Cyprus-Forum.com

[denizaksulu]

Bananiot,

You are looking at this issue of atrocities from a narrow point of view. If it could all be left between the two parties involved then all would be fine. But the issue often spills over into a wider context which is why there are trials going on now against people who committed war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

There is also the need of those who committed under orders to speak out.

It is already clear that Cyprus is not seeking to prosecute or punish any individual involved. This was restated by the Attorney General last night.

From a more personal point of view, I want to know who and why drew up the policy of terror in the north during the invasion.

Nikitas, you say/quote,' It is already clear that Cyprus is not seeking to prosecute or punish any individual involved. This was restated by the Attorney General last night. '. I admit my ignorance of this, but have seen it being alluded to.

Can I 'innocently' ask WHY?

What comes to my mind is, 'are they afraid something 'bad' will be unearthed from the G/GC side?

I find this most intruiging and/or generous of the RoC.

On the contrary, it sounds as though it is in the spirit of allowing the truth to come out, without fear of reprisals, that this gesture could have been made.

Possibly, but I have my doubts. Only Atilla 'let the broad bean slip out of his mouth '/ let it slip.

But if that is the case perhaps dear OLD Piratis could take a leaf out of the RoC's book.

[mariacyp]

If you mean those who voted NO to the so cold Anan Plan you are mistaking.

They did not vote for the Turkish army to be in Cyprus for ever. They voted for the freedom of Cyprus and for the return to their home. With the Anan plan if you read it carefully no one was going to return to their place of birth. You will tell me who did so far? Some TCs who are sick and tiered of the Turkish Goverment's politics.

[Oracle]

Bananiot,

You are looking at this issue of atrocities from a narrow point of view. If it could all be left between the two parties involved then all would be fine. But the issue often spills over into a wider context which is why there are trials going on now against people who committed war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

There is also the need of those who committed under orders to speak out.

It is already clear that Cyprus is not seeking to prosecute or punish any individual involved. This was restated by the Attorney General last night.

From a more personal point of view, I want to know who and why drew up the policy of terror in the north during the invasion.

Nikitas, you say/quote,' It is already clear that Cyprus is not seeking to prosecute or punish any individual involved. This was restated by the Attorney General last night. '. I admit my ignorance of this, but have seen it being alluded to.

Can I 'innocently' ask WHY?

What comes to my mind is, 'are they afraid something 'bad' will be unearthed from the G/GC side?

I find this most intruiging and/or generous of the RoC.

On the contrary, it sounds as though it is in the spirit of allowing the truth to come out, without fear of reprisals, that this gesture could have been made.

Possibly, but I have my doubts. Only Atilla 'let the broad bean slip out of his mouth '/ let it slip.

But if that is the case perhaps dear OLD Piratis could take a leaf out of the RoC's book.

Deniz, it's not realistic, nor borne out by history, that for every country that causes atrocities, the other side must have been equally as bad.

Sometimes one side truly is the more destructive.

We have not retaliated against the Turks on many occasions. Maybe because of the huge losses we have suffered. But why have we had such huge losses, if not because of the brutality of Turkey? We have never mounted an "equalising" invasion of Turkey, and certainly not after a ceasefire was "implemented", yet Turkey has proven to totally disregard such rules.

Why is it so hard to accept, even in the spirit of fairness, that maybe, just maybe, the GCs were too busy defending themselves, to set about killing "unnecessarily" in this way.

[denizaksulu]

Bananiot, You are looking at this issue of atrocities from a narrow point of view. If it could all be left between the two parties involved then all would be fine. But the issue often spills over into a wider context which is why there are trials going on now against people who committed war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda.There is also the need of those who committed under orders to speak out. It is already clear that Cyprus is not seeking to prosecute or punish any individual involved. This was restated by the Attorney General last night. From a more personal point of view, I want to know who and why drew up the policy of terror in the north during the invasion.

Nikitas, you say/quote,' It is already clear that Cyprus is not seeking to prosecute or punish any individual involved. This was restated by the Attorney General last night. '.  I admit my ignorance of this, but have seen it being alluded to.Can I 'innocently' ask WHY?What comes to my mind is, 'are they afraid something 'bad' will be unearthed from the G/GC side?I find this most intruiging and/or generous of the RoC.

On the contrary, it sounds as though it is in the spirit of allowing the truth to come out, without fear of reprisals, that this gesture could have been made.

Possibly, but I have my doubts. Only Atilla 'let the broad bean slip out of his mouth '/ let it slip.But if that is the case perhaps dear OLD Piratis could take a leaf out of the RoC's book.

Deniz, it's not realistic, nor borne out by history, that for every country that causes atrocities, the other side must have been equally as bad.Sometimes one side truly is the more destructive.We have not retaliated against the Turks on many occasions. Maybe because of the huge losses we have suffered. But why have we had such huge losses, if not because of the brutality of Turkey? We have never mounted an "equalising" invasion of Turkey, and certainly not after a ceasefire was "implemented", yet Turkey has proven to totally disregard such rules.Why is it so hard to accept, even in the spirit of fairness, that maybe, just maybe, the GCs were too busy defending themselves, to set about killing "unnecessarily" in this way.

So now, it is the numbers game a la Piratis. 'One side did more than the other side'. Or according to your statement above , not a single TC has lost his/her life at all.(unless I misread your post)

[zan]

Bananiot, You are looking at this issue of atrocities from a narrow point of view. If it could all be left between the two parties involved then all would be fine. But the issue often spills over into a wider context which is why there are trials going on now against people who committed war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda.There is also the need of those who committed under orders to speak out. It is already clear that Cyprus is not seeking to prosecute or punish any individual involved. This was restated by the Attorney General last night. From a more personal point of view, I want to know who and why drew up the policy of terror in the north during the invasion.

Nikitas, you say/quote,' It is already clear that Cyprus is not seeking to prosecute or punish any individual involved. This was restated by the Attorney General last night. '.  I admit my ignorance of this, but have seen it being alluded to.Can I 'innocently' ask WHY?What comes to my mind is, 'are they afraid something 'bad' will be unearthed from the G/GC side?I find this most intruiging and/or generous of the RoC.

On the contrary, it sounds as though it is in the spirit of allowing the truth to come out, without fear of reprisals, that this gesture could have been made.

Possibly, but I have my doubts. Only Atilla 'let the broad bean slip out of his mouth '/ let it slip.But if that is the case perhaps dear OLD Piratis could take a leaf out of the RoC's book.

Deniz, it's not realistic, nor borne out by history, that for every country that causes atrocities, the other side must have been equally as bad.Sometimes one side truly is the more destructive.We have not retaliated against the Turks on many occasions. Maybe because of the huge losses we have suffered. But why have we had such huge losses, if not because of the brutality of Turkey? We have never mounted an "equalising" invasion of Turkey, and certainly not after a ceasefire was "implemented", yet Turkey has proven to totally disregard such rules.Why is it so hard to accept, even in the spirit of fairness, that maybe, just maybe, the GCs were too busy defending themselves, to set about killing "unnecessarily" in this way.

So now, it is the numbers game a la Piratis. 'One side did more than the other side'. Or according to your statement above , not a single TC has lost his/her life at all.(unless I misread your post)

I think our head shrinker here has picked up on something and completely misread it. Because not many people are answering Piratis' post's, she thinks he is making a hit....Not, that people can't even be bothered to read his posts!!!

[Oracle]

Bananiot, You are looking at this issue of atrocities from a narrow point of view. If it could all be left between the two parties involved then all would be fine. But the issue often spills over into a wider context which is why there are trials going on now against people who committed war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda.There is also the need of those who committed under orders to speak out. It is already clear that Cyprus is not seeking to prosecute or punish any individual involved. This was restated by the Attorney General last night. From a more personal point of view, I want to know who and why drew up the policy of terror in the north during the invasion.

Nikitas, you say/quote,' It is already clear that Cyprus is not seeking to prosecute or punish any individual involved. This was restated by the Attorney General last night. '.  I admit my ignorance of this, but have seen it being alluded to.Can I 'innocently' ask WHY?What comes to my mind is, 'are they afraid something 'bad' will be unearthed from the G/GC side?I find this most intruiging and/or generous of the RoC.

On the contrary, it sounds as though it is in the spirit of allowing the truth to come out, without fear of reprisals, that this gesture could have been made.

Possibly, but I have my doubts. Only Atilla 'let the broad bean slip out of his mouth '/ let it slip.But if that is the case perhaps dear OLD Piratis could take a leaf out of the RoC's book.

Deniz, it's not realistic, nor borne out by history, that for every country that causes atrocities, the other side must have been equally as bad.Sometimes one side truly is the more destructive.We have not retaliated against the Turks on many occasions. Maybe because of the huge losses we have suffered. But why have we had such huge losses, if not because of the brutality of Turkey? We have never mounted an "equalising" invasion of Turkey, and certainly not after a ceasefire was "implemented", yet Turkey has proven to totally disregard such rules.Why is it so hard to accept, even in the spirit of fairness, that maybe, just maybe, the GCs were too busy defending themselves, to set about killing "unnecessarily" in this way.

So now, it is the numbers game a la Piratis. 'One side did more than the other side'. Or according to your statement above , not a single TC has lost his/her life at all.(unless I misread your post)

No it's not just about numbers, but types of behaviour as well.

Do you dispute that one side, can be more ruthless than the other?

[denizaksulu]

Bananiot, You are looking at this issue of atrocities from a narrow point of view. If it could all be left between the two parties involved then all would be fine. But the issue often spills over into a wider context which is why there are trials going on now against people who committed war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda.There is also the need of those who committed under orders to speak out. It is already clear that Cyprus is not seeking to prosecute or punish any individual involved. This was restated by the Attorney General last night. From a more personal point of view, I want to know who and why drew up the policy of terror in the north during the invasion.

Nikitas, you say/quote,' It is already clear that Cyprus is not seeking to prosecute or punish any individual involved. This was restated by the Attorney General last night. '.  I admit my ignorance of this, but have seen it being alluded to.Can I 'innocently' ask WHY?What comes to my mind is, 'are they afraid something 'bad' will be unearthed from the G/GC side?I find this most intruiging and/or generous of the RoC.

On the contrary, it sounds as though it is in the spirit of allowing the truth to come out, without fear of reprisals, that this gesture could have been made.

Possibly, but I have my doubts. Only Atilla 'let the broad bean slip out of his mouth '/ let it slip.But if that is the case perhaps dear OLD Piratis could take a leaf out of the RoC's book.

Deniz, it's not realistic, nor borne out by history, that for every country that causes atrocities, the other side must have been equally as bad.Sometimes one side truly is the more destructive.We have not retaliated against the Turks on many occasions. Maybe because of the huge losses we have suffered. But why have we had such huge losses, if not because of the brutality of Turkey? We have never mounted an "equalising" invasion of Turkey, and certainly not after a ceasefire was "implemented", yet Turkey has proven to totally disregard such rules.Why is it so hard to accept, even in the spirit of fairness, that maybe, just maybe, the GCs were too busy defending themselves, to set about killing "unnecessarily" in this way.

So now, it is the numbers game a la Piratis. 'One side did more than the other side'. Or according to your statement above , not a single TC has lost his/her life at all.(unless I misread your post)

No it's not just about numbers, but types of behaviour as well.

Do you dispute that one side, can be more ruthless than the other?

No, I do not dispute that one side can be more brutal than the other.

But prior to the events of 1974, I maintain that the G?GCs had the upper hand in the numbers 'game' and the 'brutality' stakes.

[zan]

To the winner.....and all that!

[Nikitas]

"I admit my ignorance of this, but have seen it being alluded to.Can I 'innocently' ask WHY?What comes to my mind is, 'are they afraid something 'bad' will be unearthed from the G/GC side?I find this most intruiging and/or generous of the RoC."

To answer your question Deniz,

The RoC realised that on its own it has no chance of ever prosecuting a Turkish national, especially if Turkey does not want to have a warrant executed against him in Turkey.

The next best policy is to let people officially off the hook if they give a formal statement. There is one case where a Turkish national has given a statement of events in 1974. He is a professor in Turkey now and his name has been kept ouf of the media.

There may also be a self serving angle too, although so far it has not been demostrated- that of using the statements for propaganda or political gain.

[denizaksulu]

"I admit my ignorance of this, but have seen it being alluded to.Can I 'innocently' ask WHY?What comes to my mind is, 'are they afraid something 'bad' will be unearthed from the G/GC side?I find this most intruiging and/or generous of the RoC."

To answer your question Deniz,

The RoC realised that on its own it has no chance of ever prosecuting a Turkish national, especially if Turkey does not want to have a warrant executed against him in Turkey.

The next best policy is to let people officially off the hook if they give a formal statement. There is one case where a Turkish national has given a statement of events in 1974. He is a professor in Turkey now and his name has been kept ouf of the media.

There may also be a self serving angle too, although so far it has not been demostrated- that of using the statements for propaganda or political gain.

Thank you Nikitas. A straight answer to a straight question - some would say. I will ponder on your answer for a while.