EricSeans wrote: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.
This is a very simplistic overview in my opinion. The struggle of non-violent GC ENOSIS VS TC ENOSIS, GC ENOSIS VS TC TAKSIM, Majority Rules VS Political Equality of 2 communities and violent GC Armed Struggle VS TC armed Struggle r all different forms of the essentially and politically same national causes backed by "motherlands" and their then the "allies".
The form and basis of the non-violent and violent struggle between 2 communities had been developed in perfect correlation with then the global/national/local political movements, circumstances, international relations.
The armed struggle of 50s and 60s was in perfect correlation with then the political circumstances of primirily the world and secondarily of Greece. The neo fascist-movement in Greece was in the interests of US against the spread of communism but on the other hand the Enosis armed struggle of neo-fascist political groups of Greece backed Grivas was not in the interests of Anglo-Americans neither it was in the interests of Turkey. It wasn't even in the interests of USSR.
From this viewpoint we can no doubt base our arguments on the basis that eveything developes in correlation of the then political movements, international relations, alliances, sub-alliances, relations between different political interest groups of same nation or different nations etc.
Under the circumstances of 50s where neo-fascist movemnt in Greece was on the rise, appearance of a Grivas minded man could be expected. Grivas had a very significant role on initiation of EOKA armed struggle.
Grivas, imo was very intelligent man but not as much intelligent as to comprehend he would fail. Perhaps he was aware of that he had no chance to win against common interests of Anglo-Americans and Turks but his ultra-nationalistic psyhostimulants coerced him to organize EOKA for ENOSIS at any costs.
Grivas was a national fascist fighting for the interests of national fascists of Greece. Fascists all around the world had/have unique to themselves and to particular circumstances, fighting/struggling tactics and methods. Some political groups may define it as terrorism, some others as an honourable patriotic movement and some others as anything else...
).
