Cyprus-Forum.com

[zan]

I am not going to waste my time going through the 1960 Constitution line by line.

You don't have to. Some salient features which you loved about it, will do; plus anything that riles with democracy, according to what you "mean" by Democracy, of course.

That should do nicely.

BTW .... Is this yours?

http://samarkeolog.blogspot.com/

Well, people were getting attacked and killed, their homes and coffee shops were getting attacked. Anything that stops murder is at least quite nice, isn't it? I presume you want me to say that having community quotas and imbalances in government, public services, etc., are undemocratic. I would agree, but nationalist violence made the community guarantees essential. In Britain, our minorities don't have any special protections, but our nationalist extremists have never been our official representatives, and they have never been our government. In Cyprus, nationalist extremists became the government and the police, so their victims needed protection. The Constitution was so democratic it even let citizens vote for people who didn't like the Constitution! That's more democratic than Turkey's!

(Yes, that is my blog, though the research stuff is on http://human-rights-archaeology.blogspot.com and the site blogs listed on the left side of the page.)

Basically what you are asserting, is that the TCs had to be given an inordinately larger share of the government than they were "entitled" to, in order to stop them attacking GCs and the infrastructure.

This you acknowledge is undemocratic, but was the only way to stop the violence started by the TCs to force the Brits to give them more in the Agreement.

Proof of this lies in the fact that once again, the violence was restarted by TCs when they feared these undemocratic extras may be removed,.

Thanks. You have confirmed what the Cyprus problem is all about.

TC greed at the expense of democracy.....

You may call it whatever you like dear Oracle. We call it self-preservation. Do not begrudge us that. If the 'majority' were not going to protect us, it had to be ourselves. This was obvious when it came to the running of the Municipalities.

When most other groups demand Democracy to live a meaningful life, the TCs demand to over-ride it.

It's not just the Turks that have a problem with Democracy then!

Only the Greek kind....Is their a word in Greek that means fair instead...Perhaps a long study of that word would bring about a new you...

[denizaksulu]

I am not going to waste my time going through the 1960 Constitution line by line.

You don't have to. Some salient features which you loved about it, will do; plus anything that riles with democracy, according to what you "mean" by Democracy, of course.

That should do nicely.

BTW .... Is this yours?

http://samarkeolog.blogspot.com/

Well, people were getting attacked and killed, their homes and coffee shops were getting attacked. Anything that stops murder is at least quite nice, isn't it? I presume you want me to say that having community quotas and imbalances in government, public services, etc., are undemocratic. I would agree, but nationalist violence made the community guarantees essential. In Britain, our minorities don't have any special protections, but our nationalist extremists have never been our official representatives, and they have never been our government. In Cyprus, nationalist extremists became the government and the police, so their victims needed protection. The Constitution was so democratic it even let citizens vote for people who didn't like the Constitution! That's more democratic than Turkey's!

(Yes, that is my blog, though the research stuff is on http://human-rights-archaeology.blogspot.com and the site blogs listed on the left side of the page.)

Basically what you are asserting, is that the TCs had to be given an inordinately larger share of the government than they were "entitled" to, in order to stop them attacking GCs and the infrastructure.

This you acknowledge is undemocratic, but was the only way to stop the violence started by the TCs to force the Brits to give them more in the Agreement.

Proof of this lies in the fact that once again, the violence was restarted by TCs when they feared these undemocratic extras may be removed,.

Thanks. You have confirmed what the Cyprus problem is all about.

TC greed at the expense of democracy.....

You may call it whatever you like dear Oracle. We call it self-preservation. Do not begrudge us that. If the 'majority' were not going to protect us, it had to be ourselves. This was obvious when it came to the running of the Municipalities.

When most other groups demand Democracy to live a meaningful life, the TCs demand to over-ride it.

It's not just the Turks that have a problem with Democracy then!

It is unbelievable. Though the word'democracy' has been banded about since classical times, I doubt if anyone knew the meaning of it in Cyprus in the 1960's. You seem to have a sudden recollection of the word. How odd.

[Oracle]

I am not going to waste my time going through the 1960 Constitution line by line.

You don't have to. Some salient features which you loved about it, will do; plus anything that riles with democracy, according to what you "mean" by Democracy, of course.

That should do nicely.

BTW .... Is this yours?

http://samarkeolog.blogspot.com/

Well, people were getting attacked and killed, their homes and coffee shops were getting attacked. Anything that stops murder is at least quite nice, isn't it? I presume you want me to say that having community quotas and imbalances in government, public services, etc., are undemocratic. I would agree, but nationalist violence made the community guarantees essential. In Britain, our minorities don't have any special protections, but our nationalist extremists have never been our official representatives, and they have never been our government. In Cyprus, nationalist extremists became the government and the police, so their victims needed protection. The Constitution was so democratic it even let citizens vote for people who didn't like the Constitution! That's more democratic than Turkey's!

(Yes, that is my blog, though the research stuff is on http://human-rights-archaeology.blogspot.com and the site blogs listed on the left side of the page.)

Basically what you are asserting, is that the TCs had to be given an inordinately larger share of the government than they were "entitled" to, in order to stop them attacking GCs and the infrastructure.

This you acknowledge is undemocratic, but was the only way to stop the violence started by the TCs to force the Brits to give them more in the Agreement.

Proof of this lies in the fact that once again, the violence was restarted by TCs when they feared these undemocratic extras may be removed,.

Thanks. You have confirmed what the Cyprus problem is all about.

TC greed at the expense of democracy.....

You may call it whatever you like dear Oracle. We call it self-preservation. Do not begrudge us that. If the 'majority' were not going to protect us, it had to be ourselves. This was obvious when it came to the running of the Municipalities.

When most other groups demand Democracy to live a meaningful life, the TCs demand to over-ride it.

It's not just the Turks that have a problem with Democracy then!

It is unbelievable. Though the word'democracy' has been banded about since classical times, I doubt if anyone knew the meaning of it in Cyprus in the 1960's. You seem to have a sudden recollection of the word. How odd.

Strangely enough, I remember Cyprus being referred to as the democracy (H demokratia).

I've never had to over-use it as much as I have done here with samarkeolog, to determine what is the sticking point. I pretty much took it for granted everyone just accepted Democracy; like breathing! It's hard to believe it was and is, so taboo with the TCs, who prided themselves on being unlike the Turks ... but here you all are, putting down Democracy, because it doesn't suit your own personal extraordinary demands.

This is something that most British people are unaware of, regarding the Cyprus Problem: just how undemocratic the TCs are.

A revelation, and an education!

[denizaksulu]

I am not going to waste my time going through the 1960 Constitution line by line.

You don't have to. Some salient features which you loved about it, will do; plus anything that riles with democracy, according to what you "mean" by Democracy, of course.

That should do nicely.

BTW .... Is this yours?

http://samarkeolog.blogspot.com/

Well, people were getting attacked and killed, their homes and coffee shops were getting attacked. Anything that stops murder is at least quite nice, isn't it? I presume you want me to say that having community quotas and imbalances in government, public services, etc., are undemocratic. I would agree, but nationalist violence made the community guarantees essential. In Britain, our minorities don't have any special protections, but our nationalist extremists have never been our official representatives, and they have never been our government. In Cyprus, nationalist extremists became the government and the police, so their victims needed protection. The Constitution was so democratic it even let citizens vote for people who didn't like the Constitution! That's more democratic than Turkey's!

(Yes, that is my blog, though the research stuff is on http://human-rights-archaeology.blogspot.com and the site blogs listed on the left side of the page.)

Basically what you are asserting, is that the TCs had to be given an inordinately larger share of the government than they were "entitled" to, in order to stop them attacking GCs and the infrastructure.

This you acknowledge is undemocratic, but was the only way to stop the violence started by the TCs to force the Brits to give them more in the Agreement.

Proof of this lies in the fact that once again, the violence was restarted by TCs when they feared these undemocratic extras may be removed,.

Thanks. You have confirmed what the Cyprus problem is all about.

TC greed at the expense of democracy.....

You may call it whatever you like dear Oracle. We call it self-preservation. Do not begrudge us that. If the 'majority' were not going to protect us, it had to be ourselves. This was obvious when it came to the running of the Municipalities.

When most other groups demand Democracy to live a meaningful life, the TCs demand to over-ride it.

It's not just the Turks that have a problem with Democracy then!

It is unbelievable. Though the word'democracy' has been banded about since classical times, I doubt if anyone knew the meaning of it in Cyprus in the 1960's. You seem to have a sudden recollection of the word. How odd.

Strangely enough, I remember Cyprus being referred to as the democracy (H demokratia).

I've never had to over-use it as much as I have done here with samarkeolog, to determine what is the sticking point. I pretty much took it for granted everyone just accepted Democracy; like breathing! It's hard to believe it was and is, so taboo with the TCs, who prided themselves on being unlike the Turks ... but here you all are, putting down Democracy, because it doesn't suit your own personal extraordinary demands.

This is something that most British people are unaware of, regarding the Cyprus Problem: just how undemocratic the TCs are.

A revelation, and an education!

I know we had the 'Dimokratia Kipreaki/Kibris Cumhuriyeti, but I am talking about the use of it in the sense that you are using it today.

[Oracle]

I am not going to waste my time going through the 1960 Constitution line by line.

You don't have to. Some salient features which you loved about it, will do; plus anything that riles with democracy, according to what you "mean" by Democracy, of course.

That should do nicely.

BTW .... Is this yours?

http://samarkeolog.blogspot.com/

Well, people were getting attacked and killed, their homes and coffee shops were getting attacked. Anything that stops murder is at least quite nice, isn't it? I presume you want me to say that having community quotas and imbalances in government, public services, etc., are undemocratic. I would agree, but nationalist violence made the community guarantees essential. In Britain, our minorities don't have any special protections, but our nationalist extremists have never been our official representatives, and they have never been our government. In Cyprus, nationalist extremists became the government and the police, so their victims needed protection. The Constitution was so democratic it even let citizens vote for people who didn't like the Constitution! That's more democratic than Turkey's!

(Yes, that is my blog, though the research stuff is on http://human-rights-archaeology.blogspot.com and the site blogs listed on the left side of the page.)

Basically what you are asserting, is that the TCs had to be given an inordinately larger share of the government than they were "entitled" to, in order to stop them attacking GCs and the infrastructure.

This you acknowledge is undemocratic, but was the only way to stop the violence started by the TCs to force the Brits to give them more in the Agreement.

Proof of this lies in the fact that once again, the violence was restarted by TCs when they feared these undemocratic extras may be removed,.

Thanks. You have confirmed what the Cyprus problem is all about.

TC greed at the expense of democracy.....

You may call it whatever you like dear Oracle. We call it self-preservation. Do not begrudge us that. If the 'majority' were not going to protect us, it had to be ourselves. This was obvious when it came to the running of the Municipalities.

When most other groups demand Democracy to live a meaningful life, the TCs demand to over-ride it.

It's not just the Turks that have a problem with Democracy then!

It is unbelievable. Though the word'democracy' has been banded about since classical times, I doubt if anyone knew the meaning of it in Cyprus in the 1960's. You seem to have a sudden recollection of the word. How odd.

Strangely enough, I remember Cyprus being referred to as the democracy (H demokratia).

I've never had to over-use it as much as I have done here with samarkeolog, to determine what is the sticking point. I pretty much took it for granted everyone just accepted Democracy; like breathing! It's hard to believe it was and is, so taboo with the TCs, who prided themselves on being unlike the Turks ... but here you all are, putting down Democracy, because it doesn't suit your own personal extraordinary demands.

This is something that most British people are unaware of, regarding the Cyprus Problem: just how undemocratic the TCs are.

A revelation, and an education!

I know we had the 'Dimokratia Kipreaki/Kibris Cumhuriyeti, but I am talking about the use of it in the sense that you are using it today.

You may well puzzle. We've just established that if democracy of any "kind" is introduced (even remotely imposing one-man-one-vote) the TCs will riot/loot/rampage again; then enclave themselves .... as they have done now on a BIG scale!

[samarkeolog]

The Greek Troops were not bought to Cyprus to declare ENOSIS. Their purpose was to offer security and protection to the GCs from TMT attack and TAF napalm bombings.

As for protection from Turkish Air Force bombings, it was Greek Cypriot extremists' attacks that caused Turkish military bombings. Der Spiegel (19th August 1964 - Google translation) said that,

the attackers overwhelmed the apron of Kokkina - the small villages of Alevga, Ayios Theodoros, Sellai Tappi and Mansoura, from which, together with Kokkina, one of the two Turkish cantons would be formed according to the Acheson Plan.
The core forces of the attackers were two private mercenary armies, to which the worst atrocities of the Cypriot civil war have been attributed:
- The 600, Green Beret-wearing partisans of the newspaper publisher and former EOKA fighter Nikos Sampson, 29...;
- The 2000 Red Caps [Red Berets] of the far left physician of Makarios, Dr. Vassos Lyssarides - a friend of Tito and Nasser's confidant and Khrushchev...

When they attacked, Turkey bombed them back. So, the Greek Cypriots might have needed the Greeks to protect them from the Turks, but only because the Greek Cypriots attacked the Turkish Cypriots. If the Greek Cypriots hadn't attacked the Turkish Cypriots, the Turks wouldn't have attacked the Greek Cypriots.

The Greek-led Cypriot government said Turkish jets had dropped 750lbs (340 kg) of bombs and napalm on their strongholds in north-west Cyprus.

"The whole area is on fire," said a spokesman for the Cypriot government.

"We cannot estimate casualties but there must be hundreds. Whole villages have been wiped out."

They also accused the Turkish government of landing troops on the north-west coast of the island.

The BBC may have republished what it reported on the day, but that doesn't mean that what it reported on the day was correct...

Soon after, der Spiegel recorded,

Rossides, the Cypriot High Commissioner in London, Antis Soteriades and Makarios himself gave grossly exaggerated descriptions of the alleged consequences of the Turkish air raids.
"Many villages have vanished from the earth", reported the Cyprus Broadcasting Station on Sunday. In the first reports more than five hundred dead were spoken of. "In rolling mission[s] Turkish planes bombed Greek villages and the defenseless civilian population in a barbaric way," said Makarios in Cyprus even TV. "They transformed churches. Schools and hospitals [are] in ruins."
In truth, the number of bomb victims, according to SPIEGEL editor Jochen Becher last week from Cyprus cables, [was] "between 60 and a maximum of 100, of which about half soldiers." The Turkish attacks were directed specifically against the military deployment points of the National Guards in Kokkina. The hardest hit were
- The village Pakhi Ammenos [Pakhyammos], deployment center of the Greek attackers, whose 250 inhabitants, 40 killed and 100 were wounded;
- A gunboat in the Cypriot port of Polis (five dead, 13 wounded):
- A field hospital three miles before Kokkina, hit by a bombing strike (eight deaths).
The attack on the hospital, marked by the Red Cross flag, was mentioned by the Cypriot government as an example of Turkish barbarism mentioned. But, covered by the walls of the building, it had an armoured reconaissance car position. The pipes of the burnt-out vehicle (indicator: AB 261) are still targeted against Turkish Kokkina. The Cypriot police has banned photographs of the wreck.

Obviously, any civilian casualties are unfortunate, but they did have to stop the attack on the enclave (to save other civilians' lives). Their only options were bombing from the air or defending it from land, but defending it from land would have been an invasion (or "intervention")...

[samarkeolog]

I am not going to waste my time going through the 1960 Constitution line by line.

You don't have to. Some salient features which you loved about it, will do; plus anything that riles with democracy, according to what you "mean" by Democracy, of course.

That should do nicely.

BTW .... Is this yours?

http://samarkeolog.blogspot.com/

Well, people were getting attacked and killed, their homes and coffee shops were getting attacked. Anything that stops murder is at least quite nice, isn't it? I presume you want me to say that having community quotas and imbalances in government, public services, etc., are undemocratic. I would agree, but nationalist violence made the community guarantees essential. In Britain, our minorities don't have any special protections, but our nationalist extremists have never been our official representatives, and they have never been our government. In Cyprus, nationalist extremists became the government and the police, so their victims needed protection. The Constitution was so democratic it even let citizens vote for people who didn't like the Constitution! That's more democratic than Turkey's!

(Yes, that is my blog, though the research stuff is on http://human-rights-archaeology.blogspot.com and the site blogs listed on the left side of the page.)

Basically what you are asserting, is that the TCs had to be given an inordinately larger share of the government than they were "entitled" to, in order to stop them attacking GCs and the infrastructure.

Eek!

This you acknowledge is undemocratic, but was the only way to stop the violence started by the TCs to force the Brits to give them more in the Agreement.

Proof of this lies in the fact that once again, the violence was restarted by TCs when they feared these undemocratic extras may be removed,.

Thanks. You have confirmed what the Cyprus problem is all about.

TC greed at the expense of democracy.....

Whoooa whoa whoa whoa...

No, community guarantees were the only way to make the Turkish Cypriots feel safe in a state where the Greek Cypriot president and many of the people in the Greek Cypriot chamber were from EOKA. (The Greek Cypriots didn't need the guarantees because they had majority control of the state and the police and security services.)

And the Greek Cypriot attempt to remove the "extras", the Greek Cypriot police search that led to the incident on the 21st of December 1963, all of those things, were attempts to win total control of the state, or to push Turkish Cypriot extremists to violence, so that the Greek Cypriot paramilitaries would then have an excuse to destroy them and the Turkish Cypriots would have to accept the changes. I don't like either the Greek Cypriot extremists or the Turkish Cypriot ones. They're all a bunch of bastards who've driven their society to destruction.

[doesntmatter]

The first victims of Inter communal aggression were also GCs:

Bullshit, the first victim to die was killed by the eoka terrorist in 1957, he was a Turkish Cypriot and his crime was to be a policeman.

You really need to stop reading the crap Piratis writes and do your own research, it just might save you from sounding like a fool like him.

[BirKibrisli]

double post

[BirKibrisli]

I am not going to waste my time going through the 1960 Constitution line by line.

You don't have to. Some salient features which you loved about it, will do; plus anything that riles with democracy, according to what you "mean" by Democracy, of course.

That should do nicely.

BTW .... Is this yours?

http://samarkeolog.blogspot.com/

Well, people were getting attacked and killed, their homes and coffee shops were getting attacked. Anything that stops murder is at least quite nice, isn't it? I presume you want me to say that having community quotas and imbalances in government, public services, etc., are undemocratic. I would agree, but nationalist violence made the community guarantees essential. In Britain, our minorities don't have any special protections, but our nationalist extremists have never been our official representatives, and they have never been our government. In Cyprus, nationalist extremists became the government and the police, so their victims needed protection. The Constitution was so democratic it even let citizens vote for people who didn't like the Constitution! That's more democratic than Turkey's!

(Yes, that is my blog, though the research stuff is on http://human-rights-archaeology.blogspot.com and the site blogs listed on the left side of the page.)

Basically what you are asserting, is that the TCs had to be given an inordinately larger share of the government than they were "entitled" to, in order to stop them attacking GCs and the infrastructure.

This you acknowledge is undemocratic, but was the only way to stop the violence started by the TCs to force the Brits to give them more in the Agreement.

Proof of this lies in the fact that once again, the violence was restarted by TCs when they feared these undemocratic extras may be removed,.

Thanks. You have confirmed what the Cyprus problem is all about.

TC greed at the expense of democracy.....

You have selectively ignored the key point Samarkeolog was making,Oracle dear...I took the trouble of highlighting it for you...Any comments????