Cyprus-Forum.com

[magikthrill]

gabaston,

I respectfully reply

i was no where to be found. all my information cause from a wide variety of sources (i stick to the less bias ones) But what point exactly do you believe my refuting is wrong? I think that would be more helpful in understanding the whole situation.

[erolz]

i'm sorry but i couldn't let this go. although i was very willing to read this book i might as well read a book entitled "Why Akritas was the most just and viable option for all Cypriots" (no it doesnt exist - at least i hope not):

Hey the choice is yours Magik. Read the book or do not read the book. All I have done is answer your questions about it as best I can and offer to help you get a copy of the book if you do chose to read it.

[magikthrill]

Hey the choice is yours Magik. Read the book or do not read the book. All I have done is answer your questions about it as best I can and offer to help you get a copy of the book if you do chose to read it.

thanks erol. i was wondering if anyone could discuss the points i made regarding the description of the book.

[gabaston]

Magic

true their is a bigger picture and there are always three accounts to every story. This account was not written by a turk or tc. It was written by a Daily Express journalist, with a five star expense account, who was stationed in Cyprus covering Middle East Affairs, in other words he was being paid to write about the problems in Africa and Middle East.

After eye witnessing the events in Cyprus he decided that here was a bigger story to cover that the world should be aware of.

Now some forty years later his accounts are being read or will be read by every politician interested in a Cyprus sollution.

My grandfather for example in this book, along with more cousins, and i know that the events described in the book regarding their deaths are not exaggerated. Probably half of tcs today have or had relatives in this book.

We have covered what was originally the myth of Akritas, are there any comments about its follow up its bigger brother Iphestos?

[magikthrill]

gabaston

thanks for the reply.

i understand there being different sides to a story but it is different to lie and it is different to make a one sided opinion. i dont care the ethnic origin of the author, he does both of the two.

And whats this Iphestos deal-yo? I am unaware of it.

[gabaston]

magic

there are two links in this thread which will take you there.

[erolz]

i think for everyone to be participating in this forum we all understand it is not a SO -CALLED problem but an actual one.

I believe he uses 'so-called' in reference to the 'predominant' (GC version) of the Cyprus problem that those outside Cyprus tend to recieve - namely that the problem started in 74.

Is it just me or does the term "Cypriot Turk" allude to a Turkish person living in Cyprus, like "Greek American" Do you feel comfortable with this term?

I personaly prefer the term Turkish Cypriot (or Cypriot) but lables are not that important to me generally.

If he is referring to 1974 as the war then he is WRONG. Enosis was not the goal of the GCs in 1974. it was the military dictatorship of Athens that thought it could achieve this

I believe he is referring to the events of 63 onwards.

We've all read personal posts of this forum that this was in part true and not a myth

Is it not a myth to say that GC and TC lived happily togeather from 1960 to 74? Certainly there are some that manged to do this but that does not mean it is not a myth to say this was how TC and GC were living in Cyprus in this period.

very good. thats 2 out of what? 5 .

I would not judge a book by it's cover personaly If you want to judge the book then read it and then do so would be my advice. If you do not wish to read it then do not.

No comment on the lack of information regarding the GC deaths caused by Turkey.

Er you have not read the book. The book is not about the Turkish actions in 74 and the effects of those on GC. It is about somehting different. If that means you do not wish to read it then do not read it.

If he is referring to the Akritas plan then AGAIN it did not entail wiping out all TCs. iT was a horrenouds document nonetheless but people should learn what it REALLY was.

Again read the book (or even the link posted earlier or the cover blurb I posted). The title does not refer to the Akritas plan it refers to documents under a code name of 'Iphestos' found in 74.

another truth. sadly im assuming one sided

He tells the TC side of the story. There is no pretense at anything else. He has chosen to do so because he believes that this side has not be adequately told. His book is basically a reaction to his perception that a totaly one sided version of events predominates amongst those with no direct personal experience of the events and his book seeks to redress that balance. It is not an attempt to present a 'balance' or 'unbiased' version of events and it should not be judged as such imo.

see comment #1 and I'l'l just leave it at that.

The author is as entitled to his view as anyone else as far as I can see?

and im sure his writing on this is based on the same BS his other stuff is.

again read the book or do not read the book as you chose. However to make such sweeping assumptions based on some cover blurb and an article about the book is in my view a little 'narrow viewed' as I see it.

If you want to have a discussion about the book and it's failings then you really need to read it. It really is a simple as that. If you do not wish to read it based on what you know so far about it (which is actualy next to nothing vs having read it) then that is your choice. It was not written by some rabid TC nationalist. It was written by a UK based journalist of long standing who had personal expeience of the events and has his own views and opinions.

[erolz]

gabaston

thanks for the reply.

i understand there being different sides to a story but it is different to lie and it is different to make a one sided opinion. i dont care the ethnic origin of the author, he does both of the two.

Where does he lie?

And whats this Iphestos deal-yo? I am unaware of it.

That is not much of a surprise really.

The Iphestos files are basically a detailed plan to literraly exterminate the TC in Cyprus with swift and sudden force before anything can be done to stop it. It basically lists which units of the GC national guard will attack which TC areas, how they will force 'oridinary' GC to particapte in this to make the act one that the entire GC population is culpable in. Of course this will all be blamed on that 'tiny handfull of GC extremists known as EOKA B' and the 'illegal' Greek junta - which wiothout the actions of Turkey in 74 may well have been sucessful in their coup and been in a position to execute the Isphestos plans. Thankfully Turkey did intervene and this eventuallity was avoided.

[magikthrill]

erol

thank you very much for your comments.

the reason why i commented on all his one sided events of the story is because he refers to the Cyprus "problem." This problem affects both communities. If he wanted to discuss solely the hardships of the TC community then he shouldnt have brought up on issue that affected the other community.

Also, I generally don't like it when either side promotes one-sided arguments because this does absolutely nothing to promote any type of solution, which for me is the ultimate goal when discussing the issue of Cyprus.

Where does he lie?

The lie can be found in the link you provided regarding the supposed arranged exchange of populations.

That is not much of a surprise really.

The Iphestos files are basically a detailed plan to literraly exterminate the TC in Cyprus with swift and sudden force before anything can be done to stop it. It basically lists which units of the GC national guard will attack which TC areas, how they will force 'oridinary' GC to particapte in this to make the act one that the entire GC population is culpable in. Of course this will all be blamed on that 'tiny handfull of GC extremists known as EOKA B' and the 'illegal' Greek junta - which wiothout the actions of Turkey in 74 may well have been sucessful in their coup and been in a position to execute the Isphestos plans. Thankfully Turkey did intervene and this eventuallity was avoided.

I never knew about this. So the GC administration was behind Plan Iphestos before the coup even came along??

[erolz]

erol
the reason why i commented on all his one sided events of the story is because he refers to the Cyprus "problem." This problem affects both communities. If he wanted to discuss solely the hardships of the TC community then he shouldnt have brought up on issue that affected the other community.

Also, I generally don't like it when either side promotes one-sided arguments because this does absolutely nothing to promote any type of solution, which for me is the ultimate goal when discussing the issue of Cyprus.

Promoting a solution to the problem today is a worthy cause. However this is not the objective of the book and to judge it on such criteria is in my humble view to misunderstand the authors objective and unfarily judge the book. To me it is similar to the critisim of the GC who made a film about GC autrocites against TC, on the basis it does not cover the reverse. That was not it's intention or purpose (either the film of Mr Gibbons' book). The objective of the book is to present the 'other side' of a story that the authors feels has not / had not been properly exposed prior to his book.

The lie can be found in the link you provided regarding the supposed arranged exchange of populations.

There were not negotiations about how to manage population movements after 74? There were no agreements made on this subject? Certainly I accept that these were not agreements that expressed a GC desire to see such movments seperate from the realites of the situtation, but there were as I understand it negotiations and agreements.

I never knew about this. So the GC administration was behind Plan Iphestos before the coup even came along??

There were those in the adminstration that knew about and supported the coup and those that did not - again as I understand it. The Iphestos plan was to be executed after the coup had been implemented and the coupists were in power.