Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

Nicolas Mottas Where's Pafidis Buttas, for more Greek propaganda!

Read the other links you wombat!

According to Insan, anything written by anyone with a Greek name is propaganda!

Go back to sleep Insan!

[B25]

Paphiti, I respect many of the things you say, but I think you are the one being naive here if you believe for one minute that the US does not control NATO and the UN.

They are both there to print a 007 licence to kill for the US as it sees fit.

please tell me the difference between resolution 1441 against Iraq (that the US used as an excuse to attack) and the many resolutions against Turkey over Cyprus that they did nothing about?

There is your proof. Einai fos fanari, teleios kelptsia.

[Paphitis]

At that time NATO was basicly Americas mouth peace. It's now very different but back then America lead the way. Why then did kissinger tell the brits to stay out of it then if the yanks werent running the show.

Basically, it is probably more accurate to suggest that the US were running the plot against Makarios and Cyprus and not NATO!

Although NATO would most definitely have had some role...

[GeorgeV97qaue]

Nicolas Mottas Where's Pafidis Buttas, for more Greek propaganda!

Make up your mind Insan. One minute you are quoting from Greek Propaganda the next your saying its crap.

[insan]

I assume this would have already been posted:

So any excuses for Turkeys 'Intervention' like 'saving the TC's' is utter
c--p.

It's not an excuse, Deniz. Intervention was necessary and Turkey intervened... Why do u think it was an excuse?

Ps: Barouti, provide a link to the above document please.

I am confident that NATO (in fact USA) had made their decision prior to the intervention.

Do you think I am wrong?


btw; I do believe the TCs were in danger from the Sampson regime.

How can NATO be infact USA, Deniz? Yes, I think u r wrong.

NATO is the 'mouth piece ' of America. NATO is America's brainchild. Have you forotten why it was formed? Do you remember the USSR? The great big bear?

Yes, I won't deny the strong influence of US in NATO but don't forget that there r many sovereign and strong European countries which r members of NATO, too... if NATO approved Turkish intervention in 1974 it was because they believed that was right not because of just US pressure...

Insan, you have to be the biggest idiot on this forum!

If some NATO countries approved of the invasion, then why don't those nations actually recognise the "trnc"? They don't recognise you, because they know that the Turkish invasion was wrong!

NATO, and the US knew from the outset that the invasion was illegal, so their support had to be covert.

What is your IQ again?

The extreme idiot, Bafidi; i said IF NATO approved... it is the first time I hear that NATO approved Turkish intervention to Cyprus, in 1974. I googled abt that document and found out that it was published by only a several Hellenic propaganda websites, for a purpose most probably feed the anti-NATO sentiments of GCs and/or put the blame on US, Britain and Turkey with an aim whitewashing the actions of Greece, Junta, GC national front and EOKA-B that all primarily contributed to the Cyprus tragedy.

If NATO did not approve the invasion, then it would not have taken place you gollywog!

Reh bugaboo, Turkey waited 5 long days either for a joint intervention or resignation of Sampson... Neither happened and Turkey intervened alone despite the US opposition! Gologo!

The paper under the subtitle “Three hours before the operation” writes: “The time is 02:00 am. Three hours before the deployment of the troops to the island, that is before the beginning of the operation. Ecevit is meeting the mediator between Turkey and Greece and who is reluctant to the peace operation to Cyprus, the US Under-Secretary of Foreign Affairs Joseph Sisco and the US Ambassador William Macomber.”

The paper continuous: “Sisco transferred to Ecevit the message of the US Secretary of State Kissinger, ‘We are open to all the alternatives in order to solve the problem’. But [Sisco] by seeing Ecevit determined he said: ‘If you continue your way you know the difficulties that you will encounter. The 80% of the island are Greek Cypriots. The USA is not a bad ally. Nor in the past was it a bad ally; and in the future it will not be’.”

In its inside pages the paper adds, inter alia, the following under the title “You made me go on a milk truck: “Sisco starts the conversation and says: ‘You may have heard some words before. We understand your worries. We know the history of Cyprus. On certain occasions we agreed with Turkey’. He continues by explaining the atmosphere existing in Greece: ‘They are aware about the seriousness of the situation. They are ready to negotiate, bargain and start a dialogue. In parallel they are preparing to fight as this is a situation that interests the army as well. America is opposing to direct or indirect ‘ENOSIS’.”

The paper writes also an incident which happened the night of the “operation”: “The UK Prime Minister of that time Harold Wilson called Ecevit and said: ‘You made me run from my house to Downing Street (the Prime Ministry). I could not even find a vehicle; I came to the Prime Ministry on a dairy truck.”

http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.ns ... enDocument

If NATO did not offer its endorsement then there would not have been an invasion.

You are being very stupid Insan, because Turkey did not wait for NATO to intervene but somehow miraculously mobilised army and naval units to stage the invasion in record time, which to me indicates that Turkey was preparing for the invasion well before the coup even took place!

Reh gologo, did i claim that Turkey waited for Nato? Turkey waited for a joint intervention of Britain and Turkey... also waited for US mediation to presurrize Greece to convince Sampson to resign and restoration of Makarios' status. Ma ne gologosun reh Bafidi öyle!

Why would England have intervened when at one stage Callaghan wanted to threaten Turkey with war if it invaded Cyprus. This was met with severe opposition from Kissinger who was plotting the partition of Cyprus.

This is why the Americans helped initiate the coup against Makarios in the first place.

Britain officially explained why they didn't wanted to intervene jointly with Turkey. As for the suggestion of staging a naval operation to prevent Turkish landings on Cyprus; it was considered as a tactical step to lure US armed forces into the mess. US administration didn't accept this proposal because behind this proposal of Britain there isn't an aim of Britain waring with Turkey but an intention to lure US armed forces into area... It was an opportunity for Brits to lure US armed forces into Cyprus and hand over the bases to them and getting rid of the pain having sovereign bases in Cyprus.

Kissinger in one of his speeches when he heard abt the British proposal said "I haven't heard such a stupid proposal in my life, they care their own interests and try to get us into something that we will never be able to get out."
U better go to sleep Pafidi because u need it too much.

[insan]

Nicolas Mottas Where's Pafidis Buttas, for more Greek propaganda!

Make up your mind Insan. One minute you are quoting from Greek Propaganda the next your saying its crap.

I quote them to show how crap propaganda they make.

[Paphitis]

Paphiti, I respect many of the things you say, but I think you are the one being naive here if you believe for one minute that the US does not control NATO and the UN.

They are both there to print a 007 licence to kill for the US as it sees fit.

please tell me the difference between resolution 1441 against Iraq (that the US used as an excuse to attack) and the many resolutions against Turkey over Cyprus that they did nothing about?

There is your proof. Einai fos fanari, teleios kelptsia.

No I think you are being very naive for believing in America's absolute power within NATO and the UN, because you are basically saying that other countries such as UK, France, Germany, Canada etc etc have no say. There are at least 2 other superpower nations within NATO, and one thing is for sure, they are not there to simply just make up the numbers or be US subjects!

I am well aware that many Cypriots actually believe that NATO and US are synonymous, but that is simply not the case!

[YFred]

Paphiti, I respect many of the things you say, but I think you are the one being naive here if you believe for one minute that the US does not control NATO and the UN.

They are both there to print a 007 licence to kill for the US as it sees fit.

please tell me the difference between resolution 1441 against Iraq (that the US used as an excuse to attack) and the many resolutions against Turkey over Cyprus that they did nothing about?

There is your proof. Einai fos fanari, teleios kelptsia.

No I think you are being very naive for believing in America's absolute power within NATO and the UN, because you are basically saying that other countries such as UK, France, Germany, Canada etc etc have no say. There are at least 2 other superpower nations within NATO, and one thing is for sure, they are not there to simply just make up the numbers or be US subjects!

I am well aware that many Cypriots actually believe that NATO and US are synonymous, but that is simply not the case!

How can it be? ADF is not in it. If ADF was part of Nato, we could then say it has 2 superpowers.

[YFred]

I assume this would have already been posted:

So any excuses for Turkeys 'Intervention' like 'saving the TC's' is utter
c--p.

It's not an excuse, Deniz. Intervention was necessary and Turkey intervened... Why do u think it was an excuse?

Ps: Barouti, provide a link to the above document please.

I am confident that NATO (in fact USA) had made their decision prior to the intervention.

Do you think I am wrong?


btw; I do believe the TCs were in danger from the Sampson regime.

How can NATO be infact USA, Deniz? Yes, I think u r wrong.

NATO is the 'mouth piece ' of America. NATO is America's brainchild. Have you forotten why it was formed? Do you remember the USSR? The great big bear?

Yes, I won't deny the strong influence of US in NATO but don't forget that there r many sovereign and strong European countries which r members of NATO, too... if NATO approved Turkish intervention in 1974 it was because they believed that was right not because of just US pressure...

Insan, you have to be the biggest idiot on this forum!

If some NATO countries approved of the invasion, then why don't those nations actually recognise the "trnc"? They don't recognise you, because they know that the Turkish invasion was wrong!

NATO, and the US knew from the outset that the invasion was illegal, so their support had to be covert.

What is your IQ again?

The extreme idiot, Bafidi; i said IF NATO approved... it is the first time I hear that NATO approved Turkish intervention to Cyprus, in 1974. I googled abt that document and found out that it was published by only a several Hellenic propaganda websites, for a purpose most probably feed the anti-NATO sentiments of GCs and/or put the blame on US, Britain and Turkey with an aim whitewashing the actions of Greece, Junta, GC national front and EOKA-B that all primarily contributed to the Cyprus tragedy.

If NATO did not approve the invasion, then it would not have taken place you gollywog!

Reh bugaboo, Turkey waited 5 long days either for a joint intervention or resignation of Sampson... Neither happened and Turkey intervened alone despite the US opposition! Gologo!

The paper under the subtitle “Three hours before the operation” writes: “The time is 02:00 am. Three hours before the deployment of the troops to the island, that is before the beginning of the operation. Ecevit is meeting the mediator between Turkey and Greece and who is reluctant to the peace operation to Cyprus, the US Under-Secretary of Foreign Affairs Joseph Sisco and the US Ambassador William Macomber.”

The paper continuous: “Sisco transferred to Ecevit the message of the US Secretary of State Kissinger, ‘We are open to all the alternatives in order to solve the problem’. But [Sisco] by seeing Ecevit determined he said: ‘If you continue your way you know the difficulties that you will encounter. The 80% of the island are Greek Cypriots. The USA is not a bad ally. Nor in the past was it a bad ally; and in the future it will not be’.”

In its inside pages the paper adds, inter alia, the following under the title “You made me go on a milk truck: “Sisco starts the conversation and says: ‘You may have heard some words before. We understand your worries. We know the history of Cyprus. On certain occasions we agreed with Turkey’. He continues by explaining the atmosphere existing in Greece: ‘They are aware about the seriousness of the situation. They are ready to negotiate, bargain and start a dialogue. In parallel they are preparing to fight as this is a situation that interests the army as well. America is opposing to direct or indirect ‘ENOSIS’.”

The paper writes also an incident which happened the night of the “operation”: “The UK Prime Minister of that time Harold Wilson called Ecevit and said: ‘You made me run from my house to Downing Street (the Prime Ministry). I could not even find a vehicle; I came to the Prime Ministry on a dairy truck.”

http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.ns ... enDocument

If NATO did not offer its endorsement then there would not have been an invasion.

You are being very stupid Insan, because Turkey did not wait for NATO to intervene but somehow miraculously mobilised army and naval units to stage the invasion in record time, which to me indicates that Turkey was preparing for the invasion well before the coup even took place!

Reh gologo, did i claim that Turkey waited for Nato? Turkey waited for a joint intervention of Britain and Turkey... also waited for US mediation to presurrize Greece to convince Sampson to resign and restoration of Makarios' status. Ma ne gologosun reh Bafidi öyle!

Why would England have intervened when at one stage Callaghan wanted to threaten Turkey with war if it invaded Cyprus. This was met with severe opposition from Kissinger who was plotting the partition of Cyprus.

This is why the Americans helped initiate the coup against Makarios in the first place.

Britain officially explained why they didn't wanted to intervene jointly with Turkey. As for the suggestion of staging a naval operation to prevent Turkish landings on Cyprus; it was considered as a tactical step to lure US armed forces into the mess. US administration didn't accept this proposal because behind this proposal of Britain there isn't an aim of Britain waring with Turkey but an intention to lure US armed forces into area... It was an opportunity for Brits to lure US armed forces into Cyprus and hand over the bases to them and getting rid of the pain having sovereign bases in Cyprus.

Kissinger in one of his speeches when he heard abt the British proposal said "I haven't heard such a stupid proposal in my life, they care their own interests and try to get us into something that we will never be able to get out."
U better go to sleep Pafidi because u need it too much.

Insan, shame on you. Are you implying that Buffidobullo is ugly and needs his beauty sleep? Shame on you.

[Paphitis]

Paphitis wrote:

Why would England have intervened when at one stage Callaghan wanted to threaten Turkey with war if it invaded Cyprus. This was met with severe opposition from Kissinger who was plotting the partition of Cyprus.

This is why the Americans helped initiate the coup against Makarios in the first place.

Insan wrote:

Britain officially explained why they didn't wanted to intervene jointly with Turkey.

Where is your link?

Britain did not want to intervene because it was only interested in maintaining its SBA's and nothing more.

Insan wrote:

As for the suggestion of staging a naval operation to prevent Turkish landings on Cyprus; it was considered as a tactical step to lure US armed forces into the mess.

That's not what I said.

Callaghan at one stage wanted to threaten Turkey with war, and that proposal was rejected by Kissinger himself.

Insan wrote:

US administration didn't accept this proposal because behind this proposal of Britain there isn't an aim of Britain waring with Turkey but an intention to lure US armed forces into area... /quote]

Insan, once again you are an idiot.

The US 6th fleet has always been in the area, and the US could have prevented the invasion if they wanted to...

Insan wrote:

It was an opportunity for Brits to lure US armed forces into Cyprus and hand over the bases to them and getting rid of the pain having sovereign bases in Cyprus.

You must be joking!

Britain wanted to get rid of the pain of having bases in Cyprus you say. You are very stupid to think that Britain did not want its bases.

Australian SAS and Gurkha troops were deployed to defend the SBA's and if Britain offered the US the SBAs, the Americans would have jumped at the opportunity.

Insan wrote:

Kissinger in one of his speeches when he heard abt the British proposal said "I haven't heard such a stupid proposal in my life, they care their own interests and try to get us into something that we will never be able to get out."
U better go to sleep Pafidi because u need it too much.

Kissinger is not going to come out and say that he instigated the whole debacle now would he.

You are one naive imbecile Insan!