The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


TPap fools the GCs and the TCs big time.

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Postby Viewpoint » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:49 pm

Piratis wrote:
Viewpoint wrote:
Piratis wrote:observer, Turkey started the war between Cyprus and Turkey by invading Cyprus and illegally occupying 1/3rd of our island.

Sure we had other events in 1974, but not a war between Cyprus and Turkey. May I also remind you that Turkey had many coups, and it is until today ruled by the army. Maybe that should be a reason for another country to invade and occupy Turkey?

Stop trying to find lame excuses please. The invasion and occupation of Cyprus are inexcusable and illegal, and the war that Turkey started by invading our country can end only with the end of their illegal occupation.


We the TCs invited Turkey here to save our lives from GCs demanding union with Greece and the dire position we were forced into over 11 years, no amount of negotiations were going to sort things out as the GCs had us just where they wanted us in the palm of their hands, isolated and desolate, unable to make ourselves heard to the outside world.


Thats the same excuse that Hitler gave to invade Czechoslovakia, to supposedly protect the German minority there.
As they say, great fascists think alike, right VP?

The truth is that in 1974, 1) GCs were not demanding enosis with Greece, it was a coup that went against our elected President, and 2) the TCs were not killed as you claim. I have challenged you several times to show me evidence that TCs were harmed by GCs in 1974 before the Turkish invasion had started but you have never been able to back up your erroneous claims. Any TCs that were killed in 1974 were only killed during the war that Turkey (and the TCs who invited them, as you said) started against Cyprus on the 20th of July of 1974, and where many thousands of Greek Cypriots where killed as opposed to a couple of 100s of TCs.

So spare us from your lies and propaganda. The Turkish occupation has always been illegal and inexcusable and no Hitler like excuses can change this.


You can compare us to who you want in order to deflect your own guilt but for TCs Turkeys arrival was a god send. I gave you a whole site on TC deaths pre 1974, yet you choose to ignore facts and label it propaganda as it does not fit in with your brain washed beliefs.
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25214
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Postby zan » Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:58 am

Viewpoint wrote:
Piratis wrote:
Viewpoint wrote:
Piratis wrote:observer, Turkey started the war between Cyprus and Turkey by invading Cyprus and illegally occupying 1/3rd of our island.

Sure we had other events in 1974, but not a war between Cyprus and Turkey. May I also remind you that Turkey had many coups, and it is until today ruled by the army. Maybe that should be a reason for another country to invade and occupy Turkey?

Stop trying to find lame excuses please. The invasion and occupation of Cyprus are inexcusable and illegal, and the war that Turkey started by invading our country can end only with the end of their illegal occupation.


We the TCs invited Turkey here to save our lives from GCs demanding union with Greece and the dire position we were forced into over 11 years, no amount of negotiations were going to sort things out as the GCs had us just where they wanted us in the palm of their hands, isolated and desolate, unable to make ourselves heard to the outside world.


Thats the same excuse that Hitler gave to invade Czechoslovakia, to supposedly protect the German minority there.
As they say, great fascists think alike, right VP?

The truth is that in 1974, 1) GCs were not demanding enosis with Greece, it was a coup that went against our elected President, and 2) the TCs were not killed as you claim. I have challenged you several times to show me evidence that TCs were harmed by GCs in 1974 before the Turkish invasion had started but you have never been able to back up your erroneous claims. Any TCs that were killed in 1974 were only killed during the war that Turkey (and the TCs who invited them, as you said) started against Cyprus on the 20th of July of 1974, and where many thousands of Greek Cypriots where killed as opposed to a couple of 100s of TCs.

So spare us from your lies and propaganda. The Turkish occupation has always been illegal and inexcusable and no Hitler like excuses can change this.


You can compare us to who you want in order to deflect your own guilt but for TCs Turkeys arrival was a god send. I gave you a whole site on TC deaths pre 1974, yet you choose to ignore facts and label it propaganda as it does not fit in with your brain washed beliefs.


I think you are talking to the person that is doing the brain washing VP....
User avatar
zan
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16213
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:55 pm

Postby observer » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:07 pm

Piratis wrote:
the TCs were not killed as you claim. I have challenged you several times to show me evidence that TCs were harmed by GCs in 1974 before the Turkish invasion had started but you have never been able to back up your erroneous claims.
Even if this is totally true, and in the chaos of the time who is to say exactly when TCs were being killed, can you explain, if you loved us all so much, why GCs attacked and started killing their fellow TC citizens after the Turkish Army arrived.

TCs would certainly have been killed if the coup had succeeded (Sampson interview frequently quoted) and there is at least a strong possibility that the coup, with Greek backing, would have succeeded if the Turkish Army had not arrived.

I think that you would have to speak to many TCs alive in '74 before finding one who was not grateful for the arrival of the Turkish Army.
observer
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1666
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:21 am

Postby observer » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:13 pm

After all the comments earlier in this thread, by Rafaella, Nikitas and DT, saying what Assistant Secretary Daniel Fried said, I'm surprised (no, not really) that this article from Cyprus Mail hasn't been printed here:

Who needs the truth when you can make things up?
By Makarios Drousiotis

The truth behind the ‘Fried statements’

DOZENS OF articles have been printed in both the Cypriot and the Greek press about a statement allegedly made by Daniel Fried, US Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs.

Fried was appointed to his present position on May 5, 2005 having previously served as Senior Director for European and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council since January 22, 2001.

In the above statement, he is reported to have admitted that the US administration handed Cyprus to Turkey, through the Annan Plan, as a reward for the latter’s provision of facilities to the United States for the war in Iraq.

This “admission” is cited ad nauseam by Lazaros Mavros on his Radio Proto morning show and by Savvas Iacovides in his Simerini newspaper column, as if Fried spoke in public and had been heard by the whole world.

During his frequent appearances in TV studio discussions, Giorgos Lillikas, the co-ordinator of Tassos Papadopoulos’ election campaign, regularly refers to this “admission” and none of his fellow-panellists dare dispute its authenticity.

We have examined the origin of this information and we are able to verify that the statement in question was never made.

The story of Fried’s so-called admission is the Goebbels-type propaganda which a section of our political establishment practises with great skill. It confirms the theory that, when a lie is repeated often enough, it is certain to be believed.

Untangling the web

The myth about Fried’s “admission” began with an article written by Professor Christos Yiannaras on the 2005 anniversary of the referendum on the Annan Plan. (Kathimerini, June 5, 2005, “An Anniversary that is Decisive for Political Statures”). In his article, Yiannaras wrote about the “Annan fraud” and recoiled at the thought that the “propagandists” of the plan had never apologised for voting ‘Yes’ in the referendum although, he believed, they “should be reported to the criminal prosecutor and treated with public contempt”.

Supporters of the plan were guilty of high treason and of participating in the “Annan fraud," he maintained and to strengthen his case wrote:
“A shocking statement by Daniel Fried, US Assistant Secretary for European Affairs, has now been revealed. The statement, which was made on June 26, 2003, was the following: 'When we were trying to persuade Turkey to allow the passage of our troops through its territory into northern Iraq, we offered Turkey three incentives: several billion dollars in loans and grants; the start of negotiations for its accession to the European Union; and Cyprus in the form of the Annan Plan’.”

Aris Anagnos

Yiannis Yiannousopoulos, a Professor at the Panteion University in Athens, challenged Yiannaras to say where “this evidently fabricated, statement was published”.

Yiannaras’ response was that his source was “a study by Marios Evriviades, an Assistant Professor at the Panteion University titled Cyprus and Security in the Eastern Mediterranean”.

The said study was printed in the April 2005 issue of the magazine Ethnikes Epalxeis (National Ramparts). Evriviades' source was Aris Anagnos, an active member of the Greek-American lobby in California who mentioned the Fried ‘statement’ in an article published on the website of the American Hellenic Council in California.

In this article, written after the 2004 referendum, Anagnos lists 12 reasons why the Annan Plan was rejected by the Cypriots. Almost all his conclusions are based on patently inaccurate evidence, but this is not the issue.
What is of interest is his final conclusion: “Cyprus (after its accession to the EU) is in a very powerful position and could exercise its right of veto against Turkey's accession, unless the Turkish troops are first withdrawn. This is the solution.”

Anagnos claims in his article that Daniel Fried, speaking to a group of Greek Americans on June 26, 2003, stated: “When we were trying to persuade Turkey to allow the passage of our troops through its territory into northern Iraq, we offered Turkey two incentives: several billion dollars in loans and grants and Cyprus in the form of the Annan plan.”

On May 31, 2004, Anagnos addressed a letter to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice telling her that the Annan plan was primarily geared at placating Turkey and giving it an inducement to assist in the invasion of Iraq by allowing passage of US troops through its territory. He added: “Mr. Daniel Fried said as much on June 26, 2003 to a group of Greek Americans.” (http://www.americanhellenic.org)

The facts do not fit

Neither in his article nor in his letter to Condi Rice did Anagnos think it necessary to substantiate his claim. He merely restricted himself to hearsay, attributing to Daniel Fried what he had supposedly heard. He even put Fried’s words in inverted commas. This claim was not consistent with the facts.
1. The Annan Plan began to be drafted in 2000 and was submitted in November 2002, before the US decision to invade Iraq had been taken. In the meantime, Turkey had rejected the plan in Copenhagen (December 2002).
2. By the middle of March, when intensive bargaining was taking place between the US and Turkey, Turkey had already rejected Annan Plan 3 at The Hague meeting. Thus, it was extremely unlikely that as an inducement Ankara was offered a plan that it considered unacceptable and had rejected twice.

3. Is it remotely possible for a top member of the US administration to tell officials of the Greek American lobby that Washington had offered Cyprus to Turkey, even this were the case?

4. This alleged statement has never been confirmed by a single member of the group reported to have met with Fried. In his own letters, Anagnos does not even include himself among those present at the meeting. He merely makes a general and vague reference to this information.

5. For a whole year nothing was written or said about this outrageous statement and it was only after the Annan plan was rejected at the referendum that Anagnos decided it was worth a mention.

Official Denial

On June 13, 2005, after a question regarding the claim in Yiannaras’ article, Daniel Fried's spokesman stressed that on several occasions he had already denied making the statement. He referred to a reply to a similar question given by the State Department’s spokesman Richard Boucher on May 26, 2004. The question to Boucher was put by Greek journalist Lambros Papantoniou.

With the US administration having flatly denied the comment had been made, the people who were citing Fried’s alleged admission had to find some way of substantiating their claim. They did not make a very good job of it.
Since 2004, when Aris Anagnos first made the revelation, he did not offer any form of documentation. He did not mention the identity of a single person who was at this infamous meeting nor where it had taken place. Moreover, he never even said he was present.

No other official of the Greek American lobby has ever confirmed that the meeting with Fried had ever taken place or that such an admission was made.
Marios Evriviades had written that Aris Anagnos was present and taking notes. The latter, however, never made such a claim.

Three years after the Fried “admission” was reported and four years after the alleged meeting with a group of Greek Americans, Michalis Ignatiou wrote in the Athens paper, Ethnos on July 6, 2007, that the statement had been recorded. Nobody has ever heard the recording Ignatiou mentions.

In another of his articles, Ignatiou claims to have been present at the event. Referring to Daniel Fried, he wrote: “I remember that during a hermetically sealed meeting of the Greek Lobby he did not hesitate to admit that the Annan plan was a move to appease Turkey." (Phileleftheros, June 27, 2007).
Some 10 days later, Ignatiou excluded himself from the meeting and wrote that “three of those present at the closed and top secret meeting” had told Ethnos (four years after the event had actually taken place) “that Fried admitted that the UN Secretary General's peace plan was very close to Turkey's positions.”

Despite this, he did not name the source that had confirmed that the “top secret meeting” had taken place, while the words he attributed to Fried were different from those reported by Aris Anagnos.

The dissemination of a forged statement

The Fried “statement”, which no source has ever verified, can only be fictitious, yet it spread in record time as a fact. In Phileleftheros article on September 12, 2004, Takis Konnafis declared with absolute certainty: “The revelation of the above statement can no longer be described as ... anti-American propaganda or a question of bad judgment.”

Although the Fried “statement” consists of one sentence, its text is never the same – even though the people citing it invariably put it in inverted commas.
Writing in Phileleftheros on July 12, 2007, Anthos Lykavgis stated that Fried said that the Annan plan “delivered Cyprus to Turkey”.

Writing in the same newspaper on July 1, 2007, Giorgos Sertis gave a different version, saying Fried's words were: “The Annan plan was a gift by the United States to Turkey.”

Christos Yiannaras added Turkey's accession to the EU as another inducement that the US had given – an inducement which was not mentioned in Evriviades’ study that was supposed to have been his source.

More confusion surrounds the actual meeting at which the statement was made. According to Ignatiou, writing in Ethnos (July 7, 2007), the meeting with officials of the Greek American lobby was private and top secret.

The Cyprus Weekly, (August 27, 2004), wrote that the meeting was public. Two months later (October 28, 2004), in the same paper, Alex Efthyvoulos wrote that Fried “told reporters in Washington”.

Vias Livadas in Simerini (August 27, 2007) wrote that Fried made the statement to Ethnos.

It does not end there. DIKO deputy Zacharias Koulias claimed that Fried made his “admission” while addressing the US Congress.


Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2007
observer
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1666
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:21 am

Postby Nikitas » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:32 pm

There is no need to refer to any statements reported in articles. With our own eyes we saw the almost manic pressure applied by the US embassies in Athens and Nicosia to get the Annan plan accepted by the Greek side.

There were those idiotic statements made by the US ambassador to Nicosia, live on CNN speaking with Jim Clancy, that 18 year old schoolboyes were going around intimidating people. Jim Clancy could not hold himself any longer and challenged the Ambassador about shcoolboys aged 18, with an obviously ironic smile on his face.

Fried's statements or non statements are not needed to see the obvious.

In those days some "volunteer" Greek journalists who went from TV station to TV station propagandising for the Annan plan even sank to the point of alleging that EOKA fighters Afxentiou and Matsis had carried out ethnic cleansing against TCs during the 1958 - 59 period. Until someone called a TV station and reminded thse assholes that both Afxentiou and Matsis had been killed by the British in 1957.

Funny that Makarios Droushiotis has not seen fit to comment on these misdeeds of colleagues of his who write for the same Athens papers.
Nikitas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7420
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:49 pm

Postby Nikitas » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:36 pm

"If the Greeks had accepted our proposal in Vienna (to cede 30 per cent of the island to the TCs) we would not have had to carry out Attila II and kill four and half thousand people"

Bulent Ecevit, speaking to a Turkish daily, I cannot remember which one but it is on record and you can look it up, it is either Milliyet or Hurriyet.
Nikitas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7420
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:49 pm

Postby observer » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:40 pm

My remarks were made, so that a highly doubtful reported statement didn't become wedged into the GC mind as an established fact, as so many others have.

The same sort of "pressure" as you refer to it, was applied by the UN, the EU, and almost every other international organisation. Others might call it reasoned argument. In fact, the only people in the world who seem to think that they were correct to vote No are the GCs themselves. No one denies your right to do this, but don't expect anyone to come and help you achieve a better deal. You have made your bed, now lie (no pun intended) in it.
observer
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1666
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:21 am

A better deal?

Postby cymart » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:53 pm

Even Papad. admitted to Vassiliou himself that the De-Cuellar suggestions were better than the Annan Plan because 'all previous plans are better than later ones' so how the hell is he going to deal with what will be presented to him next,in the increasingly unlikely event that he is re-elected in 2008?
cymart
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 627
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:42 am
Location: PAPHOS

Postby Nikitas » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:57 pm

Observer, there is a great difference in advocating something, as was done by the EU and UN, and the type of insipid campaign that the US carried out through its embassies. It is an even bet that many people voted no simply going on the principle that this kind of campaign was a bad omen.

I am convinced, after reading more of the Annan plan than most people, that we narrowly escaped a trap that would have had us at each other's throats not long into it. It had the same conditions for deadlock as the 1960 constitution had. These were functional defiencies, that have nothing to do with the equality of the two communities or the territorial aspect. If you have the time look up the functioning of the central bank as detailed in the plan, you will then see the problems.
Nikitas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7420
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:49 pm

Postby observer » Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:00 pm

Cymart said "Even Papad. admitted to Vassiliou himself that the De-Cuellar suggestions were better than the Annan Plan because 'all previous plans are better than later ones' so how the hell is he going to deal with what will be presented to him next,in the increasingly unlikely event that he is re-elected in 2008?"

He's not going to deal with it because he is caught between the unacceptable (BBF? Partition? Federal?) and the impossible (unitary GC government). So he's going to do nothing, just hoping that something turns up.
observer
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1666
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests