Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

Also can i ask main-source and insan to refrain from swearing as it is clearly written in the forum rules not to personally attack and profanity only ignites the debate and turns it into a swearing match which is completely useless.
I appreciate your cooperation in this matter guys and keep the debates going.

bro, in the past you too experienced the same things so many times. When someone attacks you with an offensive language and personal insults without any reason; just because he/she didn't like your arguments, as a consequence of human nature, unjustly attacked person feel to retaliate it with a similar manner. I'd like you to interfere just in time the person unreasonably attack to other person.

[brother]

No problem, i was not online when it happened and not completely up to date with what was being discussed so i did not want to singel out any one but if i am there when this happens i will most definately be asking people to be more respectable when they talk.

So other wise how are you gardasim, you seem very antagonised lately is something up.

[insan]

No problem, i was not online when it happened and not completely up to date with what was being discussed so i did not want to singel out any one but if i am there when this happens i will most definately be asking people to be more respectable when they talk.

So other wise how are you gardasim, you seem very antagonised lately is something up.

Simple rule of human relationships gardaşcığım. As I said if someone attacks you unreasonably just because he/she didn't like your arguments; you too attack to him/her with a similar manner as a consequence of human nature. If someone wants to judge the matter; he/she needs to examine it thoroghly. If I'm the one who starts personal attacks instead of putting forward my counter arguments; I'm ready to apologize from the person I offended or insulted. This has nothing to do with being antagonized. This is a discussion forum.

[Alexandros Lordos]

As I said if someone attacks you unreasonably just because he/she didn't like your arguments; you too attack to him/her with a similar manner as a consequence of human nature.

Insan, is being vengeful "a consequence of human nature"? Do you really believe that?

I always thought that being vengeful is just another weakness we need to eradicate, along with arrogance, hostility and the rest ...

[insan]

As I said if someone attacks you unreasonably just because he/she didn't like your arguments; you too attack to him/her with a similar manner as a consequence of human nature.

Insan, is being vengeful "a consequence of human nature"? Do you really believe that?

I always thought that being vengeful is just another weakness we need to eradicate, along with arrogance, hostility and the rest ...

I agree with you Alexandros but as a consequence of human nature it's hard to control the momentary reflexes that arise from others nerdily behaviours and offensive language. And I hope you to point out some others unreasonable nerdily bahaviours that they are trying to hide behind when they short of counter arguments. Make me believe that you are not a nepotist who ignore others weaknesses and only sees a weakness of a TC. If you read first 6 posts of this thread, you should say something about magikthrill. And if you read all posts under this thread, you should say something about Main_Source. Is it hard to warn them like how you friendly warned me?

[Bananiot]

O.k. kifeas, I get it now. I agree with you too.

[erolz]

Therefore you are suggesting that all the worldwide liberation struggles against occupying or colonial powers are illegal and terrorist activities. In other words, the liberation struggle for mainland Greek independence in 1821 against the Ottomans, the Greek resistance against the Nazis during 1940-1945 occupation, the struggle of the American (US) people for independence against the British, the Mexican Zapata struggle, etc, etc, they were all illegal and terrorist actions.

Essentialy yes this is what I am saying because it is just reality. Even non violent resistance to colonial powers involved 'illegalites' - passive resitance, non payment of taxes etc. The point is that these illegal acts can be justifed to various degrees as necessary because of coloinal or other oppression - but that does not make the acts legal - just justifed and necessary. That does not make them legal. Thus the issue is not about was EOKA (A and B) a terrorist organisation committing illegal acts - it clearly was. The question is were it's actgions justifed or not. My personal belief that resorting to violenced is never justifed. Resorting to non violent illegal acts can be a justifed means of overcomming oppresion in my view. In terms of EOKA A and the situation in Cyprus my view is that if ridding Cyprus of the British was the aim then resorting to violence was neither necessary or justifed (and definately illegal). This is a view echoed by John Reddaway in his book 'Burdened with Cyprus' an extract i reproduce below

""The proposition that the Greek Cypriots had no choice but to resort to violence implies, first, that they had already exhausted all peaceful means of settling the dispute and, second, that the injustice and suffering inflicted on them was so extreme as to render their lives intolerable. Neither condition was satisfied in the case of EOKA’s resort to terrorism. The Greek Cypriot leadership had repeatedly rejected opportunities of peaceful progress towards a settlement by way of constitutional government. Nor could anyone honestly maintain that the possibilities of diplomacy had then been exhausted. For years past the Greek Cypriots has chosen to deny themselves (and by consequence their Turkish compatriots) the exercise of their democratic right to representative government because they regarded the degree of self-government offered to them as inadequate and insisted that it should envisage self-determination. They may have had a just cause of complaint against Britain on those grounds and that might well justify an intense political struggle, including perhaps passive resistance; but it surely did not by itself justify shedding blood. Only if the denial of their political aspirations had been accompanied by severe moral and material oppression, could a justifiable case have been made out for resorting to the kind of political violence adopted by EOKA. The degree of oppression being inflicted at the present time on the black population of South Africa or on the Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza is accepted by a substantial body of opinion, probably by a majority, throughout the world as sufficient justification for a resort to arms by the oppressed against their oppressors. But no such state of affairs existed in Cyprus in 1955 to justify launching EOKA’s campaign of violence and terror. The impasse over the future status of the Island did not impinge on the daily lives of the Cypriots in such a way as to render life intolerable for them. They were free to lead their lives in much the same way as the citizens of many other countries and indeed with greater security for themselves and their property, access to a higher standard of justice, greater freedom of expression and less interference by the state in their religious, educational, cultural and commercial affairs than in many countries claiming to be civilised and independent. It may even be that in most aspects of their daily lives the Cypriots enjoyed greater latitude and suffered less restriction than the peoples of the two motherlands. That may have been no compensation for the denial of self-determination; but it surely calls into question the justification for a resort to armed struggle. Even if that could have been confined to attacks on the ruling power and its agents, the moral justification was questionable. The enforcement of British rule may have been objectionable in principle since it did not rest on the consent of the governed, but it practice it was far removed from the oppression and ‘State terrorism’ of which the blacks accuse the South African and the Palestinians the Israeli authorities. However, what clinches the case against EOKA’s resort to violence is that it was bound, sooner or later, to result in the killing of innocent non-combatants and that it introduced into the political life of Cyprus a habit of violence which is still manifest thirty years later and which may now have become ineradicable. That is the grim legacy that EOKA has left behind it in Cyprus." - John Reddaway"

My view is that there can be little doubt that Cyprus could have acheived independance from British rule without resorting to violence. However a non violent approach would have had to involve some consideration of the TC minority and would almost certainly not have allowed for ENOSIS. Violenece was not necessary or justifed imo if the objective was to get the British out. Violence was necessay (but not justifed) if the object was to impose ENOSIS on Cyprus aginst the will of the TC community.

I disagree with you Erolz.

You are welcome to continue believeing and arguning that comitting illegal acts is not actualy illegal in certain circumstances if you like.

[Piratis]

The proposition that the Greek Cypriots had no choice but to resort to violence implies, first, that they had already exhausted all peaceful means of settling the dispute and, second, that the injustice and suffering inflicted on them was so extreme as to render their lives intolerable.

Would this mean that you also agree that the invasion by Turkey was wrong by using the exact same argument?

[Kifeas]

You are welcome to continue believeing and arguning that comitting illegal acts is not actualy illegal in certain circumstances if you like.

Erolz, I think you missed my point.
What I said was a general remark on the universal legitimacy of liberation struggles against colonial, occupying or totalitarian powers. What makes something illegal is when it is against the laws, provided though that the laws themselves are legitimate. What makes a law to be legitimate, according to any contemporary moral and civilised standard, is to have approval by the majority of the people, either directly or indirectly -via a democratically elected parliament and within a constitutional framework. In the absence of majority people’s approval, any law lacks legitimasy. It is not a law but an imposition or a directive and is usually enforced by a threat to use force. A nation taking arms to liberate itself from a dictator or colonialist, doesn’t commit an illegality, simply because any law prohibiting it to do so, lacks legitimasy. I didn’t question the possibility that perhaps not all other means were exhausted, or whether it was politically correct or not, to take up arms in each one particular case.

I do not necessarily disagree with what John Reddaway said in his book. He actually did not to exclute or denounced armed struggles in certain cases where other means fail.

[MicAtCyp]

EOKA wasn't a revolutionist organization that seeking independence of its nation. So called independency was the mask they hid behind to achieve their goal. What EKOA under command of a well known monarcho-fascist sought was to annex Cyprus to Greece.

So are you saying that if Greece did not exist, there would be no revolution to liberate the country from the British?

In my opinion the reason EOKA got so wide support among the GC population was EXACTLY because they wanted their liberation from the British. If you do a good search you will see how the British were oppressing every aspect of life of the Cypriots, and were actually holding back any efforts for development. Even the leftists did not oppose Eoka for it's liberation cause, they opposed it because of its Enosis cause. And it was not only the leftists. It was the big capital also.

One can distinguish the liberation cause from the Enosis cause of Eoka if he looks at what support Eoka B received among the population. As you know Eoka B’s one and only cause was Enosis. It was in fact very low.

I would say the "Enosis" cause of Eoka was supported fanatically only by the fighters themselves and a part of the population. Among the GC population about 35% (Akel) opposed it, I would say another 15% supported it fanatically (basically those having direct links/interests with the church, and the education (teachers), some 30% did not care, and some 5% (the big capital) did not want it, but because they could not endanger themselves they were working behind the scenes to kill it. Guess who finally won? The big capital as usual !!!!

Insan let me ask you a direct question. Do you think Enosis would be very difficult for the GCs to impose between 1960 and 1974 if they really wanted to? In my opinion it would be a piece of cake.As easy as the declaration of the "Kksomething".

PS. About the matter of insults, I beleive in this forum there are arguments that are by themselves insulting and the one who keeps on repeating them deserves an insult in return. As for example the "peace Operation".