Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

If you had no problem to remove us from our own land, why should we have a problem to do the same to you?

In 1974 TCs and Turkey thought just like this and there was one more question in minds of TCs and Turks:"We have never attempt to ethnically cleanse whole GC community on Cyprus. Why did they attempt to ethnically cleanse whole TC community on Cyprus?"


Soon they found out why? TCs were obstacles in front of Enosis, majority rule and great ideals of Hellenism.

On the other hand TCs and Turks temporarily cleansed the North of the Island in order to protect themselves against Enosists' terrorist actions, agression and oppressions.

In 1975 TCs accepted return of a certain number of GCs to Northern part of the Island and they reaffirmed their will to live mixed with a certain number of GCs in northern part of Cyprus on every occasion. However majority of GCs reacted to their TC brothers and shouted with a resounding "NO!"; "you can't decide return of GC refugees. You are a minority. Majority rules in Cyprus and majority wants return of all refugees, withdrawal of all Turkish troops, repatriation of all colonists(Ottoman settlers TCs might be included), punishment of Turkey for invading Cyprus...

[Piratis]

There has never been an attempt to ethnically cleanse the whole TC community. However the ethnic cleansing that you performed is a reality, a fact, not fiction like your claims.

If you want peace, then you have to give back everything that you stole. Otherwise peace will never come, and in the end you will loose everything because of your greediness.

[insan]

There has never been an attempt to ethnically cleanse the whole TC community. However the ethnic cleansing that you performed is a reality, a fact, not fiction like your claims.

Piratis, you spoke just like dotard Tassos.

[erolz]

There has never been an attempt to ethnically cleanse the whole TC community. However the ethnic cleansing that you performed is a reality, a fact, not fiction like your claims.

Only part of it then?

This use of 'ethnic cleansing' as an emotive label, used on both sides, which helps no one imo. I personaly have no doubt that there was a very real, very planned, very organised and very illegal and as necessary very violent and cruel attempt by GC to take back the rights that TC had been granted under the 1960 consitution. Do I call it ethnic cleansing? Personally I do not but that does not make it any less real. Do I think the Turkish action in 74 resulted in much suffering for GC and their removal from part of Cyprus. Yes I do. Do I think it was ethnic cleansing. No I do not. Was it right? No it was not. Was it necessary? Thats harder to answer from my TC perspective. Was the objective to remove the GC community from Cyprus as a whole? No it was not. Was the objective to seperate Cyprus? Yes it was. Is that ethnic cleansing. In my view not. Certainly arguments can be made that it was and is (as can arguments be made that GC actions in 63 onwards were ethnic cleansing) - but where does the use of such terms get us? No where good is my view. The terms we use matter imo. I try not to described my uncles murder as a 'barbaic slaughter' or other such emotive terms. I certainly could but's what would be the point?

[Piratis]

Go in google and type:

define:"ethnic cleansing"

Here is the first definition:

is the systematic removal of a group of people identified by ethnicity from a certain area. This may be done through genocide (killing) or forced migration.

What Turks did in north Cyprus fits perfectly in what "ethnic cleansing" means. Please don't try to deny it. It couldn't be more clear.

Go look at the second definition/example in google.

[insan]

Go in google and type:

define:"ethnic cleansing"

Here is the first definition:

is the systematic removal of a group of people identified by ethnicity from a certain area. This may be done through genocide (killing) or forced migration.

What Turks did in north Cyprus fits perfectly in what "ethnic cleansing" means. Please don't try to deny it. It couldn't be more clear.

Go look at the second definition/example in google.

The situation in 1974 was a consequence of war between Greece and Turkey. It was Greek Junta, Juntaist-Enosist Greeks together with National Guard and Enosist GCs who declared war against Turkey.

[Piratis]

It was Greek Junta, Juntaist-Enosist Greeks together with National Guard and Enosist GCs who declared war against Turkey.

Nobody declared war on Turkey. It was a coup, just like the numerous coups that happened in Turkey itself.

Turkey simply used the event as an excuse to invade and occupy part of Cyprus.

[insan]

It was Greek Junta, Juntaist-Enosist Greeks together with National Guard and Enosist GCs who declared war against Turkey.

Nobody declared war on Turkey. It was a coup, just like the numerous coups that happened in Turkey itself.

Turkey simply used the event as an excuse to invade and occupy part of Cyprus.

Turkey warned both Greek Junta and Coupists to resign and withdraw all Greek invasion troops out of Cyprus. Greek Junta and coupists just laughed at Turkey. Wasn't it casus belli for Turkey? It was obviously a Greek invasion hid behind the coup.

[erolz]

Go in google and type:

define:"ethnic cleansing"

Here is the first definition:

is the systematic removal of a group of people identified by ethnicity from a certain area. This may be done through genocide (killing) or forced migration.

What Turks did in north Cyprus fits perfectly in what "ethnic cleansing" means. Please don't try to deny it. It couldn't be more clear.

And it could just as well be claimed that is exactly what GC did to TC in the period 63-74 - forced them to move from where thay had always lived into just 3% of the island. Also ethinc cleansing by the same defintion. So you cleansed us and we cleansed you back. Great.

Go look at the second definition/example in google.

And what do you think that proves? It proves that the site refered to has many links from other sites into it - or in other words that GC are very effective at spreading their one sided version of events about Cyprus. Big deal. We know how effective you are at one sided accounts designed to impress the rest of the world (and hide the full truth). We also know how well you understood the importance of such propaganda - as clearly laid out in the Akrtias plan. You might not be able to teach and old dog new tricks but it seems you can also not get him to forget old tricks either.

My eariler point is that there nothing inccoret in chosing to describe what happened to my uncle as murder or chosing to describe it as a 'brutal slaying'. Both are correct. So why chose one desciption over the other? It seems to me that murder is a choice to describe what happened as unemotively as possible and 'brutal slaying' as emotively as possible. If we want to proceed as emotionaly (rather than logicaly) as possible then go ahead and chose emotive terms. It does not however help anybody in the long run imo (unless of course continued hatred and continued division is the desire)

[Piratis]

Anyways, when you deny things that are self evident there is nothing else to talk about.

As you said names do not count.

Just tell me this: If one day we have the power to kick all TCs out of Cyprus, should I support it?