Cyprus-Forum.com

[Othellos]

I am playing a game of twisiting and distortion? My above was not an attempt at a complete and balanced version of the thruth but simply a reaction to your own manipulation of the truth to suit your own agenda.

If your practice to distort history and events was just a "reaction" expressed through your exhaustively long answers to my occasional posts, then one could perhaps buy it. But as I said before you are very systematic about distorting events (and not only) and you repeat it at every opportunity.

To claim that "TMT were used in exerting violence against GC" would be one thing. To claim that "TMT were used in exerting violence against totally defenseless GCs with Britain's tolerance and even encouragement." is another thing entirely. GC were not totaly defenseless. They had infact started the planned and systematic use of violence to achieve their poltical aims with creation of EOKA.These 'totaly innocent GC' had in fact been gunning down british troops and their inncoent wives by shooting them in the back in main streets. So much then for your comittment to the 'whole truth' and your aversion to manipulation, omission and disotrtion and selective use of facts! You seem to be totaly oblivious to your own ability to do the very things you accuse me of.

I have already addressed this in my previous post and I see no need to do it again. Obviously and in your "own" opinion, the GC refugees who were forced out of Omorphita in the summer of 1958 were not defenseless at all. The 8 villagers from Kondemenos who were murdered by TMT were not defenseless either. Whatever I say here will not change the distortions you post so why waste my time?

And the quotes from Makarios, Angelos Vlachos, Richard A Patrick,Dr Ernst Forsthoff,Grivas,George Karayiannis,DAILY EXPRESS,DAILY MAIL,THE GUARDIAN,DAILY HERALD,DAILY SKETCH, DAILY TELEGRAPH,NEW YORK HERALD TRIBUNE,IL GIORNO,LE FIGARO,WASHINGTON POST,THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR,THE TIMES - are these also well known Turkish propaganda tools?

Ok! Let us take one of your infamous quotes and examine how Turkish propaganda which you repeat in here manipulates other peoples views, articles, interviews or statements.

You quoted:

Lt-Gen George Karayiannis (a Greek Army Officer then commanding the Cyprus National Guard) In an article in the Greek newspaper Ethnikos Kiryx on 15 June 1965 wrote:
When the Turks objected to the amendment of the Constitution, Archbishop Makarios put his plan into effect and the Greek attack began in December 1963

It is true that a Greek newspaper named "Ethnikos Kiryx" published a series of articles written by General George Karayiannis. Starting from June 16 1965 (and not June 15), a series of 10 articles were published in this newspaper through which the General presented the political and military situation he encountered in Cyprus when he first arrived on the island on April 1964 to assume the command of the National Guard.
In March 2003, these same articles were published (again) by Alfadi publications in a small booklet under the title "The Mansoura battles" (I recommend it to all those who can read Greek). Your direct quote from this booklet should be found in the introduction that was written by Gen. Karayiannis (pp.14-21 of the above book) where he describes how the inter-communal fighting started. Guess what though? The above quoted sentence is nowhere to be found in these articles. I wonder who invented it and why?

As if that is not enough, Karayiannis goes one step further to describe how unprepared and poorly organized the GCs were militarily in 1963 (something that you disagree with). He also blames the TCs entirely for the breakout of the hostilities in 1963 and this does not match your agenda either.

Translating from page 18 of the above source:
"On the morning of 24 December, the TCs carry out a surprise attack while supported by heavy weapons and take control of the north neighborhoods in Nicosia Trachones - Omorfita – Neapolis – Kaimakli."

Further down, the General (whose opinion you value enough to quote), writes about a major yet unsuccessful TC attack in the afternoon of December 24 which aimed in taking control of the old part of the town. Of course I am sure you disagree with this also because as you always say, the TCs were all since the first minute on the defense. My question is this: in your opinion, is General Karayiannis an acceptable and thus credible source of information or not? Or perhaps some parts of what he writes are more acceptable than the rest, especially after being edited accordingly?

I must say that I am very tempted to carry out a similar check with the rest of your quoted "truths". I wish I had the time to go out and find the actual sources of all your other quotes one by one, and then compare them with what you post in this forum. But I also have a living to earn and bills to pay, so this will have to wait for later. At the same time one can take each and every one of your quotes, compare them and easily point out a number of stark contradictions between them, but this will also have to wait (at least for now).

Having said that, I must also add that there is nothing new about Greeks criticizing Grivas or Makarios and his occasional statements on Cyprus. But when one presents SELECTIVE parts of what others say or write like you and all those Turkish propagandist sites do, then the real content of their work is being distorted in order to manipulate the reader. This is exactly what you are doing.

I did not use any of these sites in producing this list actually. Certainly these sites may contain much of the same indpendent reports as I gave - and why should they or would they not?

Well, believe it or not, the exact same stuff you posted can be all found in these sites (and possibly other similar ones. These sites are more interested in distributing cyber trash and less in providing objective information. You in turn take a lot of this same rubbish and try to serve it in here as the "truth".

If you know of any manipulation in these quotes then say so. I will be the first to appologise for using such manipulated quotes.

I have already pointed out one such case, but I do not need an apology from you. All I will suggest to you is to try and focus more on the content of your posts and less on their size (quality Vs quantity).

But there is no 'unbelieveable' propaganda on the RoC pio site or others?

Is there? I do not know because I do not need to go and search for arguments in their sites and then copy and paste them in here like you do. Fishing for cyber trash seems to be your exclusive hobby and talent.

Or it is not 'unbleiveable' that TP could claim in a recent(ish) interview that no TC will killed by GC in the period 63-74?

No, it is not unbelievable, because i have read the interview myself. But we already discussed this some time ago and you know that no GC claims that. Even if Papadopoulos said that on purpose and not by some mistake while intending to say 67-74, the undisputable facts tell us otherwise. Can you cite a credible GC source where a similar claim is being made (i.e that no TCs were killed between 63-67)? I suspect that you are trying to exploit in full a verbal mistake by TPap. But seriously erolz, are you that desperate for arguments? I think that you can do better than that.

What you are saying (and have said repeatedly from memeory) is that GC violence was not the major factor in the fleeing of TC from their homes and lands (which they loved as much as any GC loves theirs pre 74 or otherwise) but in fact the main reason why so many TC left their homes (many of which where looted and burnt to the ground!) was 'strong encouragement' from the TC leadership to acheive a political objective of partition. With respect this is just insulting to the intelligence.
If TP told you that in order to save Cyprus for the GC people you must leave your home and go and live for an indeterminate period of time in a tent city enclave would you go? Would you go if terrorists brtualy killed your nbeighbours and made it clear that if you did not go you may well be next?

I understand the point you are trying to make and I can agree that intimidation and fear can be enough to force people out of their homes. There is a difference however in exercising actual violence against civilians in order to force them out of their homes and in them being intimidated because of the events. If you are saying that 25,000 TC refugees (number provided by UN estimations at the time) were actually subjected to violence by GCs then I say that this is not true. Had it been otherwise the number of TC casualties could be way higher than the approx. 350 given by Patrick or approx. 500 given by R. Denktash in "the Cyprus Triangle". The question remains however: why didn't the vast majority of these TC refugees return to their homes after the end of hostilities like some did? Why were TMT officers shooting and killing TCs who were trying to return to their homes? Who gave such orders and why? Why was the TC separatist administration threatening TCs who wanted to visit the government controlled areas with a fine or even imprisonment?

I have always accepted this was the case to some degree. We can argue for ever how extensive this policy was, and where the orders for it came from. There is certainly enough grey that I would not even to attmpt to argue this issue with you. This is why I concentrate on the less 'muddy' less 'confusbale' assertion you make about GC violence not being the major reason why TC fled their homes.

I see no grey here at all. If anything events like these show how far Turkey went in order to impose taksim in Cyprus.

It is clear that these actions were taken to aid the TC political objective of partition (just as GC violence against GC and TC was taken to achieve the poltical objective of ENOSIS). What is not clear is how widespread thi8s practice was and from what level it was orderd.

I think that it was widespread enough to yield results.

It makes no sense unless you believe that the plan was to create enclaves and then for TC to force other TC into these enclaves. Again I ask you in the absense of GC violnece against TC how exactly did this 'cunning plan' intend to get the TC into these enclaves? Simply by asking people to abandon their homes and places of brith and lands they made their living from for tented slums?

But we have already discussed how these enclaves were being planned and set as early as 1957 or 1958 and at a time when no GC violence against any TCs had occurred yet. Does one need to repeat all that again? Yes, I too believe that the ease with which the Turkish side forced the relocation of GCs and TCs in Cyprus was immoral, unjust, barbaric and cruel.

You still maintain it is untrue to assert that the major (biggest single) reason so many TC fled their homes was GC violence against them?

Already discussed above. No offense but why do you have this habit of repeating the same thing 3, 4 or 5 times in the same post?

Well you are doing a lousy job (and it's 10's of thousands if I am to be picky)

Ok. But it seems to me that for you I will always be doing a “lousy job” no matter what I write about the suffering of Cypriots (Greek or Turk) before 1974.

I have never asked you to assume all the 'debts'. What I have asserted and would 'settle for' (given you patent ability at confusion, obfusaction and the like) and have said so in the past, is an acceptance that in this period (and lets limit it from 63-67/6 is that GC as a community farily deserve more of the 'blame' (or 'debt'). This would be true if the blame was fairly apportioned 49% TC and 51% GC - yet still you are apparently unable to accept this?

My patent ability on obfuscation and confusion??? Hahahaha….I think you are overestimating me here, but as you like. At least I do not post non-existent sentences from manipulated documents like someone else does (hint). As far as splitting the blame between Greeks and Turks, I am prepared to consider whatever percentage or ratio you suggest as long as you present us with a clear and reasonable methodology on establishing this ratio while substantial evidence for your claims (now here is one area where so far you have been failing miserably).

Most amusing. I am beside myself with so much laughter I will simply ignore your introductory comment. (that's sacrasm just so there is no possible doubt.)

Relax re. The only reason I pointed that out was because I suspected that you have no sense of humor at all.

O.

[Othellos]

Othellos

You state that you more or less acknowledge the hardship if thousands of Tcs 63-67.

I respectfully ask:

Are you old enough to remember these events?
If not when and how were you made aware of, and believed these events.
Do you think they are part of Turkish propaganda, or exaggerated?
Do you think that Makarios was aware of these events?
Do you believe that the majority of gc's were aware of these events?


Again i ask respectfully
Thanks

Hello gabaston

1. I am 39 y.o so I was not around in 1963. But I remember 1974.

2. I try to learn about Cyprus by reading / researching as much as I can and trough talking extensively to people who lived through or even participated in past events.

3. Propagandists in general will take a real event and either exaggerate it, modify it or play it down, in order to fulfill a particular agenda.

4. Yes, I think that most of the times Makarios and other GC leaders were aware of most that was going on, just like the TC leaders were.

5. Like the TCs, the GCs were more aware of what was happening in their immediate vicinity and somewhat less about the details with respect to other areas of Cyprus.

thanx for your questions - next time there is no need to be so "formal"



Regards

O.

[gabaston]

Othellos

thankx for the honest replies.

[Viewpoint]

arrogant sod

[erolz]

But as I said before you are very systematic about distorting events (and not only) and you repeat it at every opportunity.

I am systematic at countering what I consider to be GC distortions of the reality of the period 63-74 (or 63-68 or any other period for that matter). I do this at every opportuinty created by a poster who imo is distorting the reality of what occured. My posts about this are entirely reactionary in this sense and their frequencey is in direct correlation to the claims of other that I consider distortions or perversions.

I have already addressed this in my previous post and I see no need to do it again. Obviously and in your "own" opinion, the GC refugees who were forced out of Omorphita in the summer of 1958 were not defenseless at all. The 8 villagers from Kondemenos who were murdered by TMT were not defenseless either. Whatever I say here will not change the distortions you post so why waste my time?

No my opinion is that if you were as comitteted to accuracy and balance and non exageration as you claim you would have made it clear that the innocent GC you were refering were those mentioned above, and avoided creating an impression that you were saying GC (in general, as a community) were defenseless innocents in the period in question at the mercy of unprovoked TC aggression aided and abetted by the British coloinal rulers (they were not, they had armed bands of men that initated the formal use of violence in Cyprus to achieve political aims).

You quoted:

Lt-Gen George Karayiannis (a Greek Army Officer then commanding the Cyprus National Guard) In an article in the Greek newspaper Ethnikos Kiryx on 15 June 1965 wrote:
When the Turks objected to the amendment of the Constitution, Archbishop Makarios put his plan into effect and the Greek attack began in December 1963

It is true that a Greek newspaper named "Ethnikos Kiryx" published a series of articles written by General George Karayiannis. Starting from June 16 1965 (and not June 15), a series of 10 articles were published in this newspaper through which the General presented the political and military situation he encountered in Cyprus when he first arrived on the island on April 1964 to assume the command of the National Guard.
In March 2003, these same articles were published (again) by Alfadi publications in a small booklet under the title "The Mansoura battles" (I recommend it to all those who can read Greek). Your direct quote from this booklet should be found in the introduction that was written by Gen. Karayiannis (pp.14-21 of the above book) where he describes how the inter-communal fighting started. Guess what though? The above quoted sentence is nowhere to be found in these articles. I wonder who invented it and why?

You take an (alledged) quote from a newspaper article on June 15th 1965 and use the fact that it does not appear in a booklet published in June 2003 covering articles from this newspaper from the 16th June as proof that it was made up by TC for propaganda? You see no possibility that your booklet simply does not cover the article in question? No possibility that if it does, the offending quote was in fact omitted on purpose by the GC publishers exactly because it was usable against the GC propaganda cause (and had been used in such a way in the intervening period). No you have a much simpler truth. It is proof of TC making the quote up - with the added benefit of casting doubt over all the others I used. Of course you couch this in a very crafty rehtorical way 'I wonder who invented it and why?'. There is no proof it has been invented at all. Like I have said no one is more intetested in the truth in this regard. I will be making my own enquires about this quote and it's veracity and will report back what I find - however it turns out. And if it turns out the quote is real? What then for you? If it turns out that it was both true and in the original paper and purposely removed from the 2003 booklet (assuming this booklet even reproduces the relevant article at all), will you be condeming this GC propaganda and re wrting of history or just ignore it?

Further down, the General (whose opinion you value enough to quote), [snip]
My question is this: in your opinion, is General Karayiannis an acceptable and thus credible source of information or not? Or perhaps some parts of what he writes are more acceptable than the rest, especially after being edited accordingly?

I quote Makarios as well. The point is not that this person represent a credible source of information (or not). The point is if such a person states that there was a plan and as part of this plan the Greek attack began, then this is eveidence that supports the view that there was a plan and it involved planned attcks against TC and it was implemented. To suggest that if I 'believe' this statement I must also believe eveything else ststed by this person is just silly.

I must say that I am very tempted to carry out a similar check with the rest of your quoted "truths".

I did not quote 'truths' - and this accusation in itself is a distortion. I quoted what people said. If your idea of 'checking' and your level of 'proof' that these quotes are untrue (whether the qutes themselves represnt truth or not - which is a different thing entirely) is of the quality of your 'checking' above then there would be little point (though maybe some temporary propaganda value).

At the same time one can take each and every one of your quotes, compare them and easily point out a number of stark contradictions between them, but this will also have to wait (at least for now).

I await your 'analysis' with baited breath.

But when one presents SELECTIVE parts of what others say or write like you and all those Turkish propagandist sites do, then the real content of their work is being distorted in order to manipulate the reader. This is exactly what you are doing.

I selected evidence that I felt supported my view that what was going on in the period 63-68 was not 'equal' and that the main reason why TC fled thier homes was GC violence and fear of violence.

Well, believe it or not, the exact same stuff you posted can be all found in these sites (and possibly other similar ones.

If you say so I believe it.

These sites are more interested in distributing cyber trash and less in providing objective information.

So any quotes on them must be untrue, made up manipulated? If you were writting a propaganda site and there were real articles and documents that supported some of your claims, would you not use these? Or if you did they would suddenly become untue or propaganda?

You in turn take a lot of this same rubbish and try to serve it in here as the "truth".

So now the ample quotes I gave are just 'rubbish' ? I do not serve the content of the quotes here as 'truth' - I present the quotes as 'true quote' (which to the best of my knowledge they are). That if you go an look up the records of the papers or books quoted from their orignal sources they exist.

I have already pointed out one such case, but I do not need an apology from you. All I will suggest to you is to try and focus more on the content of your posts and less on their size (quality Vs quantity).

When I gave you a single 'quality' references that supported my claim and refuted yours, you lambasted me for using only a single source and treating it as a 'holy bible'. When I then responded to this by producing a volume of quotes that (imo) also supported my view and undermined yours you lambast me for resorting to quantity rather than quality.

Is there? I do not know because I do not need to go and search for arguments in their sites and then copy and paste them in here like you do.

And I do not search for such quotes or copy and paste them here (as a response of your taunting I might remind you once more) either - which I have already said, though you prefer to call me a lier on this point.

Fishing for cyber trash seems to be your exclusive hobby and talent.

As I have already said (and you have called me a lier abpout) I prefer to use hard copy as the source of my trash. The only net based resource I use is the cyprus conflict site and the cyprus today site.

But we already discussed this some time ago and you know that no GC claims that.

No other GC claims that you mean, for TP has been reported as claiming it and has never (to my knowledge) offer any denail, recanting or corretion of the reported quote. In fact I do not know what every GC claims or believes. I know what has been reported as being said by TP. I know of no recanting or correting or denail from hinm or his office denying he ever said this. That is what I know.

Even if Papadopoulos said that on purpose and not by some mistake while intending to say 67-74, the undisputable facts tell us otherwise.

Certainly it is bad propaganda in the sense that it has no credibility at all. That does not make it not propaganda however - just bad propaganda.

Can you cite a credible GC source where a similar claim is being made (i.e that no TCs were killed between 63-67)? I suspect that you are trying to exploit in full a verbal mistake by TPap.

I can think of no other example of GC propaganda that is so blatantly untrue as that. Normaly the propaganda efforts are a lot more sophisticated than that (like your own). I can however point at countless examples of statements by GC leaders (are these people creidble to you?) where the clear intetnion is to mislead and decvive the hearers of these statments (a stratey that coincedently is a corner stone of the Akritas plan).

I understand the point you are trying to make and I can agree that intimidation and fear can be enough to force people out of their homes.

But you still maintain that the larger factor in so many TC fleeing their homes was not GC violence against the TC community, but in fact 'strong suggestion' from the TC leadership that they do.

There is a difference however in exercising actual violence against civilians in order to force them out of their homes and in them being intimidated because of the events.

Again another one of your 'subtle' obfuscations (imho). TC fleed their homes (in this new twist to your propaganda) not because of GC violence against TC and fear of such violence but because of 'fear of the events'. So if these events were so 'equal' why is it that so many TC fled their homes and so few GC? No doubt because we were told to do so by out leadership and not because the violence against and fear and vulnerability of TC was som much greater than to GC.

If you are saying that 25,000 TC refugees (number provided by UN estimations at the time) were actually subjected to violence by GCs then I say that this is not true.

I am not saying that, have never said that and you must be aware that is the case. You know very well what I have and am saying. I have said it plainly and cleary enough times. In your own words "I have already addressed this in my previous post[s] and I see no need to do it again."

Had it been otherwise the number of TC casualties could be way higher than the approx. 350 given by Patrick or approx. 500 given by R. Denktash in "the Cyprus Triangle". The question remains however: why didn't the vast majority of these TC refugees return to their homes after the end of hostilities like some did? Why were TMT officers shooting and killing TCs who were trying to return to their homes? Who gave such orders and why? Why was the TC separatist administration threatening TCs who wanted to visit the government controlled areas with a fine or even imprisonment?

Once again "I have already addressed this in my previous post[s] and I see no need to do it again."

I see no grey here at all.

Of course not. Anything negative done by TC or Turkey is black and white. Anything negative done by GC is a mass of confusion nad greyness.

I think that it was widespread enough to yield results.

You think this but really you have no idea or no means of knowing how much the TC leadership affected peoples decsion or ability to return vs GC violence and threat of violence aginst them. But by your maxim above clearly the former is totaly balck and the latter a very light shade of grey that is almost white.

But we have already discussed how these enclaves were being planned and set as early as 1957 or 1958 and at a time when no GC violence against any TCs had occurred yet.

It is not true to say that their had been no GC violence against TC in this period - it is true to say it was not as planned and organised and widespread as it later became. However what is also true was that GC were persuing a objective that was totaly unacceptable to TC and they were using illegal violence and murder to achieve it and that once they had 'dealt' with the primary block on their objectives (the British) they would inevitably turn to the next block on their apsitations (the TC community).

Does one need to repeat all that again?

The reason we keep going round and round on this is that you keep refusing to answer the logical flaw I continue to point out in your thesis. You thesis is that because TC were making plans to create safe havens as early as 57-8 before any widespread attacks by GC against TC this must mean their was a plan by TC leaders to create the havens, then force their own people into these havens and then get turkey to come and save them (11 years later or at whatever time this became possible) to achieve partition. The logical flaw you always ignore in this thesis is how, if this was the 'plan' were the TC leaders to force TC from their homes and into the enclaves?
That you can not even considerd it possible that TC leadership began to prepare safe(r) areas from GC as far back as 57-8 was because they had seen the GC determination to force ENOSIS on Cyrus and all Cypriots and seen their willingness to use murder and violence to acheive this and knew that eventualy this violence and murder would be directed against TC if they resited, is just more evidence of your ability to see what you want to see and then use that as 'proof' of your thesis.

Yes, I too believe that the ease with which the Turkish side forced the relocation of GCs and TCs in Cyprus was immoral, unjust, barbaric and cruel.

And you have the gall to talk propaganda! The gall to talk about distortion and omission. This then is the second time in this thread that you have claimed that TC forced TC from their homes (having said it once, then denied saying it when I challenged you on this point and simply ignoring the challenge). Again I ask can you find a single international press report that shows that TC were forcing TC from their homes in the period 63-68. You do not have to show even 1/5th as many such reports as these ones I have shown the reprot GC violence dreiving TC from their homes (which you maintain was not the main reason they left them). Just a single one would do for now. Or will you once again make assertions, deny you made them and ignore any futher discusion of this?

Already discussed above. No offense but why do you have this habit of repeating the same thing 3, 4 or 5 times in the same post?

I can be (in the right circumstances) a very stubborm person - I admit that. As long as you appear to misunderstand or ignore what I am saying (even though I have said it clearly many times before) then I will continue to say it.

My patent ability on obfuscation and confusion??? Hahahaha….I think you are overestimating me here, but as you like.

Credit where credit is due I believe.

At least I do not post non-existent sentences from manipulated documents like someone else does (hint).

Well as far as I am concerned it is yet to be established if the one quote you have challenged is a tru quote or not, and if it's 'non-existance' is in fact your own propaganda (hint).

As far as splitting the blame between Greeks and Turks, I am prepared to consider whatever percentage or ratio you suggest as long as you present us with a clear and reasonable methodology on establishing this ratio while substantial evidence for your claims (now here is one area where so far you have been failing miserably).

How about you tell us where you see the % of blame for TC fleeing their homes. Was it according to you 90% because the TC leaders 'strongly suggested' they flee their homes to go and live in tent cities and 10% because of GC violence and fear of violence aginst them? 70/30? 50/50 (for you have already stated that it was not any greater than this)?

Relax re. The only reason I pointed that out was because I suspected that you have no sense of humor at all.

O.

Personal attacks? Seriously Othellos, are you that desperate for arguments? I think that you can do better than that.

Anyway I have to say I am tierd by this whole argument. I will not be participating in this discussion any more , except to follw up on the veractiy (or not) of the quote I gave that you claim is 'made up'. I will also simply ignore any further 'taunts' from yourself designed at restarting this discussion (as this recent reignition of it was itself derived from one of your such 'taunts')

[gabaston]

viewpoint

who was that remark addressed to please?

[Saint Jimmy]

That would be Othellos, for his 'no sense of humour' remarks, I would think.

[gabaston]

aha

i understand

is this correct othellos?

[sadik]

i believe settlers who are removed from GC homes and have followed the same (or similar) procedures required to attain citizenship under the RoC guidelines then i guess its ok for them to tag along and be looked down on for the rest of their lvies as 3rd class scum. of course theyd have to get off land that doesnt belong to them. turkey can help out with this.

I read an EU survey that found Greeks the most racist nation in the EU. It was before Cyprus joined the EU, but it looks like the GCs are the new champions. How can you keep talking about human rights and at the same time call some people 3rd class scum with no hesitation. Their place in Cyprus may be questionable, but you have no right to call them scum. They are poor people, they had no idea they would be part of a problem when they came here.

[-mikkie2-]

Erol,

You very much like to point to the events from 63-74 and blame them squarely on the GC's.

Does it not cross your mind that much of what happened actually played into the hands of the Turks who used this to their advanatage? Don't you think for one minute that perhaps certain elements, being TMT or mainland Turk, didn't use such events as a means to propagate plans for separation or partition? It is not obvious to point fingers when certain events were directed towards causing certain reactions which had the effect of perpertrating the troubles.

To just simply focus on the relatively small time period of 63 and 67 has the effect of missing the true essense of the Cyprus problem as we see it today. Whatever you may say about what happened in that period, the events of 74 were several orders of magnitude worse on our community but your way of trying to decouple what happened in 1974 with what happened previously simply shows in my view that you possibly think that we got our just deserts and that we shouldn't complain, or that we should accept that as due 'punishment' for it is perceived we did prior to the invasion.