Cyprus-Forum.com

[EPSILON]

........ Huge disappointment too that they have been so easily manipulated by the Turks who offer them our occupied territories for such a "Memorial". Who are the Turks playing off at the moment? Making the Brits look uncaring and insensitive by allowing them to build on stolen lands, first "homes" and now "memorials". Disappointment at the Brits' disrespect not only for us in our occupation-weakened state, but for allowing their dead to be paraded and pawned in this way.

My understanding is that the memorial is not being built on land described above.

This “memorial” is being built without the permission of the RoC or the British government even. That’s all that matters.

The Cyprus Problem is already complex and troubling enough without having a bunch of embittered British ex-colonial geezers, digging up old wounds on disputed territory and causing unnecessary interferences and destabilization.

OR-FURTHER: Israiles to take is as an example and build a status of Hitler in Jerusalim, in memory of some German soldiers they may killled during WWII!!

Do you think the British Memorial in Kyrenia does anyone any good?

Look, I have as much reason to be resentful about the 55-59 Cyprus emergency as anyone, but I think there comes a time when everyone needs to let go for the sake of the Cyprus.

I believe your holocaust analogy is way over the top...

Not at all. What i was trying to say is that British,as occupators, coming after 50 or so years to give a memory status in the slaves land.This of course is unacceptable and this was the reason i gave the example of Israil in order to make it clear.

Yes it is unacceptable and I for one can't understand why they would do such a thing. It seems quite silly.

There must be some sinister motives behind it. Sounds like the "Friends of Turkey" have created this anti Cyprus debacle.

What,we said,is the name of our foreign minister in Cyprus? In Turkey i know, is Mr Ahmed Davutoglu.

[Paphitis]

........ Huge disappointment too that they have been so easily manipulated by the Turks who offer them our occupied territories for such a "Memorial". Who are the Turks playing off at the moment? Making the Brits look uncaring and insensitive by allowing them to build on stolen lands, first "homes" and now "memorials". Disappointment at the Brits' disrespect not only for us in our occupation-weakened state, but for allowing their dead to be paraded and pawned in this way.

My understanding is that the memorial is not being built on land described above.

This “memorial” is being built without the permission of the RoC or the British government even. That’s all that matters.

The Cyprus Problem is already complex and troubling enough without having a bunch of embittered British ex-colonial geezers, digging up old wounds on disputed territory and causing unnecessary interferences and destabilization.

OR-FURTHER: Israiles to take is as an example and build a status of Hitler in Jerusalim, in memory of some German soldiers they may killled during WWII!!

Do you think the British Memorial in Kyrenia does anyone any good?

Look, I have as much reason to be resentful about the 55-59 Cyprus emergency as anyone, but I think there comes a time when everyone needs to let go for the sake of the Cyprus.

I believe your holocaust analogy is way over the top...

Not at all. What i was trying to say is that British,as occupators, coming after 50 or so years to give a memory status in the slaves land.This of course is unacceptable and this was the reason i gave the example of Israil in order to make it clear.

Yes it is unacceptable and I for one can't understand why they would do such a thing. It seems quite silly.

There must be some sinister motives behind it. Sounds like the "Friends of Turkey" have created this anti Cyprus debacle.

What,we said,is the name of our foreign minister in Cyprus? In Turkey i know, is Mr Ahmed Davutoglu.

Spot on Epsilon...

I don't think anyone in the western world knows that Cyprus has a Foreign Affairs Minister...I forget his name also. I think his surname starts with a K....

[The Cypriot]

The Cypriot Wrote:

That will only happen when Britain fulfils to its legal and moral obligation to guarantee Cyprus's territorial integrity; something it failed miserably to do in 1974 although it had the capacity to do so, and has steadfastly refused to do since, at the expense of its own diginity, because of some misconceived devotion to perceived US geo-strategic interests, that put oil ahead of humanity. So don't talk about removing lingering resentment. Someone might accuse you of being a 'traitor'.

Well, I totally agree with your post about Britain fulfilling her legal and moral obligations to the Republic of Cyprus, something Britain has not done thus far.

As for the US geo-strategic interests, I only agree with you from a moral point of view as I believe that the Iraq War was so fundamentally wrong even though my allegiances lie with my country which is also directly involved.

It was a legal responsibility for the UK to guarantee Cyprus's territorial integrity. She didn't, so it's a legal as well as moral issue. Your allegiance should be to your country, but when it behaves illegally or immorally you have a duty, to your country and your people, to campaign against this. That is democracy.

However, I do believe that Cyprus should form closer ties with the US, firstly by applying for membership into the PfP.

As for being called a traitor, well I can live with this also,

Not nice though, is it Paphiti? - to be accused of being a traitor...

because I don't think it is such a big deal in letting the British have a proper a befitting memorial on unoccupied soil which is tasteful and is done in such a fashion which is respectful to the Republic of Cyprus and Cypriot citizens.

When she secures Cyprus's freedom, let's talk about it.

[EricSeans]

Paphitis said: "The only thing we could condemn is Gordon Rayner's description of EOKA freedom fighters as "terrorists".

But there's the rub, isn't it? One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. EOKA, TMT, IRA, INLA, UDA, Taliban, Iraqi insurgents etc are all terrorists or former terrorists. The semantics may change over the years but the definition is the same.

If I was engaged in armed struggle against an enemy occupier of my country, being described as a terrorist by my intended targets would be the least of my worries. If I wasn't terrorising the enemy I wouldn't be much of a freedom fighter. I'm pretty sure a good few of us have shaken hands with killers on both sides of Cyprus, whether we knew it or not. The point is that whether we call them freedom fighters or terrorists, when that stage of history is over we have to move on to the next.

This avoidance of reality is no different to the degenerates in the north who talk about the Turkish "intervention" of 1974. Any amphibious and airborne attack by one country against another is an invasion. Do we talk about the Allied intervention of Normandy? Or the Coalition intervention of Iraq? Or the Argentinian intervention of the Falklands, for that matter?

Only someone who feels shame or incomprehension is afraid of using the appropriate word in any situation.

[EPSILON]

Paphitis said: "The only thing we could condemn is Gordon Rayner's description of EOKA freedom fighters as "terrorists".

But there's the rub, isn't it? One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. EOKA, TMT, IRA, INLA, UDA, Taliban, Iraqi insurgents etc are all terrorists or former terrorists. The semantics may change over the years but the definition is the same.

If I was engaged in armed struggle against an enemy occupier of my country, being described as a terrorist by my intended targets would be the least of my worries. If I wasn't terrorising the enemy I wouldn't be much of a freedom fighter. I'm pretty sure a good few of us have shaken hands with killers on both sides of Cyprus, whether we knew it or not. The point is that whether we call them freedom fighters or terrorists, when that stage of history is over we have to move on to the next.

This avoidance of reality is no different to the degenerates in the north who talk about the Turkish "intervention" of 1974. Any amphibious and airborne attack by one country against another is an invasion. Do we talk about the Allied intervention of Normandy? Or the Coalition intervention of Iraq? Or the Argentinian intervention of the Falklands, for that matter?

Only someone who feels shame or incomprehension is afraid of using the appropriate word in any situation.

Terrorism is fighting either its own country's legal government or in a foreign country territory. A man who is fighting a foreigner occupator in order to free his country is a Hero not a terrorosist.

Please read some more Greek (ancient) books - and then come back

Simple as such.

[YFred]

Paphitis said: "The only thing we could condemn is Gordon Rayner's description of EOKA freedom fighters as "terrorists".

But there's the rub, isn't it? One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. EOKA, TMT, IRA, INLA, UDA, Taliban, Iraqi insurgents etc are all terrorists or former terrorists. The semantics may change over the years but the definition is the same.

If I was engaged in armed struggle against an enemy occupier of my country, being described as a terrorist by my intended targets would be the least of my worries. If I wasn't terrorising the enemy I wouldn't be much of a freedom fighter. I'm pretty sure a good few of us have shaken hands with killers on both sides of Cyprus, whether we knew it or not. The point is that whether we call them freedom fighters or terrorists, when that stage of history is over we have to move on to the next.

This avoidance of reality is no different to the degenerates in the north who talk about the Turkish "intervention" of 1974. Any amphibious and airborne attack by one country against another is an invasion. Do we talk about the Allied intervention of Normandy? Or the Coalition intervention of Iraq? Or the Argentinian intervention of the Falklands, for that matter?

Only someone who feels shame or incomprehension is afraid of using the appropriate word in any situation.

Terrorism is fighting either its own country's legal government or in a foreign country territory. A man who is fighting a foreigner occupator in order to free his country is a Hero not a terrorosist.

Please read some more Greek (ancient) books - and then come back

Simple as such.

Terrorist is a person who labels those who do not support him as traitors and kills them, no matter what circumstances. Both Eoka and TMT did that.
No excuse what so ever for killing anybody. Read your bible.
Ghandi won India's freedom without killing anybody.

[EPSILON]

Paphitis said: "The only thing we could condemn is Gordon Rayner's description of EOKA freedom fighters as "terrorists".

But there's the rub, isn't it? One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. EOKA, TMT, IRA, INLA, UDA, Taliban, Iraqi insurgents etc are all terrorists or former terrorists. The semantics may change over the years but the definition is the same.

If I was engaged in armed struggle against an enemy occupier of my country, being described as a terrorist by my intended targets would be the least of my worries. If I wasn't terrorising the enemy I wouldn't be much of a freedom fighter. I'm pretty sure a good few of us have shaken hands with killers on both sides of Cyprus, whether we knew it or not. The point is that whether we call them freedom fighters or terrorists, when that stage of history is over we have to move on to the next.

This avoidance of reality is no different to the degenerates in the north who talk about the Turkish "intervention" of 1974. Any amphibious and airborne attack by one country against another is an invasion. Do we talk about the Allied intervention of Normandy? Or the Coalition intervention of Iraq? Or the Argentinian intervention of the Falklands, for that matter?

Only someone who feels shame or incomprehension is afraid of using the appropriate word in any situation.

Terrorism is fighting either its own country's legal government or in a foreign country territory. A man who is fighting a foreigner occupator in order to free his country is a Hero not a terrorosist.

Please read some more Greek (ancient) books - and then come back

Simple as such.

Terrorist is a person who labels those who do not support him as traitors and kills them, no matter what circumstances. Both Eoka and TMT did that.
No excuse what so ever for killing anybody. Read your bible.
Ghandi won India's freedom without killing anybody.

You have mixed up EOKA with EOKA B-The difference is same like Bibles and Koran

[DT.]

Paphitis said: "The only thing we could condemn is Gordon Rayner's description of EOKA freedom fighters as "terrorists".

But there's the rub, isn't it? One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. EOKA, TMT, IRA, INLA, UDA, Taliban, Iraqi insurgents etc are all terrorists or former terrorists. The semantics may change over the years but the definition is the same.

If I was engaged in armed struggle against an enemy occupier of my country, being described as a terrorist by my intended targets would be the least of my worries. If I wasn't terrorising the enemy I wouldn't be much of a freedom fighter. I'm pretty sure a good few of us have shaken hands with killers on both sides of Cyprus, whether we knew it or not. The point is that whether we call them freedom fighters or terrorists, when that stage of history is over we have to move on to the next.

This avoidance of reality is no different to the degenerates in the north who talk about the Turkish "intervention" of 1974. Any amphibious and airborne attack by one country against another is an invasion. Do we talk about the Allied intervention of Normandy? Or the Coalition intervention of Iraq? Or the Argentinian intervention of the Falklands, for that matter?

Only someone who feels shame or incomprehension is afraid of using the appropriate word in any situation.

Terrorism is fighting either its own country's legal government or in a foreign country territory. A man who is fighting a foreigner occupator in order to free his country is a Hero not a terrorosist.

Please read some more Greek (ancient) books - and then come back

Simple as such.

You didn't get what he's trying to say Epsilon. Read again.

[DT.]

Paphitis said: "The only thing we could condemn is Gordon Rayner's description of EOKA freedom fighters as "terrorists".

But there's the rub, isn't it? One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. EOKA, TMT, IRA, INLA, UDA, Taliban, Iraqi insurgents etc are all terrorists or former terrorists. The semantics may change over the years but the definition is the same.

If I was engaged in armed struggle against an enemy occupier of my country, being described as a terrorist by my intended targets would be the least of my worries. If I wasn't terrorising the enemy I wouldn't be much of a freedom fighter. I'm pretty sure a good few of us have shaken hands with killers on both sides of Cyprus, whether we knew it or not. The point is that whether we call them freedom fighters or terrorists, when that stage of history is over we have to move on to the next.

This avoidance of reality is no different to the degenerates in the north who talk about the Turkish "intervention" of 1974. Any amphibious and airborne attack by one country against another is an invasion. Do we talk about the Allied intervention of Normandy? Or the Coalition intervention of Iraq? Or the Argentinian intervention of the Falklands, for that matter?

Only someone who feels shame or incomprehension is afraid of using the appropriate word in any situation.

Terrorism is fighting either its own country's legal government or in a foreign country territory. A man who is fighting a foreigner occupator in order to free his country is a Hero not a terrorosist.

Please read some more Greek (ancient) books - and then come back

Simple as such.

Terrorist is a person who labels those who do not support him as traitors and kills them, no matter what circumstances. Both Eoka and TMT did that.
No excuse what so ever for killing anybody. Read your bible.
Ghandi won India's freedom without killing anybody.

Strange thing to condemn considerng Turkey killed thousands of GC's in order to steal half the island.

[erolz3]

For me a terrorist is simply defined by someone who uses terror as a means of achieving their aims. For me terrorism can be considered justifed to a degree or not depending on the situation, but it remains terrorism for me by the above simple definition. I also think that as a far as a state seeks to use terror as a means of achieving an aim , it is a terrorist state in this regard. If terror is a means you use then you are by my defintion a terrorist. How justifed that resort to using terror as a means to achieve a given aim is for me a seperate issue.