Cyprus-Forum.com

[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.

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.

Yeahhh... an expert that no other experts on earth supported his arguements regarding this issue but only Lobbyist, propagandist, Rossides. What a coincidence ehh?

[Simon]

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...

GR, modern Greeks have an equally macho culture nowadays, albeit with more variances because it is a bigger country. This is down to human beings evolving and especially the influence of the Christian faith, which has taught that homosexuality is wrong. Basically, both Greece and Cyprus have developed a lot since Spartan times.

[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.

Yeahhh... an expert that no other experts on earth supported his arguements regarding this issue but only Lobbyist, propagandist, Rossides. What a coincidence ehh?

How do you know no other experts support him? I have heard the exact same thing from loads of sources. Where is your link that Britain would have lost a naval engagement? Like I said, when you have nothing else to say, you go back to the propaganda argument.

[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!

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...

No Insan! You stated that Britain threatened Turkey with war if it invaded Cyprus.

That is not the case.

Britain only threatened Turkey with military action after 14 Aug 74 when Turkey violated the ceasefire and continued the advance towards the SBAs.

Kissinger however, prevented the British from doing anything because he was fully supporting Turkey's invasion of Cyprus.

Furthermore, there were many Royal Naval Units in Cyprus at the time. Most were evacuating British nationals from the island and some were monitoring Turkish Naval maneuvers.

[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...

GR, modern Greeks have an equally macho culture nowadays, albeit with more variances because it is a bigger country. This is down to human beings evolving and especially the influence of the Christian faith, which has taught that homosexuality is wrong. Basically, both Greece and Cyprus have developed a lot since Spartan times.

You really think so?

If anything, Cypriots and Greeks are a bunch of pansies today!

[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.

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.

Yeahhh... an expert that no other experts on earth supported his arguements regarding this issue but only Lobbyist, propagandist, Rossides. What a coincidence ehh?

How do you know no other experts support him? I have heard the exact same thing from loads of sources. Where is your link that Britain would have lost a naval engagement? Like I said, when you have nothing else to say, you go back to the propaganda argument.

yeah.. yeahh... sure... Read the full story in 400 pages of CIA document. Everything is there... minute by minute... including all official conversations between all concerned parties...

[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.

Yeahhh... an expert that no other experts on earth supported his arguements regarding this issue but only Lobbyist, propagandist, Rossides. What a coincidence ehh?

How do you know no other experts support him? I have heard the exact same thing from loads of sources. Where is your link that Britain would have lost a naval engagement? Like I said, when you have nothing else to say, you go back to the propaganda argument.

yeah.. yeahh... sure... Read the full story in 400 pages of CIA document. Everything is there... minute by minute... including all official conversations between all concerned parties...

And none of it contradicts what I am saying.

[Simon]

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...

GR, modern Greeks have an equally macho culture nowadays, albeit with more variances because it is a bigger country. This is down to human beings evolving and especially the influence of the Christian faith, which has taught that homosexuality is wrong. Basically, both Greece and Cyprus have developed a lot since Spartan times.

You really think so?

If anything, Cypriots and Greeks are a bunch of pansies today!

I mean developed in terms of their ideas about homosexuality. Whether they have developed in a good or bad way is open to debate.

[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.

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.

Yeahhh... an expert that no other experts on earth supported his arguements regarding this issue but only Lobbyist, propagandist, Rossides. What a coincidence ehh?

How do you know no other experts support him? I have heard the exact same thing from loads of sources. Where is your link that Britain would have lost a naval engagement? Like I said, when you have nothing else to say, you go back to the propaganda argument.

yeah.. yeahh... sure... Read the full story in 400 pages of CIA document. Everything is there... minute by minute... including all official conversations between all concerned parties...

And none of it contradicts what I am saying.

Most of the things u say contradicts with it because ur main source is a Hellenic propaganda website.. How it shouldn't contradict?

[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...

GR, modern Greeks have an equally macho culture nowadays, albeit with more variances because it is a bigger country. This is down to human beings evolving and especially the influence of the Christian faith, which has taught that homosexuality is wrong. Basically, both Greece and Cyprus have developed a lot since Spartan times.

You really think so?

If anything, Cypriots and Greeks are a bunch of pansies today!

I mean developed in terms of their ideas about homosexuality. Whether they have developed in a good or bad way is open to debate.

Look at what I just found....



Photo of GR! the macho Choirokitian!