Nikitas wrote:Big Oz,
Then you saw the reels of british reporters getting caught in unmarked Turkish minefields, and the reels from the Yalousa with the hacked body of Androulla Christodoulou. There were no civilian clashes in Yalousa, only Mehmecik. And i am not mentioning this in a you did this we did that type of debate.
My point is that the ferocity of the attack starting on August 14 was deliberate to empty and keep empty the north of the island. The policy was partition all along. Which as cynical and as bad as union. With the one detail that Pitsilos pointed out, most Greek Cypriots resisted Union, proving their faith in an independence Cyprus. We are till waiting for proof from the other side.
I do not disagree with you completely on this subject Nikitas. As I said before, a full evaluation of the situation then, and how the objectives of Turkish military changed from that of a peace keeping to that of partitioning the island into two had changed were fully discussed in a previous thread.
The "policy all along" was to secure the Turkish cantons where Turkish civilians lived, but when that proposal was met with the delaying tactics of the Greek team, the next best alternative was put into action. And yes, it was to claim an area North of Cyprus where the Turkish population could be safely accommodated. You can call that partition if you like and I have no objections. But what every TC in this forum has said all along (but accused of being a partitionist instead) is that they are worried f9or their security and safety. They do not object to partition, bi-zonal federation or whatever, providing they are given sound sound assurances that their children will grow in an environment free from violence or persecution by the GC side as was during 1963-1974.
Return or compensation of lost land and property by both sides is a matter that can be dealt with to every one's satisfaction. Many in this forum keep coming to that point as if it is the obstacle in current negotiations.
Furthermore, Piratis and some others who have no clue of the meaning of the words they use refer the invasion as "ethnic cleansing"! COMICAL! What the GCs tried to do to TCs between 1963-1974 was definitely an attempted ethnic cleansing (and it was working out well until the fool Samson and Greek Junta came to TCs aid), what the Greek mainland did to Turks in Thrace over many decades was ethnic cleansing, what Serbs did to Bosnians was an attempted ethnic cleansing. Few thousand (unfortunately and sadly) who died as a direct result of the brief war, who ran away from North for fear of Turks or even some who were threatened to move to South does not amount to or fit the description of ethnic cleansing.
More than 40,000 Turks were forced to leave their land and property and moved to North via the British bases with the then Cyprus government's blessings! Were they ethnically cleansed or something? No one is denying there was a lot of opposition to ENOSIS on the other side - in fact I said it myself many times that the GCs were unfairly worse off in this conflict, but a conflict it was, and the outcome cannot be narrowed down to simple conspiracy theories. The question is: what happens next? Do we still continue arguing about who did greater atrocity to whom, who lost more, or who was trying an ethnic cleansing? Or do we put that all behind after such a long period of peace and work out a solution that can provide security to both communities who have a right to exist in peace on this island?
