Cyprus-Forum.com

[Truth]

So we can all agree that the Enosis goal was abandoned by 1968, not only by Cyprus, but also by Greece as evidenced by the Evros agreement.

I wish everyone agreed!
Contast that, with this:

Enosis was never the official, nor un-official policy, of ANY Cypriot government, let alone "successive" governments.

[DT.]

Then when 40,000 of your kind are murdering and pillaging and you're helping them we shouldn't consider all of you racists and murderers despite the majority of you behaving that way?

I sometimes lose my faith in humanity because there are still racists like you and lovernomore on both sides.

Did you read my quotes from Daily Express, Guardian, Daily Herald, Observer, Washington Post (1963-64)?

I think it's time for you to realise that what you complain about is only a consequence of murderous actions certain types of GCs.

you mock the misery of 1/3 of the population of this island with your last line and call me the racist. You're agenda is an obvious one.

In line with your question regarding Enosis, can you tell me when the dream of Taksim was hatched and when will the TC's bury it?

BTW if a piano ever falls on your head and crushes you, consider it a consequence of the financial crisis of which you contributed by spending less as a consumer thus cutting the safety budget of the moving company involved in raising that piano to the 3rd floor.

[Oracle]

So we can all agree that the Enosis goal was abandoned by 1968, not only by Cyprus, but also by Greece as evidenced by the Evros agreement.

I wish everyone agreed!
Contast that, with this:

Enosis was never the official, nor un-official policy, of ANY Cypriot government, let alone "successive" governments.

You gave us a Michael Stephens quote and fraudulently asserted it was official Cyprus (successive) governmental policy to pursue Enosis. What Nikitas is referring to is the eventual and natural final abandonment of Enosis which had been dying out after Independence.

You falsely suggested something quite else:

"Moreover in June 1967 the Greek Cypriot legislature unanimously passed a resolution in favour of ENOSIS"

Once again you have disgraced and sullied the word truth with your tenebrous and antonymous versions!

[Truth]

So we can all agree that the Enosis goal was abandoned by 1968, not only by Cyprus, but also by Greece as evidenced by the Evros agreement.

I wish everyone agreed!
Contast that, with this:

Enosis was never the official, nor un-official policy, of ANY Cypriot government, let alone "successive" governments.

You gave us a Michael Stephens quote and fraudulently asserted it was official Cyprus (successive) governmental policy to pursue Enosis. What Nikitas is referring to is the eventual and natural final abandonment of Enosis which had been dying out after Independence.

You falsely suggested something quite else:

"Moreover in June 1967 the Greek Cypriot legislature unanimously passed a resolution in favour of ENOSIS"

Once again you have disgraced and sullied the word truth with your tenebrous and antonymous versions!

Sorry, are you addressing me or Nikitas?

How many times should I repeat:
I have quoted above from the following document:
House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee
Cyprus Second Report Volume II
Oral and written evidence
Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 1 February 2005
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmfaff/113/113ii.pdf

And that document refers to UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report of 2nd July 1987. This quotation does not contain a single word from Michael Stephens:

“Moreover in June 1967 the Greek Cypriot legislature unanimously passed a resolution in favour of ENOSIS, in blatant contravention of the 1960 Treaties and Constitution.”
House of Commons no. 23 of 1986-87. 2nd July 1987.

[DT.]

So we can all agree that the Enosis goal was abandoned by 1968, not only by Cyprus, but also by Greece as evidenced by the Evros agreement.

I wish everyone agreed!
Contast that, with this:

Enosis was never the official, nor un-official policy, of ANY Cypriot government, let alone "successive" governments.

You gave us a Michael Stephens quote and fraudulently asserted it was official Cyprus (successive) governmental policy to pursue Enosis. What Nikitas is referring to is the eventual and natural final abandonment of Enosis which had been dying out after Independence.

You falsely suggested something quite else:

"Moreover in June 1967 the Greek Cypriot legislature unanimously passed a resolution in favour of ENOSIS"

Once again you have disgraced and sullied the word truth with your tenebrous and antonymous versions!

Sorry, are you addressing me or Nikitas?

How many times should I repeat:
I have quoted above from the following document:
House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee
Cyprus Second Report Volume II
Oral and written evidence
Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 1 February 2005
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmfaff/113/113ii.pdf

And that document refers to UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report of 2nd July 1987. This quotation does not contain a single word from Michael Stephens:

“Moreover in June 1967 the Greek Cypriot legislature unanimously passed a resolution in favour of ENOSIS, in blatant contravention of the 1960 Treaties and Constitution.”
House of Commons no. 23 of 1986-87. 2nd July 1987.

If you bother to read this document it is a report on what a number of people have provided witness of. Including a hell of a lot of TC's. Stop misleading people because any crackpot can say whatever they like on that report and their words will be taken down as minutes.

[Get Real!]

How many times should I repeat:
I have quoted above from the following document:
House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee
Cyprus Second Report Volume II
Oral and written evidence
Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 1 February 2005
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmfaff/113/113ii.pdf

And that document refers to UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report of 2nd July 1987. This quotation does not contain a single word from Michael Stephens:

“Moreover in June 1967 the Greek Cypriot legislature unanimously passed a resolution in favour of ENOSIS, in blatant contravention of the 1960 Treaties and Constitution.”
House of Commons no. 23 of 1986-87. 2nd July 1987.

Page 239:

Written evidence submitted by Michael Stephen109
Why is Cyprus Divided?

Look, it's a well known fact that over the years some British MPs like Lord McGuiness, Michael Stevens, and others who were formerly in Cyprus (ex-military) and beaten by EOKA during the 1955..59 struggle, are bitter and have done everything they can to support Turkey but for every such person there's like 20 British politicians in support of GCs.

Even to this day, these people are still meddling… they’re now trying to build an unofficial 55..59 memorial in Kyrenia!.

[doesntmatter]

How many times should I repeat:
I have quoted above from the following document:
House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee
Cyprus Second Report Volume II
Oral and written evidence
Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 1 February 2005
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmfaff/113/113ii.pdf

And that document refers to UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report of 2nd July 1987. This quotation does not contain a single word from Michael Stephens:

“Moreover in June 1967 the Greek Cypriot legislature unanimously passed a resolution in favour of ENOSIS, in blatant contravention of the 1960 Treaties and Constitution.”
House of Commons no. 23 of 1986-87. 2nd July 1987.

Page 239:

Written evidence submitted by Michael Stephen109
Why is Cyprus Divided?

Look, it's a well known fact that over the years some British MPs like Lord McGuiness, Michael Stevens, and others who were formerly in Cyprus (ex-military) and beaten by EOKA during the 1955..59 struggle, are bitter and have done everything they can to support Turkey but for every such person there's like 20 British politicians in support of GCs.

Even to this day, these people are still meddling… they’re now trying to build an unofficial 55..59 memorial in Kyrenia!.

Ahhhhh, now I get it...those Brits who are pro-GC are "credible" but those not are not, got you.

[Oracle]

How many times should I repeat:
I have quoted above from the following document:
House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee
Cyprus Second Report Volume II
Oral and written evidence
Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 1 February 2005
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmfaff/113/113ii.pdf

And that document refers to UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report of 2nd July 1987. This quotation does not contain a single word from Michael Stephens:

“Moreover in June 1967 the Greek Cypriot legislature unanimously passed a resolution in favour of ENOSIS, in blatant contravention of the 1960 Treaties and Constitution.”
House of Commons no. 23 of 1986-87. 2nd July 1987.

Page 239:

Written evidence submitted by Michael Stephen109
Why is Cyprus Divided?

Look, it's a well known fact that over the years some British MPs like Lord McGuiness, Michael Stevens, and others who were formerly in Cyprus (ex-military) and beaten by EOKA during the 1955..59 struggle, are bitter and have done everything they can to support Turkey but for every such person there's like 20 British politicians in support of GCs.

Even to this day, these people are still meddling… they’re now trying to build an unofficial 55..59 memorial in Kyrenia!.

Ahhhhh, now I get it...those Brits who are pro-GC are "credible" but those not are not, got you.

What is not credible, is "Truth" trying to pass off someone's mere opinion as Evidence. In this case it happened to be Michael Stephen's who is not just biased anti-GC, but is a well known Turkish propagandist.

"Truth" continues to try and pass off this opinion as something approved in Parliament and this fallacy has been pointed out to him at least 4 times on this thread.

"Truth" lied!

[Truth]

What is not credible, is "Truth" trying to pass off someone's mere opinion as Evidence. In this case it happened to be Michael Stephen's who is not just biased anti-GC, but is a well known Turkish propagandist.

"Truth" continues to try and pass off this opinion as something approved in Parliament and this fallacy has been pointed out to him at least 4 times on this thread.

"Truth" lied!

I have quoted the quotes and references (i.e. the evidence) submitted by Michael Stephen to the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, not this personal opinion.

The logic here is, of course, hilarious (as also pointed out by doesntmatter):

If someone is a Turk (or even a sympathiser), his evidence is a lie.

OK, please tell me.
In your opinion, who is the liar here:

Oracle wrote:
"Enosis was never the official, nor un-official policy, of ANY Cypriot government, let alone "successive" governments."

Paphitis wrote:
"I was referring to the 12,000 Greek troops deploying to Cyprus in order to facilitate ENOSIS..."
"The 12,000 Greek troops deployed to Cyprus to facilitate double union.. This is what was referred to by Nikitas and was admitted to by Papandreou and Mitsotakis."

Nikitas wrote:
"So we can all agree that the Enosis goal was abandoned by 1968, not only by Cyprus, but also by Greece as evidenced by the Evros agreement."


Dear Oracle! If I were you, I would stop making a spectacle of myself.

[Oracle]

What is not credible, is "Truth" trying to pass off someone's mere opinion as Evidence. In this case it happened to be Michael Stephen's who is not just biased anti-GC, but is a well known Turkish propagandist.

"Truth" continues to try and pass off this opinion as something approved in Parliament and this fallacy has been pointed out to him at least 4 times on this thread.

"Truth" lied!

I have quoted the quotes and references (i.e. the evidence) submitted by Michael Stephen to the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, not this personal opinion.

The logic here is, of course, hilarious (as also pointed out by doesntmatter):

If someone is a Turk (or even a sympathiser), his evidence is a lie.

OK, please tell me.
In your opinion, which one is the liar:

Oracle wrote:
"Enosis was never the official, nor un-official policy, of ANY Cypriot government, let alone "successive" governments."

Nikitas wrote:
"So we can all agree that the Enosis goal was abandoned by 1968, not only by Cyprus, but also by Greece as evidenced by the Evros agreement."

Dear Oracle! If I were you, I would stop making a spectacle out of myself.

The spectacular spectacle is your ineptitude at substantiating your claims with anything other than the opinions of well-known Turkish Propagandists.

But let us enter your world and pretend we can turn opinions into facts ...

You presented Stephens' opinion as fact here ....

"Moreover in June 1967 the Greek Cypriot legislature unanimously passed a resolution in favour of ENOSIS"

So let's say this was fact.

In that case, since you are quite beside yourself with mis-representing Nikitas' opinion, let us also gift you this as fact (even if out-of context with respect to Nikitas).

"So we can all agree that the Enosis goal was abandoned by 1968, not only by Cyprus, but also by Greece as evidenced by the Evros agreement."

So you say the GC government legislated Enosis in 1967 and Nikitas said it was abandoned by 1968.

Does this now justify your claim that ...

... I have another (probably naive) question: ENOSIS seems to be the official policy of successive Cypriot governments in the past.

So how many successive Cypriot Governments were there, which pursued legislated Enosis, according to Michael Stephens and you, considering Makarios was re-elected in 1968, by which time you are happy to accept Enosis was dead? (as of your quote by Nikitas)

Pretty short lived if that was the case, wouldn't you say