Main_Source wrote:Erolz, its not my fault that you are too ignorant
No my ignorance is no more your fault than your rudeness is my fault.
Main_Source wrote:to see the tactics the British army used to invade / or keep a hold of colonial land. Divide and conquer was the classic tactic used by the British, look at how they created Pakistan by dividing the muslims and non-muslims, when they had hold of India.
You can not exploit division unless the division exists in the first place. You are entitled to the opinion that if UK had not been involved, GC would not have wanted ENOSIS, TC would not have resisted this and people on both sides would not have killed each other. You are entitled to that opinion but it does not make it any more 'believeable' by those not interested in propaganda.
Main_Source wrote:Its easy for you to refute all positive claims about EOKA but im showing you my perspective and the perspective of people who live in Nicosia during that time. Also, I do not know if your selective with your reding but from what I have read, freedom from the British was its first priority.
Can you show me anything contemporary from EOKA that claimed the objective of their 'glorious struggle' was for anything other than ENOSIS. I would be more than willing to consider my views in light of any such evidence. However I doubt such exits - unlike the mountains of evidence that the objective of EOKA was in fact ENOSIS and only ENOSIS.
Main_Source wrote:Besides, EOKA is not the first violant struggle to come from suppresive colonial rule, the Greeks in cyprus had been under rule for the last few hundred years, since the Ottoman invasions of the Byzantine Empire. Why shouldnt they want to join other Greek cultural islands in joining Greece?
There is nothing wrong in a GC desire for ENOSIS. However the ignoring of TC and their rights was wrong as was the use of violence to achieve these aims.
Main_Source wrote:Saying that, the only greivance I have with the Enosis idea is what would have happened to the Turkish Cypriots, which is why I agree with Enosis thoeretically but not the way it was attempted to be achieved.
see above.
Main_Source wrote:What do you expect the Greek Cypriots to go for!?...more British rule? an invasion by turkey (which was on the cards for years) or unity with Greece and the Greek culture? (and remember that choice was made before independance was an option).
GC chose enosis before independance was an option? I do not understand this?
Main_Source wrote:Right now though, I just think Cyprus should stay independant, for the Cypriots. Infact, I only empathised with the Enosis idea but think independance was the best option for Cyprus. Let me make it clear though, Turkey always coverted Cyprus and this was a known fact under Greek Cypriots.
You can thank the TC for Cyprus' idependance today later as somehow I dont think you are quite ready for this now.
Main_Source wrote:Lastly, fuck the British army. Im glad they were shot and killed. The British army went around the world causing grief, why should we be kind to them? As for the Turkish Cypriot police officers, sorry but they new what they were getting into. I've admitted im not proud of some of the nationalist Greek activity but I find it hard to believe that you can keep on defending some of the Turkish Cypriots who also added to the tension in the air.
Exactly the kind of blatant disregard for human life (of anyone who thwarts the desires og GC in Cyprus) that scares me.
What are you saying here? TC should not have resisted ENOSIS being forced onto them? That they should have done nothing to block GC desires, because they might be accused of 'adding to the tension'???
Kifeas wrote:Let me ask something here, Erolz.
Sure go ahead
Kifeas wrote:Should the goal of the struggle was for independence and not for Enosis and should it had been organised by all Cypriots (Turkish Cypriots including) and should Grivas had not been the leader but someone else, wouldn’t still be a political aim? Would it still be illegal? Would it still be considered a terrorist action?
Yes it would still be a political aim. Yes the resort to violence to achieve his aim would have been (and is) illegal and yes I would still considr those that resort to violence to achieve political aims to be terrorist.