Cyprus-Forum.com

[gabaston]

Hey Bro

democratic blame huh...........................luv it

[erolz]

Erol,

I think you are wrong to assume that GC's don't accept blame for the events of 63-67. We do and we rue the mistakes of the past.

I hope that is ture. It is hard to appreciate this when poster like othellos refuse to admit or accept (to take one example) that the largest single reason TC fled their homes from 63 onwards was GC violence and the threat of it against TC commuity, but instead argue that it was a 'political plan' by ordianry TC or people fled because of 'orders from above' or that TC drove TC from their homes and accuse me of being biased and onesided and manipiulative when I seek to counter these arguments (in terms of what was the _major_ factor that led to TC fleeing their homes).

However, this has to be put into some kind of perspective. You seem to be on a mission to prove that the GC's were to blame for greater than 50% of everything that has happened in Cyprus.

I talked explicitly about GC being more to blame in the period 63-74. I did thin as a _reaction_ to GC claims that this was not the case. I have never claimed that was the case for everything that happend in Cyprus. In terms of 'everything' that has happened in Cyprus I have pointed out the incongruity of the thesis of equality of blames with the refusal to accept the concept of equality of rights of the communites. That is not the same as what you accuse me of above imo.

My belief is that from a political point of view the effects of enosis and taksim were feeding off eachother and consequently you cannot sit here and come up with some kind of magic formula to apportion blame. Much of what happened was a reaction to certain events. The numerical superiority of the GC's may have resulted in greater effects on the smaller TC community but really, the issue is what actually caused these events to happen. From that perspective I would say that there is pretty much equal culpability.

I have not sought a magic formula. The heart of my argument in this thread is that the major reason so many TC fled their homes was GC violence and the threat of GC violence.

Having said that I think that it is fair to say that in general terms in the period 63-74 GC were more proactive and the TC more reactive. Not totaly, not in black and white but I believe there is enough evidence to support this 'asymetry' (much of which is rooted in the aysemtry of the population sizes). As above I still find an inconsitentcy in the idea that blame is something that accrues to communites regardless of size but that political equality can not possibly accrue to communites regadless of size.

In any case, the fear that has been instilled in the TC community is actually detrimental to the whole of Cyprus.

Agreed.

[Othellos]

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?

No sir!! When you first posted that fake quote in bold letters in this forum you mentioned nothing about it being an "alleged" were only REPUBLISHED in this booklet in their original text.

You see no possibility that your booklet simply does not cover the article in question?

No I do not. In his introduction the publisher states clearly that the booklet does cover all the articles as these were written by Karayiannis.

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).

Get serious!

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.

What Karayiannis wrote in 1965 is there for all to see and read: "The Mansoura Battles" by Alfadi productions (Nicosia, March 2003). Now if you rushed to quote and even insist upon something without ever bothering to read it, I am afraid that this is your error and not mine.

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.

There is ample proof that your quote is 1000% false and this fact alone is enough to categorize "your" quote as fiction.

Like I have said no one is more intetested in the truth in this regard.

Good for you, re

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?

If …if …if!!! Why don't you try talking with definite (and not fabricated) statements for a change? Again, get serious.

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.

You are chewing your words again. Apparently Karayiannis was a convenient Greek source for you for as long as you thought that the alleged quotes you copied and pasted in here were taken directly from his articles. And as for that attack plan, Karayiannis states clearly that the Turks were the first to attack in December 1963. Your reaction to all these is that you choose to believe (and even quote) statements that Karayiannis never even while ignoring what he actually wrote in his articles.

I did not quote 'truths' - and this accusation in itself is a distortion. I quoted what people said.

Apparently there is stuff that you posted and that was never said by these people.

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.

You felt? Geez!!! Just a couple of days ago you seemed to be so confident about your "evidence".

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?

I do not know because I do not "write" propaganda sites.

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.

Well, some of your quotes are like firecrackers (lots of noise but no substance) as they say very little or even nothing. But even those that say something, can one be 100% sure they are accurate or even real after all this?

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.

As soon as I discovered where all that stuff is coming from, I realized that I was wrong and I admitted my mistake about saying that you are using one single source. What else do you want me to 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.

You do not search for such quotes but for some reason they still appear in your posts.

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 am sure you can. The question is if these countless examples will also be twisted words (like those of Karayiannis) or not?

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.

Did I ever say that?

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.

Well, I am not aware of any inter-communal violence before the summer of 1958. But if you know otherwise, I too would be interested to know.

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?

As I have written before, the enclaves were like military bridgeheads: fortified and located strategically throughout Cyprus. Their population was an important element because this could also determine to a large extend how long they would last during a conflict. And as for the invasion, this was planned and attempted at least 11 years before 1974 why waste time with "possibilities"?

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?

Why all the drama in your above sentenses? All I am saying is that when one tries to return to his house after being temporarily relocated from it but is confronted with guns held by his own people then yes, this is forced and permanent relocation. And as for your quotes I repeat that one has to be extremely careful about how accurate they are.

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.

All I am doing is questioning the validity of your "evidence". Other than that you can carry on being stubborn as much as you like.

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).

Karayiannis articles are available for all to read. The fact that they are in Greek did not seem to bother you the first time you quoted from them.

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)?

You were the one who came up with this ratio idea. So perhaps you should enlighten us more on this.

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

.
A personal attack? Who? When? Where? How? Why?

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')

Maybe we should start calling you errorZ?

O.

[Viewpoint]

Othellos why did u even bother with that last post, im certain erolz will respond but reading what you two have been saying, your sinking deeper and deeper into the brainwashed/blinkered pit, your counter arguements are weak and generalizations used to dismiss erolz quotes backing his thesis are a typical approach of trying to discredit a persons viewpoint, you should "Get Serious" to use your own words and accept the fact that GCs violence was the main contributing factor in TCs creating enclaves, is this so difficult to understand? or have you also been brainwashed into thinking that the TC community were experiencing the love and warmth of GC hospitality that they felt impelled to leave the comfort of their homes and go live under bad conditions in enclaves, people only resort to these drastic measures out of extreem fear, which was amply produced by guess who?? "Get Serious" and work it out. Yes you got it Greek Cypriots.

[erolz]

No sir!! When you first posted that fake quote in bold letters in this forum you mentioned nothing about it being an "alleged"

I posted the quote that I believed (and still believe - pending my own futher investigation) is a true and accurate quote. You then ALLEDGE it was / is a 'fake quote' - thus I now use that word.

were only REPUBLISHED in this booklet in their original text.

So you claim / believe. Just because you claim / believe it that does not mean it is so.

Get serious!

You get serious. You claim the quote I have used is made up to further TC propaganda but seem incapable of accepting even the possibility that a GC may have omitted something for propaganda purposes. Apparently then you believe in the ridiculous (race based) notion that TC use propaganda but GC could not do such a thing. Get serious.

What Karayiannis wrote in 1965 is there for all to see and read: "The Mansoura Battles" by Alfadi productions (Nicosia, March 2003). Now if you rushed to quote and even insist upon something without ever bothering to read it, I am afraid that this is your error and not mine.

What was written in the newspaper that I quote is almost certainly available in it's orignal form somewhere -and I will sooner or later find that original source to establish the authenticity or not of the quote I used. For all I know it is also in this 'republished' version of the original. You claim it is not - but I do not know if your claim is correct or not.

There is ample proof that your quote is 1000% false and this fact alone is enough to categorize "your" quote as fiction.

100% is not enough for you? What would be 100% proof would be to establish if the quote exists in the original newpaper articles or not. That would be proof. That you claim it does not exist in republished articles thay may not even cover the article the quote is from is not proof (for me) be it 1000% proof or 100% proof.

Like I have said no one is more intetested in the truth in this regard.

If …if …if!!! Why don't you try talking with definite (and not fabricated) statements for a change? Again, get serious.

Again I wonder what your reaction will be if I mamage to find a copy of the _original_ article and produce that and it does contain the quote you say is 'made up' (with your 1000% proofs of its being made up).

Apparently there is stuff that you posted and that was never said by these people.

So you claim.

You felt? Geez!!! Just a couple of days ago you seemed to be so confident about your "evidence".

Talk of chewing words! I am confident of my assertion that the major reason TC fled their homes was GC violence against them and fear of that violence. I selected the evidence I felt supported that claim. I am confident of my claim and that there is ample evidence to support it. However the selction of that evidence was a 'judgement call' in as far as it relevant in supporting my claims. That does not mean the evidence does not exit or I have no confidence in my claim or the evidence. It means that what evidence I selected to support this claim is a judgment call.

I do not know because I do not "write" propaganda sites.

Standard cop out. Care to address the point perhaps? I doubt it.

As soon as I discovered where all that stuff is coming from,

The stuff comes from the original sources - like the times, the express, the guardian etc etc etc. That is has been reproduced in serveral palces does not change where it comes from.

I realized that I was wrong and I admitted my mistake about saying that you are using one single source. What else do you want me to do?

You critised me for using a single source. I then used many sources and you critises me for that. What I would like you to do is deal with the issue and not distractions.

You do not search for such quotes but for some reason they still appear in your posts.

I said I do not and did not search for such quotes online. I still say this because it is true and your insinuations that I am a lier do not change this truth. I KNOW where I got the quotes from and not a single one was copied and pasted from any of the sources you listed. More distraction.

Well, I am not aware of any inter-communal violence before the summer of 1958. But if you know otherwise, I too would be interested to know.

Well go and find out then, for you will not believe any evidence that I present. There had been intercommunal violence between the two communites for as long as there was British rule and before that too.

As I have written before, the enclaves were like military bridgeheads: fortified and located strategically throughout Cyprus. Their population was an important element because this could also determine to a large extend how long they would last during a conflict.

You have also written that TC planned the forcing of TC from thier homes into these enclaves and executed this plan and this was a bigger factor in TC fleeing their homes than GC violence against TC.

Why all the drama in your above sentenses? All I am saying is that when one tries to return to his house after being temporarily relocated from it but is confronted with guns held by his own people then yes, this is forced and permanent relocation.

No this is not all that you have said. You have said that GC violence was not the major factor in why TC fled their homes. You have said (with no evidence presented at all) that TC force TC from thier homes.
Are you now claiming that GC violence against TC was a 'temporary relocation'? Pah ! I may just as well claim that what Turkey did in 74 was a 'temporary relocation' of GC and that it was GC that stopped GC from returning to their homes as thus are the ones that are responsible for GC fleeing them in the first place.

All I am doing is questioning the validity of your "evidence". Other than that you can carry on being stubborn as much as you like.

Oh believe me I will. You have created the perfect conditions to show my stubbornness. If I have to fly to Greece and search the archives of the newspaper in question and hire a Greek speaking translator to help me do so, to 'defend' the quote I made I will do so. It may take me years to get round to being able to do this but I will do it.

You were the one who came up with this ratio idea. So perhaps you should enlighten us more on this.

No actually from the moment you claimed that GC violence and the fear of such violence was not the major cause of TC fleeing their homes, you were in fact talking of 'ratios'. All I have done is make that clearer.

A personal attack? Who? When? Where? How? Why?

Oh so innocent!. Do you not recall typing

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

Saying you think someone has no sense of humour is not a personal attack? Does my sense of humour or your views on it have any relevance what so ever to this discussion?

Maybe we should start calling you errorZ?

O.

More of your 'humour'. Once again I am beside myself in mirth at your clever wit. Call me what you like but if you expect a reply I suggest you use my name

[-mikkie2-]

Erol

You seem to suggest that there were plenty of instances of intercommunal violence in Cyprus before 1958.

Do not confuse the deaths of TC's that were part of the British security forces as victims of intercommunal violence. These people died because they were guarding British facilities and the target of EOKA activities before 1958 was just that, British military facilities.

Intercommunal violence began when the Turks planted the bomb that went off outside the Turkish press office, and that is when the general population got involved in intercommunal violence. May I remind you that this spark of violence resulted in the expulsion of several hundred GC's from Omorphita, perhaps the first refugees that were created since the troubles began!

As to the enclaves being created by GC's, well obviously the violence that followed instilled some fear in the TC's but I put it to you that this fear was manipulated by the TMT and Turkish forces which positively encouraged the fleeing of many TC's with the fear of being under imminent attack by GC's. Of course the GC's did instigate attacks against some TC population centres but to say that the GC's were exclusively to blame is simply false when the TMT were encouraging this fleeing on the pretext that they were going to be under imminent attack, which in many cases did not even happen. But the most damning evidence of this is perhaps the TMT discouraging TC's from returning to their homes by using violence against their own people. If this is not a sign of using the situation for political or military advatage, I don;t know what is.

I keep having to point out to you that trying to prove culpability one way or another is simply difficult because you come accross so many grey and indefinable areas that it is pointless to try and do so. You claim that GC's were proactive and the TC's reactive. I would disagree because after the troubles started, that set in motion the wheels of taksim and enosis in a way were each comminity was striving to achieve their seperate aims. So in both senses, each was proactive.

[erolz]

Erol

You seem to suggest that there were plenty of instances of intercommunal violence in Cyprus before 1958.

That was not the impression I intended to give. I was just pointing out that there intercommunal violence between GC and TC before 58.

Do not confuse the deaths of TC's that were part of the British security forces as victims of intercommunal violence. These people died because they were guarding British facilities and the target of EOKA activities before 1958 was just that, British military facilities.

There have been clashes between TC community and GC community for as long as there has been a TC community in Cyprus. Nothing as planned and orgnaised and widespread as what happend in 63 onwards, but real none the less.

As to the enclaves being created by GC's, well obviously the violence that followed instilled some fear in the TC's but I put it to you that this fear was manipulated by the TMT and Turkish forces which positively encouraged the fleeing of many TC's with the fear of being under imminent attack by GC's. Of course the GC's did instigate attacks against some TC population centres but to say that the GC's were exclusively to blame is simply false when the TMT were encouraging this fleeing on the pretext that they were going to be under imminent attack, which in many cases did not even happen.

For the umpteenth time - I am not saying and never had said that GC violence was EXCLUSIVELY the the reason why TC fled thier homes. I have countered (reactively) arguments by GC that GC violence was not the major factor in why TC fled thier homes.

I keep having to point out to you that trying to prove culpability one way or another is simply difficult because you come accross so many grey and indefinable areas that it is pointless to try and do so.

Have I said it is easy? Should I ignore GC claims that it was not GC violence that was the major (biggest single) factor in why TC fled their homes?

You claim that GC's were proactive and the TC's reactive. I would disagree because after the troubles started, that set in motion the wheels of taksim and enosis in a way were each comminity was striving to achieve their seperate aims. So in both senses, each was proactive.

This is a seperate argument to the 'primary' one I was having. However I still stand by my assertion that GC were more proactive than TC. For a start the GC desire and persuit of ENOSIS and it's insinuation into the minds of everyday GC pre dates any similar desire of ordinary TC for Taksim. Taksim was a reaction to ENOSIS. Secondly as the smaller and weaker community we were by necessity 'reactive' to what the larger community was doing. The larger community has the 'luxury' of being able to persu agendas with little or no regard for the samller. The samller does not have this luxurary imo. This is not to say that TC were totaly reactive and GC totaly proactive, just that there was an aysmetry to this imo. nayway to me this is purely a matter of personal opinion. I do nto really care to argue that my interpretation is any better or more true than anyone elses in this reagrd. Unlike the assertation that GC were nbot the major factor in why TC fled their homes but in fact the major factor (cause) was TC driuving TC from their homes - this to me is not a matter of opinion but one of gross distortion of historical reality for propaganda purposes.

[-mikkie2-]

Erol,

I still feel that your assertion that the GC's are mainly to blame for the fleeing of TC's as misguided. Yes, the attacks by GC's did have a big bearing on the situation, there is absolutely no denying that. However, what I am trying to say to you, is that the reaction of the TC's was amplified significantly by the actions of the TMT and other Turkish influenced groups to further Turkish aims in Cyprus. That is why I think that trying to get to the bottom of who is to blame and who isn't is extremely difficult if nigh on impossible, unless the people involved that are still alive today came clean about the events they were involved in.

Also, I would like to know of examples of intercommunal clashes before 1958 that you feel highlight and support our argument that intercommunal strife was always there ever since TC's came into existance.

[erolz]

Erol,

I still feel that your assertion that the GC's are mainly to blame for the fleeing of TC's as misguided.

Firstly my assertions were a reaction to the claims by GC that this was not the main cause of so many TC fleeing their homes, yet I saw no posts from you about how such thinbgs could never be known.
Do you realy think that without GC violence against TC that anywhere near the number of TC that fled their homes would have done so?

Yes, the attacks by GC's did have a big bearing on the situation, there is absolutely no denying that.

A big bearing but not the biggest bearing? What then in your opinion had the biggest bearing?

However, what I am trying to say to you, is that the reaction of the TC's was amplified significantly by the actions of the TMT and other Turkish influenced groups to further Turkish aims in Cyprus. That is why I think that trying to get to the bottom of who is to blame and who isn't is extremely difficult if nigh on impossible, unless the people involved that are still alive today came clean about the events they were involved in.

Like I say you seemed to have little input to GC claims that GC violence was NOT the biggest factor in TC fleeing their homes, only in my reactionary claim that GC violence was the biggest single factor.

Also, I would like to know of examples of intercommunal clashes before 1958 that you feel highlight and support our argument that intercommunal strife was always there ever since TC's came into existance.

I suggest then that you do some reseacrh if you are intersted. I am sorry if this sounds glib or dismissive but I have lost any enthusiasm for presenting 'evidence' here in this thread. Believe if you will that under ottoman rule the ottomans butchered and oppressed GC in barbaric ways but that as soon as the British took control of the Island there were no clashes between GC anf TC on the island and the two communites lived in blissful peacful harmony with each other until the British forced them to start killing each other to futher British aims. Personaly I do not chose such a version of history. You can do as you like as ever.

[Kifeas]

Erol, do you consider the “Cyprus-conflict” website as one that presents a fairly balanced and objective account of events, resources and analyses?