Cyprus-Forum.com

[Jerry]

A memorial could be erected on one of the bases, even the graves could be moved. My wifes uncle's body was re-intered years after 1945 from a small village cemetery in Belgium to a military one miles away. Agreeing to erect a memorial in the north is divisive but what I really object to is the way the Telegraph's writer felt the need to make numerous references to terrorist acts and digging up the past. I think I read somewhere in "Britains's Small Wars" that the blame for poor access to Waynes Keep lies with the Turkish military but no mention of that in the report.

The Daily Telegraph is an out of date typical Tory toff Rule Brittania rag, I wouldn't use it as arse wipe.

[Kifeas]

The problem is not having in Cyprus a memorial of British soldiers that lost their lives during the 1955-59 Greek Cypriot apprising and the Eoka struggle. After all, the majority of them were plain soldiers following orders from their country, and in no case it should be equated with commemorating British colonialism in Cyprus or elsewhere. What I find deplorable in the above article of DT, and which shows a sheer and provocative attitude of arrogance and hypocrisy on the part of Gordon Rayner, the writer, is his idea of describing Greek Cypriot anti-colonialism fighters as terrorists.

It is indeed incomprehensible to suggest that those who came from over 2,000 miles away, fought and died in the name of colonialism against the will of the indigenous people of a country, are heroes, and those who fought and died in their own country, in the name of the overwhelming majority of its people’s self-determination right, are terrorists. I ask the writer, would he also tell the American people that their freedom fighters in the patriotic war of independence against British colonialism, were also terrorists? Does it matter that the aim of the Eoka struggle, besides achieving the right of the Cypriot people’s self determination, was also to unite the island with Greece, in view of the fact that 80% country’s people belonged to the Greek Cypriot community? Why uniting the island with another country cannot be part of a people’s self-determination right, if this is what the vast majority wished at the time?

International law supports you in that assertion.
To quote from:

Declaration on Principles of International Law
Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States
in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,
UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV)
24 October 1970


"The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self determination by that people."

Thanks Tim!

Do not forget that this is a double edged sword. One day a separate right of self-determination may be granted to the Turkish-speaking community on Cyprus and the above provision would open the way to annexation.

Well Tim, if this will ever happen, it will equate with legitimizing the idea that a larger country first invades a smaller one, ethnically cleanses its indigenous population, usurps their properties and their cultural heritage, transfers its own people from the mainland country and colonizes the place, and then uses the self-determination right to permanently annex that part of the country it illegally occupied in the first instance. If after so many violations of international law and human rights, one can possibly use the same set of laws it massively violated in order white wash and legalize all of its wrong doings, then indeed the planet has no future to survive and we might as well start emigrating to other planets from now. Do you believe that an illegality (actually numerous massive illegalities) can in the end produce law by itself?

[Oracle]

...
I will go even further and state that the Cyprus Government and Cypriots as a whole are to blame for this. I say this because the Cyprus Government has not taken up the initiative in building a memorial for all British Soldiers that had fallen during the EOKA campaign ...

I don't think your comparison with Gallipoli is worthwhile ... a battle much like many of those times, and for which many countries sympathised with losses.

Expecting Cyprus to erect a Memorial to the Colonialist Powers' forces, is more the equivalent of asking, let's say, the Africans to erect memorials in honour of those unfortunate white folk who may have died of Malaria or such like, whilst raping Africa of its natives to gather slaves!

[Tim Drayton]

The problem is not having in Cyprus a memorial of British soldiers that lost their lives during the 1955-59 Greek Cypriot apprising and the Eoka struggle. After all, the majority of them were plain soldiers following orders from their country, and in no case it should be equated with commemorating British colonialism in Cyprus or elsewhere. What I find deplorable in the above article of DT, and which shows a sheer and provocative attitude of arrogance and hypocrisy on the part of Gordon Rayner, the writer, is his idea of describing Greek Cypriot anti-colonialism fighters as terrorists.

It is indeed incomprehensible to suggest that those who came from over 2,000 miles away, fought and died in the name of colonialism against the will of the indigenous people of a country, are heroes, and those who fought and died in their own country, in the name of the overwhelming majority of its people’s self-determination right, are terrorists. I ask the writer, would he also tell the American people that their freedom fighters in the patriotic war of independence against British colonialism, were also terrorists? Does it matter that the aim of the Eoka struggle, besides achieving the right of the Cypriot people’s self determination, was also to unite the island with Greece, in view of the fact that 80% country’s people belonged to the Greek Cypriot community? Why uniting the island with another country cannot be part of a people’s self-determination right, if this is what the vast majority wished at the time?

International law supports you in that assertion.
To quote from:

Declaration on Principles of International Law
Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States
in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,
UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV)
24 October 1970


"The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self determination by that people."

Thanks Tim!

Do not forget that this is a double edged sword. One day a separate right of self-determination may be granted to the Turkish-speaking community on Cyprus and the above provision would open the way to annexation.

Well Tim, if this will ever happen, it will equate with legitimizing the idea that a larger country first invades a smaller one, ethnically cleanses its indigenous population, usurps their properties and their cultural heritage, transfers its own people from the mainland country and colonizes the place, and then uses the self-determination right to permanently annex that part of the country it illegally occupied in the first instance. If after so many violations of international law and human rights, one can possibly use the same set of laws it massively violated in order white wash and legalize all of its wrong doings, then indeed the planet has no future to survive and we might as well start emigrating to other planets from now. Do you believe that an illegality (actually numerous massive illegalities) can in the end produce law by itself?

Your arguments are correct, but I wouldn't rule these events out as a possibility over the next 50 years or so. The institution know as "international law" is not set in stone and, ultimately, exists to serve the interests of the dominant powers in the world at the time. I see the United States emerging from the current economic crisis as a weaker player on the world stage. It is all a question of who the new rising stars are and what policies will serve their interests.

[Oracle]

The problem is not having in Cyprus a memorial of British soldiers that lost their lives during the 1955-59 Greek Cypriot apprising and the Eoka struggle. After all, the majority of them were plain soldiers following orders from their country, and in no case it should be equated with commemorating British colonialism in Cyprus or elsewhere. What I find deplorable in the above article of DT, and which shows a sheer and provocative attitude of arrogance and hypocrisy on the part of Gordon Rayner, the writer, is his idea of describing Greek Cypriot anti-colonialism fighters as terrorists.

It is indeed incomprehensible to suggest that those who came from over 2,000 miles away, fought and died in the name of colonialism against the will of the indigenous people of a country, are heroes, and those who fought and died in their own country, in the name of the overwhelming majority of its people’s self-determination right, are terrorists. I ask the writer, would he also tell the American people that their freedom fighters in the patriotic war of independence against British colonialism, were also terrorists? Does it matter that the aim of the Eoka struggle, besides achieving the right of the Cypriot people’s self determination, was also to unite the island with Greece, in view of the fact that 80% country’s people belonged to the Greek Cypriot community? Why uniting the island with another country cannot be part of a people’s self-determination right, if this is what the vast majority wished at the time?

International law supports you in that assertion.
To quote from:

Declaration on Principles of International Law
Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States
in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,
UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV)
24 October 1970


"The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self determination by that people."

Thanks Tim!

Do not forget that this is a double edged sword. One day a separate right of self-determination may be granted to the Turkish-speaking community on Cyprus and the above provision would open the way to annexation.

Well Tim, if this will ever happen, it will equate with legitimizing the idea that a larger country first invades a smaller one, ethnically cleanses its indigenous population, usurps their properties and their cultural heritage, transfers its own people from the mainland country and colonizes the place, and then uses the self-determination right to permanently annex that part of the country it illegally occupied in the first instance. If after so many violations of international law and human rights, one can possibly use the same set of laws it massively violated in order white wash and legalize all of its wrong doings, then indeed the planet has no future to survive and we might as well start emigrating to other planets from now. Do you believe that an illegality (actually numerous massive illegalities) can in the end produce law by itself?

Your arguments are correct, but I wouldn't rule these events out as a possibility over the next 50 years or so. The institution know as "international law" is not set in stone and, ultimately, exists to serve the interests of the dominant powers in the world at the time. I see the United States emerging from the current economic crisis as a weaker player on the world stage. It is all a question of who the new rising stars are and what policies will serve their interests.

Then perhaps the Muslim Council of Britain will be seeking the same self-determination for its 2 Million "citizens" in the UK. First Sharia law, then?

We, at the Muslim Council of Britain, have, ever since our inception, campaigned for the question on religion to be included in the Census, so that the true figures relating to the number of British Muslims would become clear. Until now it has been a bit of a "hit and miss" affair when trying to assess something as simple as the number of British Muslims, let alone anything more complex. In any debate about British Muslims, widely varying figures have been quoted by all sides, from half a million to 2 million, as no accurate figures are available. Even with the figures from the Census 2001 the figures will not be truly accurate since the question on religion was optional and many Muslims may not have wished to volunteer such information. At the very least, however, we will have a base figure with which to start and the true work can begin.

[Paphitis]

...
I will go even further and state that the Cyprus Government and Cypriots as a whole are to blame for this. I say this because the Cyprus Government has not taken up the initiative in building a memorial for all British Soldiers that had fallen during the EOKA campaign ...

I don't think your comparison with Gallipoli is worthwhile ... a battle much like many of those times, and for which many countries sympathised with losses.

Expecting Cyprus to erect a Memorial to the Colonialist Powers' forces, is more the equivalent of asking, let's say, the Africans to erect memorials in honour of those unfortunate white folk who may have died of Malaria or such like, whilst raping Africa of its natives to gather slaves!

I don't expect Cyprus to erect a memorial to the "Colonialist Forces", but I do expect Cyprus to surpass the Africans and erect a memorial to the 371 fallen young soldiers that served their country in Cyprus.

I don't think you should confuse this with Colonial Rule at all. It is not very constructive and now the Brits have erected a memorial in occupied Cyprus, albeit privately funded.

[Paphitis]

...
I will go even further and state that the Cyprus Government and Cypriots as a whole are to blame for this. I say this because the Cyprus Government has not taken up the initiative in building a memorial for all British Soldiers that had fallen during the EOKA campaign ...

I don't think your comparison with Gallipoli is worthwhile ... a battle much like many of those times, and for which many countries sympathised with losses.

Expecting Cyprus to erect a Memorial to the Colonialist Powers' forces, is more the equivalent of asking, let's say, the Africans to erect memorials in honour of those unfortunate white folk who may have died of Malaria or such like, whilst raping Africa of its natives to gather slaves!

I don't expect Cyprus to erect a memorial to the "Colonialist Forces", but I do expect Cyprus to surpass the Africans and erect a memorial to the 371 fallen young soldiers that served their country in Cyprus.

I don't think you should confuse this with Colonial Rule at all. It is not very constructive and now the Brits have erected a memorial in occupied Cyprus, albeit privately funded.

Oracle, I hope you have a lovely evening. My posts should not offend you but hopefully encourage some good three dimensional debate for which I don't have much time for this evening.

I stated earlier that I expected Cyprus to build a memorial for the 371 fallen British soldiers. Well I wish to correct myself in that I don't expect Cyprus to do this out of obligation, but merely because it is only right to also remember those young, and often naive soldiers who believed in the honour of serving their nation.

It would have been very nice if Cyprus did build such a memorial to the 371 young British soldiers. It is very noble to respect and honour even the enemy we fought against for our just cause of self determination.

There can be nothing better than to perhaps construct a memorial to our struggle for self determination and to also combine this with honoring the loss of the 371 that fought against us, because even the 371 that died and shed their blood in Cyprus are now our sons, even though they were our former foes.

Someone once wrote the following:

Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives. You are now living in the soil of a friendly country therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours. You, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

Do you know who wrote the above?

They are very fine words, but you may hate the source.

Goodnight.

[The Cypriot]

For some inexplicable reason, the British sense of decorum has become displaced!

Encouraged by the trouble-making Turk-TCs, instead of seeking to help end our present occupation, they instead deem it more important to pay some "tribute" to the Colonialist Forces, upon ethnically cleansed, racially segregated land, in the still-occupied territories of Cyprus.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/pers ... -land.html

Come on Brits! Surely you are more sensitive than this?

What steps should we take to help them see sense?

If you can be bothered, note the following:

"Wayne's Keep Military Cemetery, near Nicosia, is the last resting place of the soldiers, sailors and airmen murdered by Greek-Cypriot terrorists during four years of bloodshed which ended in April 1959."

This, potentially, is in breach of the UK Public Order Act as it has labeled Cypriots conducting an armed struggle against colonial rule as 'murderers' and 'terrorists' which could incite hatred towards UK Cypriots. But it's extremely tenuous and the police are unlikely to show any interest. The most you could expect is for a local MP, perhaps with Cypriots in their constituency, to write a letter to the Telegraph expressing dismay. If that MP is a Tory then there may be an expression of contrition but I wouldn't hold your breath.

Another avenue is to issue a complaint with the UK Press Complaints Commission (PCC), as the label 'terrorist' could potentially be in breach of their Code of Conduct, under the accuracy clause. Note however, the PCC is a self-regulatory body with blunt teeth. Their Code is designed to protect individuals rather than communities or groups of people, and exists to prevent newspapers from incurring huge costs defending libel cases.

As miltiadis says, The "Torygraph" is notorious for its anti-Cyprus stance.

[denizaksulu]

...
I will go even further and state that the Cyprus Government and Cypriots as a whole are to blame for this. I say this because the Cyprus Government has not taken up the initiative in building a memorial for all British Soldiers that had fallen during the EOKA campaign ...

I don't think your comparison with Gallipoli is worthwhile ... a battle much like many of those times, and for which many countries sympathised with losses.

Expecting Cyprus to erect a Memorial to the Colonialist Powers' forces, is more the equivalent of asking, let's say, the Africans to erect memorials in honour of those unfortunate white folk who may have died of Malaria or such like, whilst raping Africa of its natives to gather slaves!

I don't expect Cyprus to erect a memorial to the "Colonialist Forces", but I do expect Cyprus to surpass the Africans and erect a memorial to the 371 fallen young soldiers that served their country in Cyprus.

I don't think you should confuse this with Colonial Rule at all. It is not very constructive and now the Brits have erected a memorial in occupied Cyprus, albeit privately funded.

Oracle, I hope you have a lovely evening. My posts should not offend you but hopefully encourage some good three dimensional debate for which I don't have much time for this evening.

I stated earlier that I expected Cyprus to build a memorial for the 371 fallen British soldiers. Well I wish to correct myself in that I don't expect Cyprus to do this out of obligation, but merely because it is only right to also remember those young, and often naive soldiers who believed in the honour of serving their nation.

It would have been very nice if Cyprus did build such a memorial to the 371 young British soldiers. It is very noble to respect and honour even the enemy we fought against for our just cause of self determination.

There can be nothing better than to perhaps construct a memorial to our struggle for self determination and to also combine this with honoring the loss of the 371 that fought against us, because even the 371 that died and shed their blood in Cyprus are now our sons, even though they were our former foes.

Someone once wrote the following:

Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives. You are now living in the soil of a friendly country therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours. You, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

Do you know who wrote the above?

They are very fine words, but you may hate the source.

Goodnight.

[Jerry]

Do you know who wrote the above?

They are very fine words, but you may hate the source.

Goodnight

.

Uncle Kemal, wasn't it?