Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

Reh Aunt Sallies, Simon Templar and Pafidi Buttas Kokoti, where's the link that tells the story of the so-called massive naval engagement plan of Brits against Turks?

[Simon]

One more slap into the faces of 2 Aunt Sallies:

"Shortly afterwards the Turkish prime minister, Bulent Ecevit, arrived in London for urgent consultations and met the prime minister. After he left, Wilson instructed the ministry of defence assessment staff to draw up contingency plans for a British invasion.

Marked "Secret UK Eyes A'" and entitled Re-instatement of President Makarios in Cyprus by means of British military support, the document warns of the dangers involved in such an operation.

"This paper considers the general forces level necessary to achieve this," it begins. "It does not address itself to the possibility [of intervention] by Greece, Turkey or another nation ... However, the attempted intervention by air or sea of Greek forces could be deterred by our own forces given about 10 days notice.

"The threat will not only consist of the Cyprus national guard, Greek national contingent, EOKA B [paramilitary Greek loyalists] ... there will be sizeable elements who will actively oppose us by resorting to guerrilla warfare."

The total strength of "Greek loyal forces" was estimated at 55,000, but "standards of training are poor".

The assessment concluded that three brigades - as many as 15,000 soldiers - would be needed.

Close air support would also be necessary, but added: "Bitter experience has shown us that even a small number of dedicated men from the local population can pin down an inordinately large force for an indefinite period and we might well end up by facing an open-ended and expensive situation, like in Northern Ireland.

"Our chances of ever fully subduing the island as a whole ... must be extremely low."

Up to 23,000 service families, UK citizens and friendly nationals would be vulnerable to hostage-taking but evacuating them before an intervention "would make our intentions plain", it said.

The government hesitated and events moved faster than anticipated. In the early hours of July 20 Turkish troops invaded north Cyprus and in effect partitioned the island on the grounds of protecting the Turkish Cypriot population.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jan/0 ... larchives1

insan, what has the above got to do with anything? This is referring to guerilla warfare if the British opposed Greek forces and reinstated Makarios. All major powers struggle with guerilla warfare, because you can't fight your enemy head on. That has nothing to do with the conventional naval warfare I am referring to.

These were British contingency plans regarding the pros and cons of British intervention. Gimme a link to that naval warfare u r refering to... Lemme check it.

Against Greek guerilla forces, yes. But what has that got to do with a naval engagement to prevent the Turkish invasion? Nothing!

Gimme a link to that naval engagement plan and after I read it I'll tell u what it has to do with Turkish peace operation.

I never said there was a British naval plan that had been published. I doubt the British would ever publish a plan even if there was one. What I said was Britain had the naval capacity to stop the invasion. And if you deny this, then I'm afraid I can't help you with your brainwashing. What I say is common knowledge. Here is just one source which confirms what I say:

Anderson continued: “The meeting that ensued settled the fate of the island. It was a talk between social-democrats: Wilson, Callaghan and Ecevit, fellow members of the Socialists International. Although Britain had not only a core of well-equipped troops, but overwhelming air-power on the island – fighter-bombers capable of shattering forces far more formidable than Sampson and his minders – Wilson and Callaghan refused to lift a finger. The next day, Turkey readied a naval landing. Britain had warships off the coast and could have deterred a unilateral Turkish invasion with equal ease. Again, London did nothing.”

http://www.greeknewsonline.com/?p=8654

Read and weep.

Before you go on about propaganda sources, as I know you like to do when you have nothing else to say, Professor Anderson is a History expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. A highly respected institution.

[Simon]

The Spartan military training was absolutely incredible and unbelievably brutal. Probably the most disciplined and well-trained soldiers ever.

That's just great... the world's "best" army were gays...

Their sexuality has nothing to do with how well-trained they were, unless you have something against gays? And just because the culture at that time encouraged sex between the troops, it does not necessarily mean they were all "gay", as most married too.

[insan]

One more slap into the faces of 2 Aunt Sallies:

"Shortly afterwards the Turkish prime minister, Bulent Ecevit, arrived in London for urgent consultations and met the prime minister. After he left, Wilson instructed the ministry of defence assessment staff to draw up contingency plans for a British invasion.

Marked "Secret UK Eyes A'" and entitled Re-instatement of President Makarios in Cyprus by means of British military support, the document warns of the dangers involved in such an operation.

"This paper considers the general forces level necessary to achieve this," it begins. "It does not address itself to the possibility [of intervention] by Greece, Turkey or another nation ... However, the attempted intervention by air or sea of Greek forces could be deterred by our own forces given about 10 days notice.

"The threat will not only consist of the Cyprus national guard, Greek national contingent, EOKA B [paramilitary Greek loyalists] ... there will be sizeable elements who will actively oppose us by resorting to guerrilla warfare."

The total strength of "Greek loyal forces" was estimated at 55,000, but "standards of training are poor".

The assessment concluded that three brigades - as many as 15,000 soldiers - would be needed.

Close air support would also be necessary, but added: "Bitter experience has shown us that even a small number of dedicated men from the local population can pin down an inordinately large force for an indefinite period and we might well end up by facing an open-ended and expensive situation, like in Northern Ireland.

"Our chances of ever fully subduing the island as a whole ... must be extremely low."

Up to 23,000 service families, UK citizens and friendly nationals would be vulnerable to hostage-taking but evacuating them before an intervention "would make our intentions plain", it said.

The government hesitated and events moved faster than anticipated. In the early hours of July 20 Turkish troops invaded north Cyprus and in effect partitioned the island on the grounds of protecting the Turkish Cypriot population.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jan/0 ... larchives1

insan, what has the above got to do with anything? This is referring to guerilla warfare if the British opposed Greek forces and reinstated Makarios. All major powers struggle with guerilla warfare, because you can't fight your enemy head on. That has nothing to do with the conventional naval warfare I am referring to.

These were British contingency plans regarding the pros and cons of British intervention. Gimme a link to that naval warfare u r refering to... Lemme check it.

Against Greek guerilla forces, yes. But what has that got to do with a naval engagement to prevent the Turkish invasion? Nothing!

Gimme a link to that naval engagement plan and after I read it I'll tell u what it has to do with Turkish peace operation.

I never said there was a British naval plan that had been published. I doubt the British would ever publish a plan even if there was one. What I said was Britain had the naval capacity to stop the invasion. And if you deny this, then I'm afraid I can't help you with your brainwashing. What I say is common knowledge. Here is just one source which confirms what I say:

Anderson continued: “The meeting that ensued settled the fate of the island. It was a talk between social-democrats: Wilson, Callaghan and Ecevit, fellow members of the Socialists International. Although Britain had not only a core of well-equipped troops, but overwhelming air-power on the island – fighter-bombers capable of shattering forces far more formidable than Sampson and his minders – Wilson and Callaghan refused to lift a finger. The next day, Turkey readied a naval landing. Britain had warships off the coast and could have deterred a unilateral Turkish invasion with equal ease. Again, London did nothing.”

Read and weap.

Before you go on about propaganda sources, as I know you like to do when you have nothing else to say, Professor Anderson is a History expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. A highly respected institution.

It is just the arguement of P Anderson. It's not official. There r no other respected authors supporting his arguement neither British officials but only Greek Lobby; Gene Rossides and poor Simon Templar.

[Get Real!]

And just because the culture at that time encouraged sex between the troops,...

Now come and bloody tell me again that the macho Cypriot culture stems from the Greeks and I'll whack you with a frying pan!


Anyway, gotta shoot off so I'll catch you guys later...

[Paphitis]

One more slap into the faces of 2 Aunt Sallies:

"Shortly afterwards the Turkish prime minister, Bulent Ecevit, arrived in London for urgent consultations and met the prime minister. After he left, Wilson instructed the ministry of defence assessment staff to draw up contingency plans for a British invasion.

Marked "Secret UK Eyes A'" and entitled Re-instatement of President Makarios in Cyprus by means of British military support, the document warns of the dangers involved in such an operation.

"This paper considers the general forces level necessary to achieve this," it begins. "It does not address itself to the possibility [of intervention] by Greece, Turkey or another nation ... However, the attempted intervention by air or sea of Greek forces could be deterred by our own forces given about 10 days notice.

"The threat will not only consist of the Cyprus national guard, Greek national contingent, EOKA B [paramilitary Greek loyalists] ... there will be sizeable elements who will actively oppose us by resorting to guerrilla warfare."

The total strength of "Greek loyal forces" was estimated at 55,000, but "standards of training are poor".

The assessment concluded that three brigades - as many as 15,000 soldiers - would be needed.

Close air support would also be necessary, but added: "Bitter experience has shown us that even a small number of dedicated men from the local population can pin down an inordinately large force for an indefinite period and we might well end up by facing an open-ended and expensive situation, like in Northern Ireland.

"Our chances of ever fully subduing the island as a whole ... must be extremely low."

Up to 23,000 service families, UK citizens and friendly nationals would be vulnerable to hostage-taking but evacuating them before an intervention "would make our intentions plain", it said.

The government hesitated and events moved faster than anticipated. In the early hours of July 20 Turkish troops invaded north Cyprus and in effect partitioned the island on the grounds of protecting the Turkish Cypriot population.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jan/0 ... larchives1

insan, what has the above got to do with anything? This is referring to guerilla warfare if the British opposed Greek forces and reinstated Makarios. All major powers struggle with guerilla warfare, because you can't fight your enemy head on. That has nothing to do with the conventional naval warfare I am referring to.

These were British contingency plans regarding the pros and cons of British intervention. Gimme a link to that naval warfare u r refering to... Lemme check it.

There were many Royal Naval Ships between Kyrenia and Turkey monitoring the Turkish Naval elements steaming towards Cyprus.

There was enough firepower to send every single Turkish ship to the bottom of the sea.

Gimme a link to read the full story!

The Treaty of Establishment, the Treaty of Guarantee, and the Treaty of Alliance allowed Greece to orchestrate a coup at the behest of the CIA against the democratically elected president of the Republic of Cyprus, on the orders of Henry Kissinger who wanted him murdered. These treaties contributed to the illegal Turkish invasion of Cyprus in violation of Article 2 Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter as stated in numerous UN resolutions. The US conspired with NATO so that no action was taken to stop Turkeys illegal invasion and to the contrary NATO documents reveal that it supported the assassination attempt against President Makarios and the illegal invasion knowing that brutal ethnic cleansing was being perpetrated by Turkey. Britain failed in its obligation to protect Cyprus due to the intervention of Henry Kissinger who ordered James Callahan not to allow the Royal Navy to stop Turkey when it violated a UN brokered cease fire on August 14 1974 and invaded Cyprus a second time in the same year. Because of this 200,000 Greek Cypriots were ethnically cleansed and thousands were massacred, tortured and mutilated, raped, murdered, or made to disappear by the Turkish forces as documented in the Reports of the European Commission of Human Rights which found that Turkey alone was guilty of mass violations of the European Convention of Human Rights.

http://www.argyrosargyrou.fsnet.co.uk/a ... cle1-3.htm

As I told ypou before Insan, Callahan only threatened Turkey on August 14, 1974 and was stopped by Kissinger!

[Paphitis]

Reh Aunt Sallies, Simon Templar and Pafidi Buttas Kokoti, where's the link that tells the story of the so-called massive naval engagement plan of Brits against Turks?

Read it and weep shitface....

http://www.argyrosargyrou.fsnet.co.uk/a ... cle1-3.htm

[Paphitis]

And just because the culture at that time encouraged sex between the troops,...

Now come and bloody tell me again that the macho Cypriot culture stems from the Greeks and I'll whack you with a frying pan!


Anyway, gotta shoot off so I'll catch you guys later...

Cypriot culture does stem from the Greeks and you can shove your frying pan up your clacker!

[Simon]

One more slap into the faces of 2 Aunt Sallies:

"Shortly afterwards the Turkish prime minister, Bulent Ecevit, arrived in London for urgent consultations and met the prime minister. After he left, Wilson instructed the ministry of defence assessment staff to draw up contingency plans for a British invasion.

Marked "Secret UK Eyes A'" and entitled Re-instatement of President Makarios in Cyprus by means of British military support, the document warns of the dangers involved in such an operation.

"This paper considers the general forces level necessary to achieve this," it begins. "It does not address itself to the possibility [of intervention] by Greece, Turkey or another nation ... However, the attempted intervention by air or sea of Greek forces could be deterred by our own forces given about 10 days notice.

"The threat will not only consist of the Cyprus national guard, Greek national contingent, EOKA B [paramilitary Greek loyalists] ... there will be sizeable elements who will actively oppose us by resorting to guerrilla warfare."

The total strength of "Greek loyal forces" was estimated at 55,000, but "standards of training are poor".

The assessment concluded that three brigades - as many as 15,000 soldiers - would be needed.

Close air support would also be necessary, but added: "Bitter experience has shown us that even a small number of dedicated men from the local population can pin down an inordinately large force for an indefinite period and we might well end up by facing an open-ended and expensive situation, like in Northern Ireland.

"Our chances of ever fully subduing the island as a whole ... must be extremely low."

Up to 23,000 service families, UK citizens and friendly nationals would be vulnerable to hostage-taking but evacuating them before an intervention "would make our intentions plain", it said.

The government hesitated and events moved faster than anticipated. In the early hours of July 20 Turkish troops invaded north Cyprus and in effect partitioned the island on the grounds of protecting the Turkish Cypriot population.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jan/0 ... larchives1

insan, what has the above got to do with anything? This is referring to guerilla warfare if the British opposed Greek forces and reinstated Makarios. All major powers struggle with guerilla warfare, because you can't fight your enemy head on. That has nothing to do with the conventional naval warfare I am referring to.

These were British contingency plans regarding the pros and cons of British intervention. Gimme a link to that naval warfare u r refering to... Lemme check it.

Against Greek guerilla forces, yes. But what has that got to do with a naval engagement to prevent the Turkish invasion? Nothing!

Gimme a link to that naval engagement plan and after I read it I'll tell u what it has to do with Turkish peace operation.

I never said there was a British naval plan that had been published. I doubt the British would ever publish a plan even if there was one. What I said was Britain had the naval capacity to stop the invasion. And if you deny this, then I'm afraid I can't help you with your brainwashing. What I say is common knowledge. Here is just one source which confirms what I say:

Anderson continued: “The meeting that ensued settled the fate of the island. It was a talk between social-democrats: Wilson, Callaghan and Ecevit, fellow members of the Socialists International. Although Britain had not only a core of well-equipped troops, but overwhelming air-power on the island – fighter-bombers capable of shattering forces far more formidable than Sampson and his minders – Wilson and Callaghan refused to lift a finger. The next day, Turkey readied a naval landing. Britain had warships off the coast and could have deterred a unilateral Turkish invasion with equal ease. Again, London did nothing.”

Read and weap.

Before you go on about propaganda sources, as I know you like to do when you have nothing else to say, Professor Anderson is a History expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. A highly respected institution.

It is just the arguement of P Anderson. It's not official. There r no other respected authors supporting his arguement neither British officials but only Greek Lobby; Gene Rossides and poor Simon Templar.

What do you mean it is not official? What did you expect, an official document about a hypothetical naval battle? From who? You're an idiot insan. Anderson is a historical expert from a top University. What did you expect, a statement from a Turkish Admiral admitting that if Britain intervened he would end up at the bottom of the Mediterranean! Of course Britain could have stopped the invasion, for one simple reason, its Navy is far better than Turkey's. Simple.

[insan]

One more slap into the faces of 2 Aunt Sallies:

"Shortly afterwards the Turkish prime minister, Bulent Ecevit, arrived in London for urgent consultations and met the prime minister. After he left, Wilson instructed the ministry of defence assessment staff to draw up contingency plans for a British invasion.

Marked "Secret UK Eyes A'" and entitled Re-instatement of President Makarios in Cyprus by means of British military support, the document warns of the dangers involved in such an operation.

"This paper considers the general forces level necessary to achieve this," it begins. "It does not address itself to the possibility [of intervention] by Greece, Turkey or another nation ... However, the attempted intervention by air or sea of Greek forces could be deterred by our own forces given about 10 days notice.

"The threat will not only consist of the Cyprus national guard, Greek national contingent, EOKA B [paramilitary Greek loyalists] ... there will be sizeable elements who will actively oppose us by resorting to guerrilla warfare."

The total strength of "Greek loyal forces" was estimated at 55,000, but "standards of training are poor".

The assessment concluded that three brigades - as many as 15,000 soldiers - would be needed.

Close air support would also be necessary, but added: "Bitter experience has shown us that even a small number of dedicated men from the local population can pin down an inordinately large force for an indefinite period and we might well end up by facing an open-ended and expensive situation, like in Northern Ireland.

"Our chances of ever fully subduing the island as a whole ... must be extremely low."

Up to 23,000 service families, UK citizens and friendly nationals would be vulnerable to hostage-taking but evacuating them before an intervention "would make our intentions plain", it said.

The government hesitated and events moved faster than anticipated. In the early hours of July 20 Turkish troops invaded north Cyprus and in effect partitioned the island on the grounds of protecting the Turkish Cypriot population.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jan/0 ... larchives1

insan, what has the above got to do with anything? This is referring to guerilla warfare if the British opposed Greek forces and reinstated Makarios. All major powers struggle with guerilla warfare, because you can't fight your enemy head on. That has nothing to do with the conventional naval warfare I am referring to.

These were British contingency plans regarding the pros and cons of British intervention. Gimme a link to that naval warfare u r refering to... Lemme check it.

There were many Royal Naval Ships between Kyrenia and Turkey monitoring the Turkish Naval elements steaming towards Cyprus.

There was enough firepower to send every single Turkish ship to the bottom of the sea.

Gimme a link to read the full story!

As I told ypou before Insan, Callahan only threatened Turkey on August 14, 1974 and was stopped by Kissinger!

This is what I said in one of my previous posts.... and I gave u the link to the Kissinger's conversation regarding this issue... What's ur point? U confirmed what i said...