acts of violence these people may have commited, I can understand their
> pain
> and frustration. Don't you?"
>
> and how about the revenge of the T/C's who suffered alot between the
> years of 1963 and 1974.
I'm not talking about revenge here folks. I am saying however that
it is indeed the right of every citizen in a democracy to demonstrate
peacefully (or not so peacefully) against the gvt. and other groups.
I find it unacceptable that inoccent civilians (such as Turgut) were
harassed, but nevertheless I argue that once these people are allowed
access to their homes and get info about their missing relatives
they wont be demonstrating now, would they?
As for the horrors some T/C suffered between 1963 and 67 (don't
exaggerate) I think the surviving members of the fashist terrorist
group EOKA B' should be publically tried, and if found guilty
jailed. The situation though with
the invasion is not symmetric, because EOKA B' was not a Greek or
Cypriot Gvt. agency while the turkish Army is indeed a Turkish gvt
agency,(or the other way around...)
>
> Çetěn
Michael Panagiotakis
Turgut Durduran wrote:
> I understand their pain, their frustration, what they are going through.
> But that does not mean that this particular crowd is not a nationalist
> one. Reasons:
>
> 1) First of all being in that situation does not make you automatically
> a nationalist. Just to clarify so that you won't think I am putting
> people in that basket based on generalisations. I have known a lot
> of G/C's and T/C's in that situation who are not nationalists. Many
> are actually peace-makers.
Agreed
>
> 2) The booklets, the other materials they distribute, what they all us
> suggest they are nationalists. First of all they like arguing a lot
> about whether T/C's are Cypriots, Turks, G/C's etc etc. i.e they
> are racists. They do a lot of rhetoric about joining motherland greece,
> this and that. Quite a lot of talk about taking things
> back by war whenever the time comes etc.
>
> 3) Their supporters are nationalist groups. Specially DISY, DIKO
> style ones. (more right wing side of it)
>
> 4) This is what leftists in south call them :) (bad argument right ;)
>
> 5) They did not treat T/c's nicely at all.
>
> Do you think I am justified based on these?
Yes. Ofcourse. But the points I'm making is that
a) They are nationalist or have become nationalists because of their
grief
b) Their grief is legitimate
c) Anyway they DO have a right to demonstrate, although they don't
have a right to harass people.
>
> actually, the usual border demonstraing crowd is not a really
> big group anyways. just a lot of influence.
>
> Turgut
You're probably right.
Michael Panagiotakis
Turgut Durduran
In article <6479mc$4ci$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Return Links (that whats usually expected if someone links to your
>page). And in any case there is some interesting Information on those
>pages.
well, actually you may know that I link to eveywhere.
sorry, correction, I used to, when I had time to update
my homepage continously. But your page seems to have
the general feel of being connected to nationalist pages.
(along with Cyprus & Greece maps on the background, which
usually suggests a desire for Enosis)
>Have you seen newLabour lately.
>
>Theyre covering themselves from head to toe in the Union Jack.
>
>In the election campaign they associated themselves in a PPB with the
>British Bulldog, usually considered as nationalistic symbol and
>associated with Winston Churchill.
>
>And now every time a minister is interviewed, hes sitting infront of a
>Royal Coat of Arms or a Union Jack.
ok ok.. may be they are quite close to the nationalism I was
complaining about :)
>
>And who said that nationalism was exclusively right wing. NAZI stands
>for National Socialist Party.
well, and EDEK , Lysarides' party is a leftist party supposedly.
But for all practical purposes, I consider those as 'leftist
on the face' . do you get what I mean?
Turgut
Turgut Durduran
In article <6491l4$keq$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>The Title of the page is "The Cyprus and Hellenic Index"
understood.
>
>Cyprus and Greece. Map of Cyprus, Map of Greece.
understood.
>Culture of
>Cyprus=Culture of Greece.
>
no understood :)
not agreed.
have you ever eaten seftalia in Greece?
Greek culture <> Culture of Greece.
Greek cultuer = culture of Greeks.
>Where on my pages do I mention supporting Enosis.
>
well, sometimes I like to try the usual 'hmmm, he says "x"
so he must be also "y". like all the others saying "x"' logic.
Remember you were telling me quite a few things that I "support",
without ever me telling those. similar logic eh :)
>Why do I want Enosis when if Cyprus joins the EU, Greece and Cyprus will
>have two votes between them, and an Extra EU commissioner. And why
>should Cyprus ruin its economy by joining Greece. Ancient Greece was
>made up of separate independent City States, but the people were still
>Greek and there was a Greek national Identity. Two or more Greek States
>which can cooperate are more powerful than one.
well, may be you do not want Enosis as union with Greece directly. But
you do sound like (now that you say the above) you actually
want the union, but indirectly, and accompained with apower game,
i.e the EU votes. Don't you think it is bit of an insult for RoC
to say 'will have two votes between them and an Extra EU commissioner'?
After all RoC is supposed to be an *independent* state when in EU.
Turgut
Turgut Durduran
In article <648org$ivq$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>Which are there to show that Cyprus is one whole, irrespective of the
>Turkish occupation.
Why is map of greece there ?
this reasoning does not explain that right?
(btw, nothing wrong with having a map of Greece, but *usually*
people who want enosis, etc use that symbolism. That is
why I am asking you these.)
>>usually suggests a desire for Enosis)
>
>Next you'll be saying that the EU wants Enosis.
>
I won't :) but there are quite a few people out there
who says that :)
>
>PS. Did you know that the Turkish embassy is Threatening to sue my ISP
>"for
>miss-representing the "TRNC"", and is now attempting to send me letters
>from its solicitors.
>
>Do they have a policy of booby-trapping their letters and how do I open
>them without getting blown up.
hmmm. I haven't heard booby trapped letters yet . a bomb may explode
under your car or something though. I woke up twice with bombs exploding
outside my house.
Turgut
Agamemnon
Turgut Durduran wrote in message <648i9q$bc$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>In article <6479me$4ci$2...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
>Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>In 1986, Akin attacked a so-called policeman and in 1987 a Turkish
>>Cypriot lawyer. While in the illegal assembly, he attacked the New
>>Cyprus party leader Albay Durduran.
>>---------------------------------
>
>
>Actually, Al*p*ay Durduran, not Al*b*ay Durduran.. creates
>confusion many many times as Albay means a colonel .
>
Correction Noted
Agamemnon
>
>Turgut Durduran
>
Agamemnon
Turgut Durduran wrote in message <648i6s$58k$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>In article <6479mc$4ci$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
>Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Return Links (that whats usually expected if someone links to your
>>page). And in any case there is some interesting Information on those
>>pages.
>
>
>well, actually you may know that I link to eveywhere.
>sorry, correction, I used to, when I had time to update
>my homepage continously. But your page seems to have
>the general feel of being connected to nationalist pages.
>(along with Cyprus & Greece maps on the background, which
Which are there to show that Cyprus is one whole, irrespective of the
Turkish occupation.
>usually suggests a desire for Enosis)
Next you'll be saying that the EU wants Enosis.
>
>>
>>And who said that nationalism was exclusively right wing. NAZI stands
>>for National Socialist Party.
>
>
>well, and EDEK , Lysarides' party is a leftist party supposedly.
>But for all practical purposes, I consider those as 'leftist
>on the face' . do you get what I mean?
Yep.
>
Agamemnon
PS. Did you know that the Turkish embassy is Threatening to sue my ISP
"for
miss-representing the "TRNC"", and is now attempting to send me letters
from its solicitors.
Do they have a policy of booby-trapping their letters and how do I open
them without getting blown up.
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/argyros.argyrou/turkey
chetin
Mihalis Panagiotakis wrote:
>
> Turgut Durduran wrote:
> >
> > Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >Turgut Durduran wrote in message <63tqhd$r56$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
> > >>In article <346231...@chem.fsu.edu>,
> > >>dominance of extreme nationalism among G/C's. They are
> > >>incapable of, or not willing, to get rid of even a small mob at
> > >>the border not allowing people to cross back and forth. Argue,
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >What!
> > >
> > >The peaceful refugees and relatives of the 1619 missing persons are
> > >hearing this mostly for the first time they choose not to support
> > >Genocide.
> >
> > 2) I am not a tourist going to North. I am a *Cypriot* (that RoC
> > 3) They break laws by not listening to the police. By pushing me (
> > a citizen of RoC) around. Not letting me move around in my country.
> > 4) They shout, scream slogans, and some nasty things at
> > G/C's picking me up, and myself. (most of this appeared on TV
> > btw!)
> >
> > what I am talking about first. I have seen what they are doing
> > this summer. The things I am refering above happened to me.
> > For all I care, they are extreme nationalists, and are not
> > supported by AKEL. The point I made in the previous
> > message still stands correct.
> >
> (and anybody
> else for that matter) should have been stopped by the police, I find it
> hard to
> attribute the demonstrators fury to nationalism. They are the relatives
> of people
> killed or missing during the invasion. Surely you understand the
> emotional
> relative of
> your's was murdered and the culprits were beyond any form of punishment.
> Would you just sit back and do nothing. Although I disagree with any
> acts
> of violence these people may have commited, I can understand their pain
> and
> frustration. Don't you?
Can you also imagine what they could do under an united
Cyprus?
Then don't you think its much safer to live side by side, in our own
states instead of in an united Cyprus?
Çetìn
chetin
Mihalis Panagiotakis wrote:
>
> Armin Forker wrote:
> > 1) Turkey unjustfully conquered Cyprus in the first place (16th century).
> While it is impossible to get justice for a crime that long ago it is
> important to aknowledge this fact to understand the Greek mindset.
When Turks conquered Cyprus in 1571, from the Venetians; for the first
time in Cyprus' history they created an 'EASTERN ORTHODOX NATION' by
appointing and recognizing the Archbishop of the Autocephalous Orthodox
Church as the head of the 'ortodox millet,' causing the cultivation of
the
Ortodox values;
which meant in practice the study of the Greek language, and literature,
and the history. Thus induced them to create a 'national identity' which
never existed before.
".... It's Church was an autocephalous member of the
Holy Eastern Orthodox Church, and thus religion combined
with language to foster the idea that the Cypriotes were
Greek in origin. That there was real racial affinity with
the Hellenic stock there is nothing to prove;
the anthropological evidence, so far as it goes, seems to
favour the contrary view...."
(Sir George Hill, A History of Cyprus, page 488)
In 1821, the Greeks revolted against the Ottoman Turks. After six years
of fighting with the help of Britain, France and Russia an independent
State of Greece established. In 1864 Britain handed the Ionian islands
to Greece, in 1881 Selanik and Epirus were united with the Greek State.
The growing national pride and the self confidence drove them to adopt
the belief in the necessity of building up a "'Greater Greek State' of
the
two continents and the five seas" ("MEGALO IDEA") to cover all the GREEK
SPEAKING Ortodox world.
And my dear friend, all these caused the Greek Nationalism to give
birth to a baby by the name of 'ENOSIS' in Cyprus. AND THIS IS WHEN THE
CYPRUS CONFLICT HAS STARTED.
> >
> > Of course it is very speculative, but my guess would be that the Greek
> > Cypriots did not stand that united behind the independence movement when
> > the struggle began.
>
> I think that the G/C were pretty much united on that...
you are wrong, because the aim of the greek cypriots wasn't to
gain independence; they only wanted to be united with greece (enosis)
>
> > So the Greek fighters had to invoke nationalism by stirring up hatred
> > against British and Turkish cypriots alike.
>
> I might be completely wrong on this (I'd like to hear Turgut's
> viewpoint) but
> as far as I know EOKA did not stirr hatred against Turkish Cypriots to
> begin with.
greek cypriots didn't need EOKA to stirr hatred against turkish cypriots
which has already existed. the greek cypriot terorism against
turkish cypriots in 1912 is a fine example to this when
"....5 people killed and 134 were wounded, could not but have
increased Turkish fears that as a minority in a Greek State,
they would be unable to protect themselves.
....For the history-conscious Greeks, the presence of the Turks
was....a reminder, of a barbaric military conquest...."
[Greek Cypriot author:Z.STAVRINIDES,
The Cyprus Conflict,National Identity
and Statehood]
>
> > It is well known that nothing unites better than a common enemy.
> > (Out of this analogy I compared Grivas, Milosevic and Hitler.)
> >
> > As far as I could see the British did a lot for the development of the
> > country. Even the most remote village has a fresh water supply with the
> > words 'ER' (Elizabeth Regina) on it.
>
> Well yes... and by the 1950's every Greek village had a fresh water
> fountain
> made by the Greek gvnt. That hardly prooves anything...
cyprus has never had a greek goverment until 1963 though.
> >
> > Besides, to say something provocative: Sometimes an imposed foreign power
> > is better than a corrupt and/or ignorant local one.
> > Cyprus might have been better off when the British colonial government
> > had never left.
>
> That's an interesting point. Let me point out that Nehru once did a
> study
> on the effects of British colonialism in India. He found out that the
> prosperity of a region was in inverse proportion to the number of years
> it had
> been under Brittish control. The firt regoon to be colonized Bengal was
> the
> poorest. BEFORE the British came Bengal was the richest part of india,
> depending
> on a textile industry that produced top quality products. The brits
> suppresed
> this industry quickly realizing that these guys were producing better
> and
> cheaper products than the home-brittish industry. So they turned the
> whole
> area into a plantation, send the raw materials home and forced the
> locals
> to buy the finished product IMPORTED from Britain. The local economy was
> ruined and the Brits made a tidy profit out of it...
agreed
> >
> > : > > No doubt after the military coup in Cyprus Turkey had a right to
> > : > > intervene to protect the Turkish Cypriots. That this was not it's main
> > : > > aim though was demonstrated by the refusal to remove it's troops AFTER
> > : > > the coup failed. Indeed the invading Attila army advanced instead of
> > : > > retreating.... There is no evidence that by 1974 Makarios had any wish
> > : > > to "get rid of the turkish population".
> > : >
> > : > Makarios was in power from 1960 to 1974. He is directly responsible for
> > : > not having taken clear steps to settle the conflict peacefully.
> >
> > : Makarios was in power after the junta collapsed in 1974 too.
> >
> > Well, yes, but then the damage was already done.
>
> But you are assuming that the Turkish side WANTED this whole thing to
> be settled
> peacefully. That, I think, was not the case.
it is true that the turkish cypriots WANTED this whole thing to be
settled
peacefully but it wasn't the case with Makarios as was cited by
John Reddaway:
"Until this small Turkish Community, forming part of the Turkish race,
which has been the terrible enemy of Hellenism is expelled, the duty
to the heroes of EOKA can never be considered as terminated".
{ (from Makarios' speech on 4 September 1962,)
'Burdened with Cyprus: The British Connection', page 194}
> Makarios BTW was not the only player in this game, as I pointed out in
> another
> posting he had to keep internal G/C balances AND try to keep Cyprus
> "nonaligned as well.
so you reckon these were good reasons to try to get rid of the
turkish population.
> >
> > : The role
> > : of Makarios in the Cyprus issue is too complex for the present
> > : discussion (I don't have that much time right now!). I'll just point
> > : out that Makarios was supported by the Greek left and Center (in
> > : Greece), and Grivas was always the Nationalists poster boy...
> >
> > What was missing was a charismatic politician who could promote internal
> > peace (some Nelson Mandela). Apparently Yugoslavia has a similar problem
> > today.
> > An orthodox monk was right from the start not the best choice to play this
> > role.
>
> It seems to me that the only reason Makarios failed was because the US
> and their nationalist stooges in Greece and Turkey did not want him to
> succeed.
it is true that Turkey didn't want Makarios to succeed...
Because " Makarios's central interest was to block off Turkish
intervension so he and his Greek-Cypriots could go on happly massacring
Turkish-Cypriots"
{Former U.S.Under Secretary of State,
GEORGE W. BALL's Memories,
'The Past Has Another Pattern', W.W.Norton
and Company, New York, Page345}
> >
> > : > He was a man of church; his background was that of a very poor peasant
> > : > family and of the life in the orthodox monastery. I think out of this
> > : > background he was incapable of accepting muslims as Cypriot citizens with
> > : > all rights (including special minority rights).
> > : > Could it be that his job was too big for his abilities - and still he is
> > : > hero number one for the Greek Cypriots
> > : I disagree with your assesment of Makarios. It's, as I said, a big
> > : issue, but I'll just state that in my opinion Makarios' downfall was due
> > : to the fact that he actively courted the USSR and wanted to make
> > : Cyprus a non-aligned country.
> >
> > Yes, he didn't see the real dangers. I wonder what made him turn away from
> > the West. On the long term he should have seen that Western military
> > presence might be uncomfortable but not as dangerous as being 'neutral' in
> > a strategically important region. Being neutral could as well turn out to
> > mean 'enemy to everyone' and 'easy prey', the more so with vital
> > interests of two neighbouring local powers involved.
>
> Well Makarios, I believe, did not see much point in changing one
> colonial
> regime for another. He obviously saw (and dissaproved) of the way Greece
> was
> run as an American protectorate, and also he had a huge local Communist
> party
> that would react (maybe even violently) to a US takeover of the island.
on one hand he was actively courted with the USSR; on the other hand
he was getting the full support of USA through Greece's influence on the
States while 'selling' the so called Cyprus as a non-aligned country.
And he only played this game to be able to reach his ambition
which was to make Cyprus a Greek island.
> >
> > : The USA did not take kindly to these
> > : "extremist" (for the region) views and gave a green light for the
> > : Turkish "intervention" in 1974... If Makarios just acceded to NATO and
> > : American bases in the country and kept the communists at a safe dis-
> > : tance from government (in jail preferably for the USA), than the
> > : turkish intervention would never have been allowed...
most probable it was not the USA who gave a green light for the
Turkish intervension. I believe that it was the _USSR,_ since Ecevit
(a social democrat) was the head of the government in Turkey hoping
to end the fascist extensions of the Greek junta to restore the
"leftist" Makarios' regime.
> >
> > : > Imagine: Cyprus gets reunited and immediately terrorist on both sides pop
> > : > up and resume the killings. A baby in a bathtub here, a bombed bus there.
> > : > Wouldn't the island be better of with two seperated territories and UN in
> > : > the middle?
> > : >
> >
> > : I might be an optimist here but I'm sure that these things can be
> > : avoided if there is political will to avoid them.
> >
> > Yes, I agree. However, it only takes a very small minority to destroy a
> > system that depends on the goodwill of all.
> >
> > If 99.9% of the Basques want to live in peace 0.1% of fanatical
> > ETA-terrorists can destroy it, to give another example.
>
> Not really. The only thing they can do is damage. They're rapidly
> losing popular support and are turning into some sort of local mafia, as
> far as I know.
well, instead of taking the risks to just to find out that; wouldn't
be wiser to live in peace as good neighbours.
> >
> > : > It is impossible to eliminate this danger and it requires a lot of
> > : > civilizatory work to overcome it. It will never vanish completely, though:
> > : > One serious economical crisis and very soon there will have to be someone
> > : > who blame it on: those strange others.
> > : >
> > : > This has nothing to do with '19th century' politics - it is human nature.
> > : > It has to be taken into account when thinking of solutions of quarrels
> > : > between ethnies.
> > : >
> > : > > Finally, do you realize that the statement: "lasting peace demands
> > : > > ethnic cleansing" can be used to justify Serb and Croat atrocities in
> > : > > Bosnia? Indonesian atrocities in Timor? and that it can be used as
> > : > > an argument by any blood crazed nationalist in defending massacres?
> > : >
> > : > No, I am not talking of massacres. 'Ethnic cleansings' would only make
> > : > sense when they diminuish the balance of human pain.
> > : > Think of an example: In Country A lives a well hated minority of Bs, in
> > : > country B one of As. Instead of suffering they decide to swap - and peace
> > : > is there ever after. Or: In country A lives the same minority of Bs - but
> > : > there is no country B to turn to. Then it could be in favour of all when
> > : > those B's received a territory of their own. You call it 'self
> > : > determination'.
such an agreement reached in Vienna on 2/8/1975, whereby
a regrouping procces took place in Cyprus whereby the
Turkish Cypriots moved to the North and the Greek Cypriots
to the South.
But then you can not categorize it as an 'ethnic cleansing' since
it is an agreed procedure to protect an ethnic group from
massacres.
> >
> > : Well the problem with that is that usually only a small percentage of
> > : a majority would actually take arms against a minority. Instead of
> > : displacing inocents you can declare war on the aggressors. For
> > : example in a unified Cyprus if any terrorist actions are taken by
> > : any extremist Greeks against the Turkish Cypriots there should be
> > : severe punishment of the terrorists with the support of the mainstream
> > : GreekCypriot political parties.
> >
> > How can this be something to be expected when criticism (let alone legal
> > prosecution) of members of the own group is regularly called 'treason'.
>
> Well the Cypriot gvt. has maintained the position that it is the
> Government
> of ALL cypriots. The official languages of the R.o.C. remain two (Greek
> and Turkish) and the University of Cyprus is bilingual. Sure there are
> extremists but they do NOT set the tone for the government.
But it seems like you don't want to remember the fact that the
Turkish Cypriots who were ousted from the so called Cypriot goverment
have now established their own State which- no matter what- they are not
going to give up.
> >
> > Wouldn't have the Turkish Cypriots to fear that after reunification the
> > executive forces of the country would turn a blind eye against Greek
> > assailants - probably very similar to pre 1974?
> > Then a 'peace implementation force', like in Bosnia would be needed. With
> > other words: colonialism. Let the British come back (they have better
> > things to do...)
> >
> I would argue that the Greek side would have a VERY strong motive to
> keep
> revanchism under control.
in a previous posting; Mihalis Panagiotakis wrote:
"Wait! Turgut although you are right that attacks against your person
(and anybody else for that matter) should have been stopped by the
police,
I find it hard to attribute the demonstrators fury to nationalism. They
are the relatives of people killed or missing during the invasion.
Surely
you understand the emotional aspect of their reaction. What would you do
if ,
god forbid, a close relative of your's was murdered and the culprits
were
beyond any form of punishment.
Would you just sit back and do nothing. Although I disagree with any
acts of violence these people may have commited, I can understand their
pain
and frustration. Don't you?"
and how about the revenge of the T/C's who suffered alot between the
years of 1963 and 1974.
Çetěn
chetin
Turgut Durduran wrote:
>
> In article <6479me$4ci$2...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
> Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> >In 1986, Akin attacked a so-called policeman and in 1987 a Turkish
> >Cypriot lawyer. While in the illegal assembly, he attacked the New
> >Cyprus party leader Albay Durduran.
> >---------------------------------
Alpay Durduran, the leader of the New Cyprus Party was elected
by his people; so how could you consider the assembly
where A.Durduran was a member as "illegal".
Çetěn
>
> Actually, Al*p*ay Durduran, not Al*b*ay Durduran.. creates
> confusion many many times as Albay means a colonel .
>
> Turgut Durduran
Turgut Durduran
In article <649tp2$r77$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>The "assembly" was not voted in by the Muslim Cypriots. It was voted in
>by Illegal Turkish Immigrants who outnumber the Muslim Cypriots.
hey, if they are also Muslim's do they count as Muslim Cypriots?
(remember you just said living in Greece = having greek culture etc)
>
>The "assembly" is not recognised under the Cyprus Constitution not by
>theh UN. The seats of the Muslim Cypriots are still reserved for them in
>the legitimate Cyprus Parliament
hmm. can you tell me the name of the vice-president? the ministers?
who are "Muslim Cypriots"?
turgut
Turgut Durduran
In article <3468DD...@chem.fsu.edu>,
Michael Panagiotakis <mih...@chem.fsu.edu> wrote:
>
> Yes. Ofcourse. But the points I'm making is that
>a) They are nationalist or have become nationalists because of their
>grief
>b) Their grief is legitimate
>c) Anyway they DO have a right to demonstrate, although they don't
>have a right to harass people.
Ok, I thought you did not agree with me calling them nationalists.
I do not think their grief justifies them being nationalists.
It *explains* it may be.
Turgut
Agamemnon
Turgut Durduran wrote in message <64bjqr$9pg$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>In article <649tp2$r77$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
>Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>The "assembly" was not voted in by the Muslim Cypriots. It was voted
in
>>by Illegal Turkish Immigrants who outnumber the Muslim Cypriots.
>
>hey, if they are also Muslim's do they count as Muslim Cypriots?
>(remember you just said living in Greece = having greek culture etc)
>
They are Illegal immigrants and therefore not Cypriots.
You as you said are living in the Us bur are not American.
>>
>>The "assembly" is not recognised under the Cyprus Constitution not by
>>theh UN. The seats of the Muslim Cypriots are still reserved for them
in
>>the legitimate Cyprus Parliament
>
>hmm. can you tell me the name of the vice-president? the ministers?
>who are "Muslim Cypriots"?
>
The seats have been reserved since Denktash and co pulled out in the
60's
Agamemnon
>turgut
Agamemnon
Turgut Durduran wrote in message <64bjnt$sod$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>In article <649os5$pvv$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
>Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In General:
>>
>>Same language (Cyprus dialect is closer to ancient Greek than modern
>>Greek is)
>>
>
>there we go, so that is one difference than *Greece*.
>
It proves that the Cypriots are more Greek than the Greeks.
>>Same ancient Gods.
>>
>
>without almost any followers.
>probably there are more Greek God followers in US
>than in Cyprus or Greece.
>
The monuments to the Gods exist in Both countries and in Turkey, Syria,
Egypt, Lebanon etc.
>>Same food
>>
>remember I asked you , have you ever ate "Seftali kebab"
>in Greece?
>
This assumes that in Greece I have nothing better to do than go to
restaurants. Im sure you can find it if you relay look. Thers bound to
be some Cypriots living there.
>
>Is the Greek Coffee the blue-white version of the
>coffee :)
>
Same main ingredient (and I dont mean water). Same method of Brewing.
Subtle differences. Originally invented by Greeks.
>>The ottomans brought no culture with them so they adopted other
peoples
>>culture. The took Islam from the Arabs and almost everything else from
>>the Greeks.
>
>that is why probably the Greek food-truck in Penn calls
>cooked onions 'yahni sogan' very greek name right :)
>and many greek nationalists like to call themselves 'zorba'
>very very greek name :)
>
He probably wasn't taught proper Katherevousa.
>>>
>>>Greek culture <> Culture of Greece.
>>
>>Greek Culture is the Culture of all of Greeces inhabitents.
>
>yes, but let's put it this way, may be you'll get the point:
>
>Greek Culture <> Culture of *GREECE*.
>
>>
>>Greek Culture = Culture of Greeks, Arabs, Italians, Muslims,
Christians,
>>Blacks Whites living in Greece.
>
>aha, so my american friends who live in Greece, without being
>able to speak a greek word actually have that culture too?
>
They have contributed to it.
>what about the rest who do not live in Greece?
>Do you not have the Greek culture?
>
>point of the above comments:
>
>1) Greek Culture <> culture of Greece (actually Greek culture > culture
>of Greece)
>
The Second part we can agree on. Culture of Greece is a sub set of the
Universal set of All Greek Culture. Culture of Cyprus is also a subset
of the Universal.
CoG u CoC is part of the same universal.
CoG n CoC is what in comon to both.
All European Culture is another bigger universl set and intersects with
All Greek Culture.
>2) *Living in Greece* does not make someone's culture part of the Greek
>culture necessarily.
an Element (dont have an epsilon symbol so will use "e" in future) of
CoG is any contributiuon to Greek Culture in Greece.
e CoG = e All Greek Culture
e Greek Culture in Harringay = e All Greek Culture
Cultuere of Harringay contains Sub Sets "c"
Black Culture c CoH
BC n GCH e All Greek culture
>
>>Have you heard any Greek Music lately. Theres influences form Rock,
>>Reggae, Arabic, Italian and Latin music.
>
>yep I heard. as expected from any 'immitator of Uncle Sam',did you
>expect something different?
>
Since when has Arabic music imitated Uncle Spam.
>>Now tell me why Greece and Cyprus shouldent have the right to
co-operate
>>together.
>
>:) good twist of logic, you went from 'they'll have two votes'
>to 'right to co-operate' go figure the difference between
>these two statements.
>
They can co-operate using their Two Votes and Extra commissioner. if
theirs a crucial vote Greece and Cyprus jointly (if they see eye to eye)
will make the difference and their importance will greater.
>>
>>Why should English be the dominant culture in Europe, why not Greek.
>
>hmm.. you are the one with racist arguments, you tell us.
>
Because the majority of European Culture (I wish I could remember the
symbol for majority) is the majority universal set of All Greek Culture.
>
Agamemnon
Agamemnon
Michael Panagiotakis wrote in message <3468E7...@chem.fsu.edu>...
>I'm posting some excerpts from the book by a Greek Journalist
>(Alexis Papahelas: The Rape of Greek Democracy-The American Factor)
>based on recently declassified State dpt. documents. I think they
>provide an interesting background to our discussion. I'll do it
>in installments though... (not too much time...)
>
>partition scenario could ever be realized. Riddleberger warned him
>though,that -although he himself was against the forceful relocation of
>the population from their homes- the partition scenario was quite
>probable
And who was going to make it probable?
The two faced Interfering Yanks.
>
> The NSC decided that American policies should aim at:
>- The possibility of using British military bases at a permanent basis.
>- Avoiding any action that might show that the US is treating either
>the Greek or the Turkish community favorably
>
> The AKEL threat worried the CIA, which characterized Archbishop
>Makarios asthe best defence against the communists. Its chief
>A.Dulles in a note to Eisenhauer was stressing that :'Since there
>is no other nationalist leader among the Greek Cypriots with Makarios'
>stature, a decline in his popularity would quite probably help
>the communist party in the island. It is estimated that that party
>can at this moment gather the support of 35% of the voters.'
>
Here we go again.
What is wrong with Communism.
The Yanks never let communism succeed and tried to put it into
disrepute.
Why?
The Americans wanted (still do) to rule the world with Capitalism as the
means to do this. With all the worlds economies dependent on the Rise
and Fall of the US dollar and the fluctuations in wall street they could
destroy any other country in a day.
Example 1992 Black Wednesday, Britain is forced to pull out of the ERM
because of currency speculation on the Pound by American speculators.
Pound loses 20% of its value. Destroys the British economy, Destroys all
Majors Chances of getting re-elected. Causes turmoil in the Europeans
plan to adopt a Single European currency to stand up against the US.
Had communism succeeded, the workers would have controlled the means of
production and distribution of the wealth. No American multinationals
(like Micro$oft) would have been able to control the market, and force
concessions from foreign powers (Bill Gates meets Tony Blair and
Cabinet). Russia was doing fine under communism, no crime on the
streets, no poverty, no starvation. Now look at it. Its now dependent on
America for loans inorder to survive. And with these US loans America
rules Russia and the world.
Agamemnon
>
> ... Next episode: 1964!
Turgut Durduran
In article <64bnq1$etr$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>hey, if they are also Muslim's do they count as Muslim Cypriots?
>>(remember you just said living in Greece = having greek culture etc)
>>
>
>They are Illegal immigrants and therefore not Cypriots.
>
>You as you said are living in the Us bur are not American.
let's put it this way, do they have the Cypriot culture?
If so, what is the different between a Cypriot and a non-Cypriot
on that context? Given that you are basing your statements on:
1) >>(remember you just said living in Greece = having greek culture etc)
2) You refer to t/c's as "Muslim Cypriots" . I.e you are *not*
using official titles based on citizenship, rather religion and
being a Cypriot. (there are CYpriots who are not citizens of RoC
and TRNC for example, dont you agree?)
>>hmm. can you tell me the name of the vice-president? the ministers?
>>who are "Muslim Cypriots"?
>>
>The seats have been reserved since Denktash and co pulled out in the
>60's
>
>Agamemnon
what kind of a stupidity is that, what kind of a stupid government
keeps such an important position such as a vice-president empty.
If they are really keeping those seats vacant, and claim the
only reason is because T/c's pulled out in 60s, how come the
elections for those positions doe snot take place anymore? how could
they presuppose that T/C's won't come and vote, and join the parliament?
turgut
Turgut Durduran
In article <64btu7$gb0$2...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>>there we go, so that is one difference than *Greece*.
>>
>
>It proves that the Cypriots are more Greek than the Greeks.
could be, but it also shows *one difference from Greece*.
do you still remember the point of discussion? (cyprus culture=culture of
*greece* statement by you)
>The monuments to the Gods exist in Both countries and in Turkey, Syria,
>Egypt, Lebanon etc.
so does in US.
>This assumes that in Greece I have nothing better to do than go to
>restaurants. Im sure you can find it if you relay look. Thers bound to
>be some Cypriots living there.
>>
ok, good move. Let's put it this way, have you ever eaten
Seftali kebab as a food of *Greece*?
>Same main ingredient (and I dont mean water). Same method of Brewing.
>Subtle differences. Originally invented by Greeks.
did the inventor have his patent record somewhere?
how do you know who invented such a universla thing?
how come Yemenis seem to do that for much longer time?
>He probably wasn't taught proper Katherevousa.
nice to have such presuppositions about people.
>They have contributed to it.
yes, do they have it though?
>>
>The Second part we can agree on. Culture of Greece is a sub set of the
>Universal set of All Greek Culture. Culture of Cyprus is also a subset
>of the Universal.
>
>CoG u CoC is part of the same universal.
>
>CoG n CoC is what in comon to both.
>
>All European Culture is another bigger universl set and intersects with
>All Greek Culture.
>
ok, so do we agree that your statement Cyprus culture=culture of greece
was wrong?
>
>Since when has Arabic music imitated Uncle Spam.
since when they started making English comments within it,
and they added a 'beat' to their songs :)
turgut
Gregory Dandulakis
In article Nikos Sarantakos <sar...@innet.lu> wrote:
>
>In article "Agamemnon" <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
...
>>The Turks were never a nation. See my earlier post for the
>>definition.
>>
>>They came with nothing and left nothing, no culture, nothing.
...
>Unfortunately, some fellow Greeks think it is up to them to
>decide who is worthy of being deemed a nation, which
>culture is worthy and which is not, what name should
>other countries adopt, whether a language will be
>deemed a language or a dialect, etc.
>
>Turks have left their mark in Greece. It is true that we could do
>without them :-) but it is comic to deny their culture and
>influence.
From the nationalist esthetician we go to the internationalist
esthetician, both burying the truth under piles of hyperbole.
Indeed, "Turkish" state and ideology did not exist until this
century, the same way that no "Italian" state and ideology
existed until the 19th century. This is a fact.
As far as turkic influence in our lands, besides street language it
left no noteworthy mark in any other facet of culture. At the very
best preserved the best of the past (Byzantine architecture, Islamic
socio-economic structures), at the worst, kept the region frozen
and backward for half of a millenium, phenomenon unique in the
entire recorded history of the region. This is a fact too.
Nikos, sorry, but that's a fact. And it has nothing to do with
the _potential_ of any large enough group of people (non-racism).
Gregory
PS: As far as your current political observations about Greece,
you need to study some serious international political history;
not only linguistics or ideologies.
Agamemnon
Turgut Durduran wrote in message <64cf16$il9$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>In article <64btu7$gb0$2...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
>Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>there we go, so that is one difference than *Greece*.
>>>
>>
>>It proves that the Cypriots are more Greek than the Greeks.
>
>
>could be, but it also shows *one difference from Greece*.
>do you still remember the point of discussion? (cyprus culture=culture
of
>*greece* statement by you)
>
>>The monuments to the Gods exist in Both countries and in Turkey,
Syria,
>>Egypt, Lebanon etc.
>
>so does in US.
>
What do you mean. Are you saying that Atlantis was actually America.
>>This assumes that in Greece I have nothing better to do than go to
>>restaurants. Im sure you can find it if you relay look. Thers bound to
>>be some Cypriots living there.
>>>
>
>ok, good move. Let's put it this way, have you ever eaten
>Seftali kebab as a food of *Greece*?
>
Im sure I can find some Greek Restaurant in Haringagay that claims it as
food of Greece.
If it is eaten in Greece it is food of Greece.
Curry is the food of Great Britain, and thats official.
>>Same main ingredient (and I dont mean water). Same method of Brewing.
>>Subtle differences. Originally invented by Greeks.
>
>
>did the inventor have his patent record somewhere?
>how do you know who invented such a universla thing?
>how come Yemenis seem to do that for much longer time?
>
If I knew who had the patent Id be a rich man.
>>He probably wasn't taught proper Katherevousa.
>
>nice to have such presuppositions about people.
>
>>They have contributed to it.
>
>yes, do they have it though?
>
>>>
>>The Second part we can agree on. Culture of Greece is a sub set of the
>>Universal set of All Greek Culture. Culture of Cyprus is also a subset
>>of the Universal.
>>
>>CoG u CoC is part of the same universal.
>>
>>CoG n CoC is what in comon to both.
>>
>>All European Culture is another bigger universl set and intersects
with
>>All Greek Culture.
>>
>
>ok, so do we agree that your statement Cyprus culture=culture of greece
>was wrong?
>
No, we agree that it was a sub set of All Greek Culture.
Lim Culture of Cyprus - Culture of Greece = 0,
In the Limit when x tends to 0. Where x is the differece between
Culture of Greece and each other culture. The Error in the equality
tends towards 0 as Culture tends to Cyprus.
>>
>>Since when has Arabic music imitated Uncle Spam.
>
>since when they started making English comments within it,
>and they added a 'beat' to their songs :)
>
If you are referring to Rap then that usualy regarded as Black culture
(infact I think that the first rap artist was actually Johnny Rotten of
the Sex Pistols, or it could have been Mick Jagger, anyway both are
British)
Agamemnon
>turgut
Agamemnon
Turgut Durduran wrote in message <64cenp$qid$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>In article <64bnq1$etr$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>,
>Agamemnon <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>hey, if they are also Muslim's do they count as Muslim Cypriots?
>>>(remember you just said living in Greece = having greek culture etc)
>>>
>>
>>They are Illegal immigrants and therefore not Cypriots.
>>
>>You as you said are living in the Us bur are not American.
>
>let's put it this way, do they have the Cypriot culture?
>If so, what is the different between a Cypriot and a non-Cypriot
>on that context? Given that you are basing your statements on:
>
>1) >>(remember you just said living in Greece = having greek culture
etc)
>2) You refer to t/c's as "Muslim Cypriots" . I.e you are *not*
>using official titles based on citizenship, rather religion and
>being a Cypriot. (there are CYpriots who are not citizens of RoC
>and TRNC for example, dont you agree?)
>
No, I am using the term Muslim Cypriot to make it clear that the Illegal
Turkish Settlers who are not of Cypriot Origin, who do not share in the
culture of The Republic of Cyprus, who do not have RoC Citizenship, are
not misinterpreted as being "Turkish" Cypriots.
They are not "Turkish" Cypriots they are imported ethnic Turks and the
dominant culture in occupied Cyprus is Turkish "culture" if you can say
that a country that has no famous, poets, writers, actors, musicians,
artists etc, "culture" (because everyone with a slight sign of free
thought is locked up)..
Cypriot Culture in the Occupied areas is being systematically eradicate.
Churches are violated and left to rot. Ancient monuments are left to
decay. Cypriot place names are replaced with new Turkish names. Every
sign of Cypriot culture is destroyed.
I am sick of heating Turkish occupation soldiers and Kurdish ones at
that as being refereed to as Turkish Cypriot. To be Turkish does not
imply being "Turkish" Cypriot. I am therefore using the more accurate
(but no perfect) term Muslim Cypriot.
>>>hmm. can you tell me the name of the vice-president? the ministers?
>>>who are "Muslim Cypriots"?
>>>
>>The seats have been reserved since Denktash and co pulled out in the
>>60's
>>
>>Agamemnon
>
>
>what kind of a stupidity is that, what kind of a stupid government
>keeps such an important position such as a vice-president empty.
Because the racist 1960 constitution reserves the position of Vice
president for a "Turkish" Cypriot.
>If they are really keeping those seats vacant, and claim the
>only reason is because T/c's pulled out in 60s, how come the
>elections for those positions doe snot take place anymore? how could
The elections for the municipalities and presidential elections are
conducted on the same basis and in the same constituencies as in the
1960's. The Muslim Cypriots are kept prisoner in the occupied area and
therefore cannot take part. Their seats are therefore reserved at the
same level they were before the Turkish invasion, and every time a new
government body is created the seats are allocated to both Greek and
Muslim Cypriots in the same proportions as are stipulated in the
constitution.
>they presuppose that T/C's won't come and vote, and join the
parliament?
>
The Muslim Cypriots were forced to reside in the occupied areas on pain
of Death. The Turkish Government/Army threatened to bomb Muslim Cypriot
villages in the free areas unless the Muslim Cypriots were forcibly
moved to the occupied areas.
Agamemnon
Gregory Dandulakis
In article Gregory Dandulakis <gd...@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>
>In article Nikos Sarantakos <sar...@innet.lu> wrote:
>>
>>In article "Agamemnon" <argyros...@nospam.ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
...
>esthetician, both burying the truth under piles of hyperbole.
Let me add, that I am also an esthetician, that is, I use some
type of standards for comparisons/relative measurement, since
only this way we build language, understand and act. I am an
evolutionary esthetician. I compare things: from the past for
objective knowledge; and from the proposed future for possible
"best" course of action. And my "best" (evaluative) course of
action is the one _o p t i m i z i n g m y r e g i o n_!
Gregory (the voice of my L A N D)
Agamemnon
http://www.dsp.ee.ic.ac.uk/~cyprus/Cyprus_Problem/index2.html
DESTRUCTION OF THE CULTURAL IDENTITY OF THE OCCUPIED AREA
ATTILA LIVES AGAIN
DESTRUCTION AND RETURN TO THE MIDDLE AGES
In July 20, 1974 Turkey undertakes a military invasion of Cyprus which
has as a consequence extensive destruction. On August 14 the Turkish
plan was completed with the second assault that culminated with the
occupation of 37% of Cyprus. The Turkish troops destroyed every hope
that the end of the Second World War would mean the phasing out of the
horror of war from Europe. Even worse, the extent of the destruction,
the barbarity and plundering which has been continuing for many years
now, are reminiscent of the dark days of the Middle Ages. The misdeeds
of the Turkish Attila are very similar to the works of peril and
destruction of the notorious king of the Huns.
Prestigious foreign publications, individuals, associations and
international organisations have castigated the actions committed by
Turkey and her forces in Cyprus. What takes place constitutes a
challenge for the European and universal principles and there is urgent
need for reaction to the gradual but systematic wiping out of the
cultural heritage of Cyprus, which has a universal character.
THEY OBLITERATE EVERY GREEK LIVING PRESENCE
With the flight of the Greek population, Turkey succeedeed in her first
target: the region ceased to live and breathe to the tune to which it
had done for almost three millenia of its history.
Its people do not converse in Greek anymore.
The village and places, indeed every object, have lost their Greek
names.
The curches are empty.
The Greek language, Greek civilization, the philosophers of ancient
Greece and Christianity have abandonded the schools.
Greek scripts, school books, every witness to civilization in occupied
Cyprus is fading away.
Works of art, symbols of worship, deeds and gestures that have repeated
themselves for thousands of years, everything that constitutes the
culture and heritage of Cyprus have become and still are objects for
demolition - they are being destroyed, pillages, wiped out.
Artists, writers, creative peopole have been forced to flee from their
familiar milieu; whatever they create after 2974 remains distant from
their origins.
Under numerous rulers, the population of Cyprus retained a continuity in
its cultural identity, assimilating foreign influences and making them
part of the Greek culture of the island. During the thousands of years
of its history there has never been a radical discontinuity in the
cultural identity of its population, and its heritage has been enriched
around a common cultural theme.
SACRILEDGE, PLUNDERING, DESOLATION, DESTRUCTION ILLICIT TRADE IN
ANTIQUITIES, SMUGGLING
The Times
"It is important to distinguish between random damage that might have
been caused by drunks after a night out, and the demolition of crosses,
tombstones and heavy marble slabs which weigh several hundredwieht and
would need men with sledgehammers to destroy them. We found nothing to
fit the first category. In fact, at Dhavlos, on the north coast, now
occupied by mainland Turks, even the graveyard wall was partly
demolished. Not a single tombstone remained standing...
..the process of obliterating everything Greek has been carried out
methodically. The churches and graveyards have suffered severely."
"The Times", 5.27.1976
"The little treasure house of Antiphonitis Monastery, in the mountains
north of Lefkoniko, had sustained the most comprehensive looting and
damage....the 11th, 12th, and 15th century icons..all had vanished or
had been destroyed. The nineteenth and twentieth century icons were
smashed, the furniture broken. In the corner were bags of cement and the
remains of a fire. Furniture had been lugged outside onto the grass, and
the whole place was a strewn with bottles and filth. Somebody was
clearly proud of this work, for the wrecked iconostasis the date was
chalked March 6, 1975."
"The Times", 5.27.1976
The report (August 9)from the Cyprus Director of Antiquities on the
recent looting or desecration of the mosaics in the church of Panayia
Kanakaria in the Turkish occupied north of Cyprus has reopened the
debate on the fate of churches, monasteries and mosques on that unhappy
island.
As a journalist I have travelled widely and freely on both sides of the
partition line. In Turkish Cyprus there was large scale damage to
churches in the immediate aftermath of the 1974 intervention. That was
perhaps understandahle. More recently, historic churches have been
seized, stripped and whitewashed and converted into mosques. One example
is on the fringes of Nicosia, another outside Famagusta. Others have
been desecrated.
Less than a year ago, travelling in the company of Mr. Mustapha
Adiloglou, press official in London of the Turkish Federated State of
Cyprus we came across a desecrated church in the centre of a busy
village between Famagusta and Nicosia. Fresh excrement and urine lay on
the smashed altar and the floor. The church Bible had been used as
toilet paper and the wall paintings gashed and disfigured. The icons had
vanished. From the state of the place it was clear that this was not a
single act of violation. The place obviously had been a public
convenience for months.
In fairness one should add that some churches (particularly tourist
conscious Kyrenia) have been restored by the rurkish authorities and are
either open for prayer or tourism or securely locked.
"The Times", 19.8.80
Yenidyzen
"The Turkish Cypriot Arts Society leader, Ali Atakan, in a statement
issued on May 20 revealed yet more antique smuggling. According to this
revelation, a valuable Byzantine mosaic has been stolen from a Byzantine
Church in the village of Lythrangomi. There are two inter-connected
churches in the village and the mosaic was stolen from the apse of the
older church which dates back to the 8th century..."
Turkish Cypriot "Yenidyzen", 6.1.1982
"You will see chambers cut out of the rocks, lighthouses, the remains of
baths, layouts and the military camps set up on the ruins both before
and after 1974... Today Lambousa is a military zone closed to tourists.
Here are many important churches and the mythological Akhiropietos
Monastery. Now you cannot see it because it is being used as a military
warehouse. The icons stolen from Lambousa were retrieved while being
smuggled out of Ankara airport."
Le Monde
"The antiques are illegaly exported from the northern part of the
island, especially rich in archaeological sites'
"Le Monde", 12.27.1978
Bozkurt
"The Cyprus Arts Society in the occupied areas issued a press release
saying that the antique smuggling in the occupied areas has reached
enourmous dimensions and that measures should be taken to protect the
destruction of the antiques."
Turkish Cypriot "Bozkurt", 7.4.1982
The Guardian
"We visited 26 former Greek villages. We found not a single undesecrated
cemetery..."
"...The vandalism and desecration are so methodical and so widespread
that they amount to institutionalised obliteration of everything sacred
to a Greek ... In some instances, an entire graveyard of 50 or more
tombs had been reduced to pieces or rubble no larger than a
matchbox...we found the chapel of Ayios Demetrios at Ardhana empty but
for the remains of the altar plinth, and that was fouled with human
excrement... At Syngrasis ... the broken crucifix was drenched in
urine.. At Lefkoniko ...the interior of Gaidhouras church... was
overlooked by an armless Christ on a smashed crucifix... Tombs gaped
open wherever we went...crosses bearing the pictures of those burried
beneath ... had been flattened and destroyed.
"The Guardian", 'The Rape of northern Cyprus', 5.6.1976
Ortam
"The trial of the director sic of Kyrenia Museum, Mehmet Rasih, has
ended with the case being referred to the "criminal court". The trial is
connected with the 3 chests of antiques discovered in Turkey on their
way to Germany, on 16.3.1981... The number of the missing icons or
substituted icons were 225 ...later it was found that large icons had
been sawn down to smaller sizes and thus entered in the books."
Turkish Cypriot "Ortam", 5.6.1982
Bozkurt
"Two icons estimated to cost arounf TL 1 million were stolen from
Kyrenia "Court". The icons stolen from the village church of Karmi 5
months ago were found in the Famagusta district and 4 persons were
arrested in connection with the incident. The icons were locked away in
Kyrenia "Court-House" to be stolen again."
Turkish Cypriot "Bozkurt", 3.9.1979
The Times
"Confidential United Nations military documents, circulated to officers
in the United Nations peace - keeping force in Cyprus, disclose that
looting is being systematically carried out on a massive scale by the
Turkish and Turkish Cypriot authorities in the north of the island"
"The Times", 12.13.1976
"...historic churches have been seized, stripped and whitewashed and
converted into mosques ... Others have been desecrated. ... we came
across a desecrated church in the center of a busy village between
Famagusta and Nicosia. Fresh excrement and urine lay on the smashed
altar and the floor. The church Bible had been used as toilet paper and
the wall paintings gashed and disfigured. The icons had vanished. From
the state of the place it was clear that this was not a single act of
violation. The place obviously had been a public convenience for months.
... On the Greek side all the mosques I have seen are securely locked
and protected."
"The Times", 8.19.80
The Sunday Times
"Scotland Yard and Customs Officials are uncovering a highly organized
smuggling network behind the trail of antiques looted in Cyprus"
"The Sunday Times", 4.25.1976
OPEN GRAVES, BROKEN CROSSES...
The Times
The above testimony, by a British journalist, member of the crew of a
British TV network which visited the occupied part of Cyprus, proved
that the places of rest of the dead became targets of the most intense
destruction mania. According to this and other testimonies, the crosses
on graves were cut away and broken to pieces. Tombstones were also
overturned and crushed to bits, while the invaders violated the graves.
"We managed to check 26 villages in all. Some other villages, such as
Marathovouno and Pyrga, were sealed by the Army and access to the church
itself was not possible. Since graveyards are usually some way out of
the village, these were checkable and, in every instance, we found
deliberate and usually comprehensive damage. In no village we visited
was the graveyard intact"
"The Times", 5.27.1976
The Guardian
"We visited 26 former Greek villages. We found not a single undesecrated
cemetery..."
"The Guardian", 5.6.1976
"The next village had been -until the events of 1974- Greek. Now it is
deserted but for Turkish refugee squatters. There are two churches in
the village. One has been stripped and converted into a mosque. A few
Turkish Cypriots kneel, praying, inside it. The other church has been
vandalised. The exterior walls are covered with illegible graffiti.
Inside, the destruction is complete. The body of the church is bare of
pews or chairs. The alter screen, composed of six-inch timbers, has been
wrenched out, the icons have been looted. Among the filth on the floor
lies the torn remains of an antique bible. ...The altar ... has been
smashed. On the remains of the altar are broken bottles, excrement, and
what smells like urine. When asked about the desecrated Greek church and
the massacre villages, Rauf Denktash, "president of Turkish
Cypriots"...ads that it all shows that Greeks and Turks can no longer
live side by side on the island".
"The Guardian", 11.30.1979
OLAY
"Illegal digs are being made in all districts. For example, in Kyrenia,
in Ayios Epiktitos, in Nicosia, and in the hills beyond Krini. But,
Famagusta is the most suitable for illegal digs. Illegal digs virtually
cover the whole district. In this district the first settlements were
established and since ancient times they had maintained their historical
importance.
Illegal digs in the Karpass start from the cliff in the east, from the
small islets in the sea, and from the caves of Galinoporni, and extend
to the north-west of the Karpass, to Eptakomi, Ovogoros, Galatia and
Ardhana".
Turkish Cypriot, "Olay", 1 7.5. 1982.
The Observer
"Vandals have desecrated scores of British graves in Turkish occupied
northern Cyprus, some of them dedicated to First World War soldiers ...
The wrecking of British gravestones pales beside the destruction in
Christian Greek Orthodox cemeteries ... Every cross has been destroyed
and the tombs gape open to the elements, the lizards and the robbers,
spurred on by the superstition that the Greeks have valuables buried
with them"
"The Observer", 3.29.87
OLAY, April 1982.
"Haven't you heard that the 2000 year old Christian church in Cyprus, St
Barnabas' Church, has been robbed? Haven't you heard that 35 icons were
stolen, that 11 of them were found in Kythrea, that 11 were retrieved at
Ankara airport while being smuggled out, and that the rest are lost?
Haven't you heard what's happening in Varosha (Famagusta)? Haven't you
heard that figurines belonging to the Catholic period and kept in the
Archaelogical Museum have been stolen and smuggled to London? What about
the icons in the other churches; the mosaics, the private collections,
the illegal digs? Why have they stopped the digs started before 1974 at
the city of Gastria, which belongs to the geometric age? Do you know
what happened since then? The government has issued permits to certain
businessmen from Turkey to set up a gypsum factory there. The tombs were
destroyed and plundered."
Mehmet Yasin, "Perishing Cyprus" in the Turkish Cypriot Review "Olay",
April 1982.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Destruction of Cultural Heritage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
[Mirrors||Home||Brief Overview||Detailed History||Constitutional
Aspects||Enclaved Greek Cypriots||Missing Persons||Destruction of
Cultural Heritage||Violations of Human Rights||Foreign Press
Articles||United Nations||European Union||Greek Goverment||Related
Links||Search||Feedback]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Number of accesses since Thu Feb 8 13:44:06 EST 1996:
Giorgos Zacharia (ly...@mit.edu) © 1995, 1996, 1997.
Last modified: Fri Jun 21 10:48:37 EDT 1996
Michael Panagiotakis
Turgut Durduran wrote:
>
>
> >This assumes that in Greece I have nothing better to do than go to
> >restaurants. Im sure you can find it if you relay look. Thers bound to
> >be some Cypriots living there.
> >>
>
> ok, good move. Let's put it this way, have you ever eaten
> Seftali kebab as a food of *Greece*?
This isn't a very good argument Turgut, different places in Greece have
different *local* dishes, I am sure that the same aplies to every
country. F.e. in Crete we have "askordoulakous" which most people
in the rest of Greece wouldn't have the slightest idea what they are..
>
> >Same main ingredient (and I dont mean water). Same method of Brewing.
> >Subtle differences. Originally invented by Greeks.
>
> did the inventor have his patent record somewhere?
> how do you know who invented such a universla thing?
> how come Yemenis seem to do that for much longer time?
I think I can help with this one. My father who was a medievalist
scholar once explained the whole story of "Greek/Turkish/Arab" coffee:
Coffee of course was in use in Arabia way before either Ottomans or
Greeks had a clue of its existence. It was prepared in pretty much the
same way "Turkish/Greek" coffee is prepared. Therefore the origins
of coffee drinking were without a doubt Arab. From the Arabs coffee
was passed on to the Ottomans, and its use became widespread all through
the Ottoman empire. There was a catch though. According to Ottoman
law a Muslim was not allowed to serve an "unbeliever"(no problem the
other way around). So in the Christian parts of the empire the
coffeeshop trade gradually went into the hands of ,mainly, Greeks and
Armenians. Greeks escaping or leaving the Ottoman regions for the
diaspora communities in Western Europe, brought with them the
"art" of coffeemaking. It turns out that Western Europe was introduced
to coffee by -mostly- Greek cooffeeshop owners, Certainly the
first coffeeshops in Rome, Vienna and the introduction of coffee to
Britain were Greek "achievements " (The most important contribution
of modern Greeks to Western Civilization IMHO ;-) ). Therefore
what in Greece was called "Turkish" coffee became in the west
"Greek" coffee, despite it's being Arab!
> >>
> >The Second part we can agree on. Culture of Greece is a sub set of the
> >Universal set of All Greek Culture. Culture of Cyprus is also a subset
> >of the Universal.
> >
> >CoG u CoC is part of the same universal.
> >
> >CoG n CoC is what in comon to both.
> >
> >All European Culture is another bigger universl set and intersects with
> >All Greek Culture.
> >
>
> ok, so do we agree that your statement Cyprus culture=culture of greece
> was wrong?
>
> >
> >Since when has Arabic music imitated Uncle Spam.
>
> since when they started making English comments within it,
> and they added a 'beat' to their songs :)
Oh come on Turgut! Don't be such a purist!
>
> turgut
Mihalis
Michael Panagiotakis
Continuing...
...1964
" The situation in Cyprus remained critical, but american analysts
were of the opinion that the attacks of the opposition and the pressure
from within his party [G.Papandreou's] made any handling of the
situation with Turkey extremely difficult...
On June 4, the crisis reached a very dangerous point, as a series
of events led to an open threat from Turkish prime-minister Inonu,
that Turkey would intervene in Cyprus. Inonu had given orders for
the gathering of naval and ground forces in Alexandretta and around
Cyprus. The Greek government had already secretly sent the previous
April a strong contigent of ground troops.
Everything was pointing to the inevitability of the Turkish operations,
when president Johnson sent a personal letter to Inonu on June 5th. It
was a very harsh letter, which convinced Ankara to postpone its
intervention. Johnson wrote among other things: " Adherence to NATO
basically means that country-members will not proclaim war against one
another.Furthermore a military intervention by Turkey might lead to
an immediate Soviet involvement" The American leader went even further
with a specific threat:" I hope that you realize that your NATO allies
have not had the opportunity to examine whether or not they have the
obligaton to protect Turkey from the Soviet Union, if Turkey is involved
-without the full consent and agreement of ots NATO allies- in an action
that might lead to a SOviet intervention". The Johnson letter was
interpreted in Ankara as clear blackmail and the Turkish press gave it
a lot of publicity......
... Johnson...summoned the Greek ambassador to the US Alexandros Matsas,
in order to convince him of the need to start a direct dialogue between
Athens and Ankara. He then warned Matsas in his typically Texan manner:
"If I can't convince you to talk with Turkey I won't be able to stop
the Turks when they make their move", and he added: "We stopped
the invasion a few nights ago. Now we need a meeting. Let's start
talking about this problem" Continuing he said that he relied on
the Greek prime-minister for the resolution of this matter, because:
"Negotiations with Makarios are impossible. Makarios is not interested
in the West's security, but Greece, Turkey and the US are". Matsas
observed that neither Athens had managed to negotiate with Makarios,
but he promised to relay the president's message to the Greek gvt.
Besides Matsas, politicians and officials agreed with the opinion
that G.Papandreou would have a hard time controlling Makarios. Some
of them pointed out to the american officials they talked to that
the cypriot leader was in fact controling the Papandreou Gvt., and it
was forced to follow along. One such person was Panos Kokkas, publisher
of the newspaper "Eleutheria". In a discussion with a diplomat Kokkas
said that he does not share Papandreou's optimism in that he'll be
able to control Makarios... The Athenean publisher expressed the opinion
that in order to ensure Cyprus' union with Greece, Greece could accept
with reservations the removal of the Greek population in Constantinople
and the relocation of the Patriarchate to the Holy Mountain (Athos).
The American ambassador to Thens, with the concurring opinion of the US
embassy in Leukosia, asked Washington to adopt a clearer policy on the
Cyprus issue, which would support the principle of self determination,
with "Enosis as its ultimate goal". Lambuige [sp?] was also advocating
applying pressure to Turkey so as to abandon the idea of a federation in
the island and to follow " a more flexible policy towards the Cyprus
issue".
"To be continued...!"
chetin
Subject: Re: The Cyprus conflict; was: Turkish Cyprus hosts an
international water conference
From: Michael Panagiotakis <mih...@chem.fsu.edu>
Date: 1997/11/11
Message-ID: <3468D9...@chem.fsu.edu>
Newsgroups:
soc.culture.turkish,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.greek,alt.politics.europe.misc
[More Headers]
chetin wrote:
>> When Turks conquered Cyprus in 1571, from the Venetians; for the first
>>
>> time in Cyprus' history they created an 'EASTERN ORTHODOX NATION' by
>>
>> appointing and recognizing the Archbishop of the Autocephalous Orthodox
>> Church as the head of the 'ortodox millet,' causing the cultivation of
>> the
>> Ortodox values;
>>
>> which meant in practice the study of the Greek language, and literature,
>>
>> and the history. Thus induced them to create a 'national identity' which
>>
>> never existed before.
> Well the arts and letters and sciences and whatever else you can
>imagine *flourished* in Crete under the Venetians rule, especially
>after the fall of Constantinople when revolts against the Venetians
>ceased as there was no other alternative...
>The begginings of modern
>greek literature can be traced there as well as the begginings of a
>"national identity"... The island prospered and contributed scholars,
>poets, musicians, painters (Theotokopoulos f.e.), while perserving
>absolutely its Orthodox faith. After the fall of the islands to the
>Ottomans all this ended abruptly. Nothing.
> You can understand then why I would be highly sceptical about the
>claims about Ottoman influence in Cyprus....
maybe the fall of Istanbul (which created the 'harmonious atmosphere'
that enabled the Cretians to succeed all those) didn't have the same
effects in Cyprus.
also the postwar era of a war which lasted for 24 years and costed a
lot to the Ottomans shouldn't be compared to a conquest which was
succeded a century before, when it can be considered as the golden years
of the conqueror.
> BTW what are "Orthodox Values"? How come I'm Greek and don't share
>them....?
infact, I've never understood why the Eastern Ortodox Church is also
known
as Greek Ortodox Church.:-)
>>
>> ".... It's Church was an autocephalous member of the
>>
>> Holy Eastern Orthodox Church, and thus religion combined
>>
>> with language to foster the idea that the Cypriotes were
>>
>> Greek in origin. That there was real racial affinity with
>>
>> the Hellenic stock there is nothing to prove;
>>
>> the anthropological evidence, so far as it goes, seems to
>>
>> favour the contrary view...."
>>
>> (Sir George Hill, A History of Cyprus, page 488)
> Religion+Language+Mores and Customs = National Identity. All this
>"racial affinity with the Hellenic stock" is racist claptrap, pure
>and simple. Besides there were Greeks in Cyprus during the Classical
>age. What happened to them? They commited mass suicide or something?
I totaly agree with you... You should tell this to those who deny
the existence of the Turkish minority in Greece and insist on saying
that they are "Greek Moslems".
and I also believe that your Q. should've been addressed to Sir G.Hill.
>>
>> In 1821, the Greeks revolted against the Ottoman Turks. After six years
>>
>> of fighting with the help of Britain, France and Russia an independent
>>
>> State of Greece established. In 1864 Britain handed the Ionian islands
>>
>> to Greece, in 1881 Selanik and Epirus were united with the Greek State.
> Thesaloniki and Epirus were united with the Greek state after the
>Balkan wars (1912-1913).
You are right. I meant to say Thessalia and part of Epirus.
>>
>> The growing national pride and the self confidence drove them to adopt
>>
>> the belief in the necessity of building up a "'Greater Greek State' of
>> the
>>
>> two continents and the five seas" ("MEGALO IDEA") to cover all the GREEK
>>
>> SPEAKING Ortodox world.
>>
>> And my dear friend, all these caused the Greek Nationalism to give
>>
>> birth to a baby by the name of 'ENOSIS' in Cyprus. AND THIS IS WHEN THE
>> CYPRUS CONFLICT HAS STARTED.
> Well step back for a second and take a calmer look at it: The whole
>concept of Megali Idea was ofcourse nationalist nonsense, rather
>dangerous nationalist nonsense at that, and caused Greece much hardship
>and suffering. It must be admitted that its inconceivable for the Greek
>Army to try to march to Ankara as it did in the early 20's with dire
>consequences. BUT if one believes in majority rule how can one deny the
>majority of the population of an island their right to
>self-determination? If the majority of Cypriots at the time wanted
>(for whatever reasons) to join with Greece, why is that so irrational?
>I agree that in such circumstances the rights of any minorities must
>be provided for, but -again I take as an example Crete: the Muslim popu-
>lation there (around 15%) lived as far as I know unharassed lives
>for the ten years they were residing inside the Greek state, until
>the population exchanges in 1923. Why could that not have been the
>case in Cyprus.
the population of Cyprus has been composed of two peoples and these
two seperate peoples have never merged to form a Cypriot nation.
therefore these peoples of Cyprus have seperate self deterination
rights.
even if this fact didn't exist and your logic was to be applied
then one must take it into consideration that the island is a
geographical
part of Turkey (just off the Anatolian coast) therefore its population
should has to be considered together with Turkeys.
infact this would have been a more realistic approach since the Berlin
Convention of 1878 convenired Britain to revert the sovereignty to
Turkey.
> >> >
> >> > Of course it is very speculative, but my guess would be that the Greek
> >> > Cypriots did not stand that united behind the independence movement when
> >> > the struggle began.
> >>
> >> I think that the G/C were pretty much united on that...
>
>> you are wrong, because the aim of the greek cypriots wasn't to
>> gain independence; they only wanted to be united with greece (enosis)
> Everybody was united against the Brits aiming at either independece
>or "Enosis".
> >
> >> > So the Greek fighters had to invoke nationalism by stirring up hatred
> >> > against British and Turkish cypriots alike.
> >
> >> I might be completely wrong on this (I'd like to hear Turgut's
> >> viewpoint) but
> >> as far as I know EOKA did not stirr hatred against Turkish Cypriots to
> >> begin with.
>
>> greek cypriots didn't need EOKA to stirr hatred against turkish cypriots
>> which has already existed. the greek cypriot terorism against
>> turkish cypriots in 1912 is a fine example to this when
>> "....5 people killed and 134 were wounded, could not but have
>> increased Turkish fears that as a minority in a Greek State,
>> they would be unable to protect themselves.
>> ....For the history-conscious Greeks, the presence of the Turks
>> was....a reminder, of a barbaric military conquest...."
>> [Greek Cypriot author:Z.STAVRINIDES,
>> The Cyprus Conflict,National Identity
>> and Statehood]
>>
> You seem to believe that everybody on the Greek/Cypriot side is
>as nationalist as yourself. What about AKEL? Did they "hate
>the Turks" too?
I was talking in general.
The way you put this Q. has lead me to interpret it as:
1)I am a nationalist who hate Greeks:---You are wrong.
2)if AKEL was nationalist:---I believe they were enosist.
3)if AKEL hated Turks:---Even though if they didn't hate the Turks;
they still supported the Church and therefore sided with EOKA
by rejecting a contitutional plan which was proposed in MAY 1948
by the British for a 'Home Rule'or 'partial self rule'
Thinking that the acceptence of the British plan might
thwart the Greek Cypriot scheme for enosis.
> >
> > > It is well known that nothing unites better than a common enemy.
> > > (Out of this analogy I compared Grivas, Milosevic and Hitler.)
> > > : > > No doubt after the military coup in Cyprus Turkey had a right to
> > > : > > intervene to protect the Turkish Cypriots. That this was not it's main
> > > : > > aim though was demonstrated by the refusal to remove it's troops AFTER
> > > : > > the coup failed. Indeed the invading Attila army advanced instead of
> > > : > > retreating.... There is no evidence that by 1974 Makarios had any wish
> > > : > > to "get rid of the turkish population".
> > > : >
> > > : > Makarios was in power from 1960 to 1974. He is directly responsible for
> > > : > not having taken clear steps to settle the conflict peacefully.
> > >
> > > : Makarios was in power after the junta collapsed in 1974 too.
> > >
> > >> Well, yes, but then the damage was already done.
> >
> >> But you are assuming that the Turkish side WANTED this whole thing to
> >> be settled
> >> peacefully. That, I think, was not the case.
>
>> it is true that the turkish cypriots WANTED this whole thing to be
>> settled
>> peacefully but it wasn't the case with Makarios as was cited by
>> John Reddaway:
>> "Until this small Turkish Community, forming part of the Turkish race,
>> which has been the terrible enemy of Hellenism is expelled, the duty
>> to the heroes of EOKA can never be considered as terminated".
>> { (from Makarios' speech on 4 September 1962,)
>> 'Burdened with Cyprus: The British Connection', page 194}
> First of all I did not say turkish Cypriots but "Tukish side".
>Turkey was not interested in a solution.
see above extract from J.Reddeway's book.
how could you expect Turkey or T/C's to be interested in such a
solution.
> As for the quote: what turkish community is he refering to? Does
>he mean ALL of T/C? I'm not saying he didn't but the context would be
>useful.
Since all the T/C's were united against Enosis;
it is definite that he was refering to all of the T/Cs.
>
> >> Makarios BTW was not the only player in this game, as I pointed out in
> >> another
> >> posting he had to keep internal G/C balances AND try to keep Cyprus
> >> "nonaligned as well.
>
>> so you reckon these were good reasons to try to get rid of the
>> turkish population.
>Nope. Not at all.
>
> >> It seems to me that the only reason Makarios failed was because the US
> >> and their nationalist stooges in Greece and Turkey did not want him to
> >> succeed.
>
>> it is true that Turkey didn't want Makarios to succeed...
>> Because " Makarios's central interest was to block off Turkish
>> intervension so he and his Greek-Cypriots could go on happly massacring
>> Turkish-Cypriots"
>> {Former U.S.Under Secretary of State,
>> GEORGE W. BALL's Memories,
>> 'The Past Has Another Pattern', W.W.Norton
>> and Company, New York, Page345}
>>
> I wouldn't trust Ball's opinion about Makarios on anything. In his
>eyes as well as most American diplomats he was a mortal enemy since
>he "threatened" to become "nonaligned". Second don't forget that this
>is coming from a man who had no problems with Grivas at all ( he was
>a hero of the west: Nazi collaborator, loyal American friend, and
>a good Greek nationalist ;-) ).
how about Zenon Stavrinides' opinion; whould you trust his?:
"....the collaboration of Archbishop Makarios with
Colonel George Grivas....Makarios....eventually came
to accept Grivas's plans."
[Greek Cypriot
author:Z.STAVRINIDES,
The Cyprus Conflict,National
Identity
and Statehood]
> > >> Yes, he didn't see the real dangers. I wonder what made him turn away from
> > >> the West. On the long term he should have seen that Western military
> > >> presence might be uncomfortable but not as dangerous as being 'neutral' in
> > >> a strategically important region. Being neutral could as well turn out to
> > >> mean 'enemy to everyone' and 'easy prey', the more so with vital
> > > interests of two neighbouring local powers involved.
> >
> >> Well Makarios, I believe, did not see much point in changing one
> >> colonial
> >> regime for another. He obviously saw (and dissaproved) of the way Greece
> >> was
> >> run as an American protectorate, and also he had a huge local Communist
> >>party
> >> that would react (maybe even violently) to a US takeover of the island.
>
>> on one hand he was actively courted with the USSR; on the other hand
>> he was getting the full support of USA through Greece's influence on the
>> States while 'selling' the so called Cyprus as a non-aligned country.
>> And he only played this game to be able to reach his ambition
>> which was to make Cyprus a Greek island.
> He was most definitely NOT getting the full support of the USA on
>anything. The US suggested to the Greek gvt. to topple Makarios
>and that they would make sure that Turkry didn't react... In my
>next posting I'll include quotes from a rather relevant book...
ok. partial support then...:-)
somewhere below you wrote:
"See Lyndon Johnson's letter to Inonu of June 5th of 1964 and inonu's
reaction..."
well, can you review that letter...?
> > >
> > > : The USA did not take kindly to these
> > > : "extremist" (for the region) views and gave a green light for the
> > > : Turkish "intervention" in 1974... If Makarios just acceded to NATO and
> > > : American bases in the country and kept the communists at a safe dis-
> > > : tance from government (in jail preferably for the USA), than the
> > > : turkish intervention would never have been allowed...
>
>> most probable it was not the USA who gave a green light for the
>> Turkish intervension. I believe that it was the _USSR,_ since Ecevit
>> (a social democrat) was the head of the government in Turkey hoping
>> to end the fascist extensions of the Greek junta to restore the
>> "leftist" Makarios' regime.
> Wow! The USSR giving the green light to a NATO country to invade
>another....
another what???
maybe She desperatly wanted the 'non-alligned' Makarios back,
instead of the Greek junta.
>Sorry but that is simply wrong. The USSR stayed pretty much
>out of it all the way. Turkey, (and Greece) especially those days did
>not make a single move without consulting with the US big brother...
> We were protectorates Chetin, don't you realise? Ofcourse we had
>some deciding power over minor or even not so minor matters, but in
>decisions that might actually threaten the
OR... Maybe they (Russians)thought that a Greco-Turkish war
could ruin the:
>stability of the Western Alliance?
>No way would they allow anything to interfere with that.
>See Lyndon Johnson's letter to Inonu of June 5th of 1964 and inonu's
>reaction...
> As for Ecevit being a "Social Democrat" first of all that does not in
>ANY way imply Soviet ties;second he was the most right wing
>"social democrat" ever (until Blair I guess);third the turkish Army
>always ran things from backstage and they most decidedly were NOT
>Sovietophiles...
maybe they thought they could 'use' Ecevit to achive their goal.
> >> Not really. The only thing they can do is damage. They're rapidly
> >> losing popular support and are turning into some sort of local mafia, as
> >> far as I know.
>
>> well, instead of taking the risks to just to find out that; wouldn't
>> be wiser to live in peace as good neighbours.
> Who's we? The settlers and the G/C? You see if there weren't any
>Turkish settlers this whole thing would be easier. But the Denktash
>regime depends on their vote so I guess there's no way he would agree
>to their removal.
if that is the case; I advise you to try to find out the percentage of
the
votes that the opposition of the "Denktash regime" gets...
> AGREED PROCEDURE!?
YES...
>If the turkish army hadn't invaded in the first
>place there wouldn't have been any "threat of massacres" now would
>there?
we not talking about the "_threat_ of massacres" we are talking about
the
massacres.
What was the aim of the Greek coup?
despite the T/C factor; how were they going to achive their goal???
dont ever forget the years between 1963 and 1974.
>And what about the stolen properties in N.Cyprus? How about
>the people murdered, raped and mutilated after the invasion of a
>foreign army? Ethnic cleansing is the forceful removal of native
>populations from their homes based on nationality. How are the
>Turkish Army atrocities NOT ethnic cleansing...?
some unwanted incidents maybe did occur but;
the rest is exaggerated Greek Propaganda...
let the evidences do the talking... if there is any...
> >> Well the Cypriot gvt. has maintained the position that it is the
> >> Government
> >> of ALL cypriots. The official languages of the R.o.C. remain two (Greek
> >> and Turkish) and the University of Cyprus is bilingual. Sure there are
> >> extremists but they do NOT set the tone for the government.
>
>> But it seems like you don't want to remember the fact that the
>> Turkish Cypriots who were ousted from the so called Cypriot goverment
>> have now established their own State which- no matter what- they are not
>> going to give up.
> Were it really the Government of the Turkish Cypriots and not of the
>Turkish settlers I could conceivably understand an argument for it's
>legitimacy. It's not, therefore I fail to see what you are talking
>about. It would be a good Idea if BOTH Greece and Turkey just buggered
>off and let the Cypriots (T&G) decide for themselves. The Invasion
>issues could be settled then between G/C individuals and the Turkish
>gvt. in international courts (in some sort of class action), the
>T/C's would be able to do likewise to any Greek or G/C person,
>institution or agency, and the two communities could then decide to
>either live together, as most of them did, most of the time for quite a
>number of years Greek and Turkish propaganda nonwithstanding.
since I'm not a racist person like you are; I couldn't categorize
the people of TRNC into groups because of their ethnic backgrounds.
and since the "Cyprus Conflict" is between the TRNC and so called
Cyprus,
anything which need to be settled should be settled between themselves.
BTW there is no Turkish invasion in Cyprus. Its an an intervension.
> I'm not talking about revenge here folks. I am saying however that
>it is indeed the right of every citizen in a democracy to demonstrate
>peacefully (or not so peacefully) against the gvt. and other groups.
>I find it unacceptable that inoccent civilians (such as Turgut) were
>harassed, but nevertheless I argue that once these people are allowed
>access to their homes and get info about their missing relatives
>they wont be demonstrating now, would they?
> As for the horrors some T/C suffered between 1963 and 67 (don't
>exaggerate) I think the surviving members of the fashist terrorist
>group EOKA B' should be publically tried, and if found guilty
>jailed. The situation though with
>the invasion is not symmetric, because EOKA B' was not a Greek or
>Cypriot Gvt. agency while the turkish Army is indeed a Turkish gvt
>agency,(or the other way around...)
Read "AKRITAS PLAN' if you realy want to find out who the EOKA B was.
Turgut Durduran
Ok, I have to resign from the newsgroups for couple of days.
I just do not have enough time to follow the discussions,
and what not. So I'll reply this message ,and resign:)
If anyone wants to tell me something, or discuss
something send an e-mail, as I won't be reading the
newsgroup for a while.
***
>
>No, I am using the term Muslim Cypriot to make it clear that the Illegal
>Turkish Settlers who are not of Cypriot Origin, who do not share in the
>culture of The Republic of Cyprus, who do not have RoC Citizenship, are
>not misinterpreted as being "Turkish" Cypriots.
>
>They are not "Turkish" Cypriots they are imported ethnic Turks and the
>dominant culture in occupied Cyprus is Turkish "culture" if you can say
>that a country that has no famous, poets, writers, actors, musicians,
>artists etc, "culture" (because everyone with a slight sign of free
>thought is locked up)..
You are trying hard to justify "Muslim Cypriot" vs "turkish Cypriot"
which shows the importance you pay to racist rhetoric.
I am not saying anything here actually, all I did was I picked
up two arguments you gave in your attempts to figure out a way
for describing who is Greek culture person, who is Greek, what
those things are etc, i.e in your attempts to justify a lot
of racist lingo. It could have been ok if it was self-consistent,
but you seem to like applying the conditions you present only
to cases you like. One day you make everyone living in Greece
sharing the "culture of Greece" , contributing to it etc which
basically issues the condition of "*LIVING*" in greece to
fit in that category. The next day, when you are asked whether
people *living* in Cyprus end up in a similar category you write
pages trying to explain why they are not. May be instead you
should have re-considered the conditions you describe for defining
your undertanding of "being part of X culture"
So, as you see we are playing a game here, do not assume
at all that I think T settlers or any other T's in Cyprus
are actually "Cypriots" , I did not state my position onthat
*at all*.
>Because the racist 1960 constitution reserves the position of Vice
>president for a "Turkish" Cypriot.
>
so? they can change everything about that consitution, laws
etc but not this one?
>>If they are really keeping those seats vacant, and claim the
>>only reason is because T/c's pulled out in 60s, how come the
>>elections for those positions doe snot take place anymore? how could
>
>The elections for the municipalities and presidential elections are
>conducted on the same basis and in the same constituencies as in the
>1960's. The Muslim Cypriots are kept prisoner in the occupied area and
>therefore cannot take part. Their seats are therefore reserved at the
>same level they were before the Turkish invasion, and every time a new
>government body is created the seats are allocated to both Greek and
>Muslim Cypriots in the same proportions as are stipulated in the
>constitution.
>
So without T/C's they were able to make a decision like
increasing the nuymber of total MP's, running a country
for some 34 years , but they can not change these rules?
ohh come on :)
What about T/C's living in south, how can you pre-assume
that they do not want to join the elections and be elected?
>>they presuppose that T/C's won't come and vote, and join the
>parliament?
>>
>The Muslim Cypriots were forced to reside in the occupied areas on pain
>of Death. The Turkish Government/Army threatened to bomb Muslim Cypriot
>villages in the free areas unless the Muslim Cypriots were forcibly
>moved to the occupied areas.
whatever. you seem to like exagerrating things.
In any case, none of the reasons you listed explain RoC's behaviour.
Try little harder. we are getting somewhere.
Turgut
Turgut Durduran
In article <346A77...@ozemail.com.au>,
>
>>The "assembly" was not voted in by the Muslim Cypriots. It was voted in
>>by Illegal Turkish Immigrants who outnumber the Muslim Cypriots.
>
>the people of North Cyprus.
>And thats how A.Durduran was elected.
>
well, eventhough quite a few non-Turkish-cypriots voted in the
elections, enough to effect our results, enough to destroy
our democracy, you can safely say that A. durduran did not
get many votes from those groups :)
>So in other words;
>you are saying that Alpay Durduran commited a crime...
>
>No he did NOT.
>Did he Turgut?
>
probably he did based on pure laws.
Turgut