Cyprus-Forum.com

[Epiktitos]

Finally:
The right to locate freely wherever one wants within a country is fundamental to all modern societies. Free movement of people among member countries is one of the most basic tenets of the European Union.

Ethnic Segregation and Ghettos
Alex Anas
State University of New York at Buffalo

This does not make any mention of a country under occupation!

Because the occupying power, will not give everyone the right to reside anywhere within that country, since many areas will be converted to military areas where civilians will be prohibited!

Get it together silly woman!

That was supposed to be a concluding remark, you spammer!

The topic will conclude when you realize the fact that The Geneva Convention does not even mention the word "Apartheid" in its comprehensive Articles about occupied lands and ethnic cleansing!

Ergo, this thread is just total rubbish, so pull your head in!

Paphiti,

The Gevena conventions (note: plural; your confidence coupled with your inability to get even this small detail correct hints at your understanding of this and many other matters) relate to the treatment of the victims - both military and civillian - of war, and so are a red herring in this argument. It's unclear if you introduced them out of ignorance (probably) or disingenuity (I doubt you're clever enough). According to some ottoman turk apologists, "genocide" lacked a legal definition at the end of WW1 - do you agree with these apologists' conclusion then that because genocide had not been legally defined at the time, the ottoman turks could not have committed genocide? A simple yes/no answer will suffice.

As for the subject of the debate, you are being asked to think a little more abstractly and laterally. Like a child, you latch on to something concrete that you already know: the Apartheid of South Africa, a subject on which you are clearly expert and beyond question, owing to your familial connection to the place. What the original poster is asking you to consider is the essence of Apartheid - "separateness", as applied in order to perpetuate an unjust, illegitimate, and otherwise unsustainable political situation. While I bow down in awe of your understanding of politics in Cyprus, is it not a fact that the turkish regime encouraged with propaganda, threats, and violence, a separation of TCs from GCs from the 1960's? Is it not a fact that even today, while TCs are free to at least live in the Republic (if not easily have access to the properties) and participate in civic life as citizens of the Republic, the reciprocal is not available to GCs from the occupation regime in the north? Is it not the case that this idea of "separateness" is the rhetorical foundation of the "trnc" pseudo state?

Your inability to extract the essence of apartheid from the singular example of its implementation with which you're familiar and apply it to a situation in which the details are different but the principles the same makes your posts and arguments childish and seriously cringe-worthy for all of us. Your shrill taunts of "so pull your head in", "Get it together", "Get it through your thick head", "Philip Christopher is not as silly as you are", "have a long way to go", "Now shut up" are more appropriate for a chastised teenager rather than for a grown man. I would advise you to turn off your computer, read a few books (Tom Clancy novels don't count), maybe go to University and get an education. Hopefully we will see you again in a few years time with a new found respect for analysis and critical though.

Incidentally, will you be supporting Greece or the opposition on your upcoming trip to the World Cup finals?

First of all, let's get one thing straight. I said Geneva Convention to denote the 1949 Treaty.

The Geneva Conventions are 4 treaties in total and another 3 protocols. In singular form, it denotes the Treaty signed in 1949 and is referred to as the Geneva Convention!

I introduced the Geneva Convention because there is an insistence by another member to use unofficial rhetoric such as the word "Apartheid" to denote the segregation of 2 peoples as opposed to using the proper term of Ethnic Cleansing, which is mention in the Geneva Conventions. I take issue to this, because I do not believe that Apartheid is an appropriate word when the Cyprus Issue is one of invasion, ethnic cleansing and occupation.

Your insistence to use this term is not the official policy of the RoC, nor is it recognised by the UN, hence you are complicating the issue at hand. It also seems to me, that you and others want to use these terms to embellish your non existent arguments, but what you are doing is reducing Turkey's illegalities. Apartheid can never be compared to Apartheid. Also, the definition of Ethnic cleansing is all encompassing. It encompasses Ethnic Cleansing by extermination as well as clearing an area of peoples of a particular race and/or religion. This is not Apartheid. It is Ethnic Cleansing by an occupying power that invaded in 1974.

You hit the nail on the head when you slipped the word occupation in your statement above, now highlighted in red.

The whole definition of Ethnic Cleansing is to separate 2 peoples, by displacing one group and not letting them return. furthermore, I reject the notion of 2 peoples in Cyprus. There can only be Cypriots - if you want the solution you desperately desire.

I will be supporting Greece in the World Cup, and I will also be supporting Australia. I hope they both do very well. If Cyprus qualified, then I would support them, naturally!

Again, I would encourage you to think laterally if you wish to engage anyone in meaningful debate.

Some events or circumstances (including Cyprus) can only be understood when viewed through multiple lens. The different viewpoints presented in this discussion are not mutually exclusive. Neither I nor your chief interlocutor has never denied that an invasion and a period of ethnic cleansing took place, and I did not use the word "occupation" accidentally. The act of ethnic cleansing took place over a fixed period in 1974. The process that provided the justification for the invasion and ethnic cleansing was the offical turk policy of apartheid - implemented by encouraging and forcing TCs to live apart from the GCs, and convince them they there is no prospect of their successful co-existence with the GCs. This was one aspect of the apartheid discussed here.

Since the opening of the Green Line, a GC is able to cross into the north, but is not able to enjoy the same freedoms and civil liberties from the occupation regime as what a TC who crosses into the south can enjoy. This is the other aspect of apartheid - the policy of the occupation regime keeps TCs and GCs apart by denying GCs their civil liberties in the occupied territory. A GC who visits the north is not denied his rights by a turkish soldier who will come along and "ethnically cleanse" him back to the south; the GCs rights are denied by the trnc pseudo regime's policy of apartheid with respect to GCs.

The whole definition of Ethnic Cleansing is to separate 2 peoples, by displacing one group and not letting them return.

No (both incorrect and irrelevant). The definition of apartheid is (roughly) the policy of separating 2 peoples. Ethnic cleansing is one mechanism by which a policy of apartheid might be implemented. In the case of Cyprus, the goal of apartheid was primarily (but not exclusively) achieved by the turks via an episode of ethnic cleansing in 1974, whereas in South Africa, apartheid was achieved mainly through the rule of law. Describing the situation in Cyprus today as the result of a single episode of ethnic cleansing does not do it justice. The current situation is the result of an invasion, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and many things beyond my limited understanding.

Although it's not important to me one way or the other (and I'll leave the rest of you to slug it out), I think that if you stopped being so self-assured and so single-minded, and accepted that nobody is trying to deny that an invasion and ethnic cleansing took place, and that it is only in principle and not in practice that there are similarities between the apartheid of South Africa and the apartheid of the turks, you would see that your position is not so far away from that of those with whom you are arguing. You might also learn that there is more than one way to analyse a situation, and that exchanging different analytical viewpoints might actually enrich everyone's understanding of the issue...and God forbid, reach some kind of consensus!

I will be supporting Greece in the World Cup, and I will also be supporting Australia. I hope they both do very well.

This is a welcome surprise given some of your previous comments about Greece, even if I have my doubts about how well they will do (but then again, they have proved me stunningly wrong in the past). I have high hopes for Australia, maybe they can be the '02 South Korea of the 2010 world cup. I for one will be losing some sleep that month!

[aussieturk]

The ethnic cleansing was step ONE towards establishing Apartheid. Unfortunately the term "ethnic cleansing" was gaining some sort of credence/acceptable on the basis that it was in some way deserved ... we see the vast Turkish propaganda making up stories from the 60's to justify or substantiate ethnic cleansing as warranted. UTTER RUBBISH

Oracle you continue to deny that atrocities took place against TC's in the 50's and 60's. You are smarter than this - open your eyes.

As for Apartheid, technically you are correct as defined by the Dictionary:


An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.

A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.

The condition of being separated from others; segregation.

But you know what, the Cyprus version is vastly different than the SA version. It is a peacful version, where people get along with their lives, they can be educated, they can eat and live pretty well (especially in the South as they are not economically constrained). The bad is the freedom of movement and the displacement of people from their villages and land.

[Paphitis]

Again, I would encourage you to think laterally if you wish to engage anyone in meaningful debate.

We are debating the Cyprus Problem, and as such, when we are discussing relevant issues, we should always be very mindful that our debates and arguments are based on the facts. We should always arm ourselves with knowledge when engaging in debates, and since we are fortunate enough to be on the right side of International Law, our arguments should always be based on UN Resolutions, The Geneva Convention, and also on the official RoC argument of invasion, ethnic cleansing and occupation. There is no mention of Apartheid, in International Law, The Geneva Conventions, or UN resolutions pertaining to Cyprus. There is also no mention of Apartheid in official RoC policy!

Some events or circumstances (including Cyprus) can only be understood when viewed through multiple lens.

Not so! This is something I would expect Turkey to say.

The Cyprus problem is very clear cut. International Law is clearly defined. Again, there is no mention of Apartheid.

We can't just make things up!

The different viewpoints presented in this discussion are not mutually exclusive.

You can keep your viewpoint, but this does not change the fact that the Cyprus problem is a case of invasion, ethnic cleansing and occupation. Apartheid was even used, and a very blurred comparison was offered, between Cyprus and South Africa, and the word Apartheid was used to embellish their argument to the point of absurdity. What next? Shall we also use the word Holocaust to describe the 74 invasion to further embellish and incite emotion and passion?

I prefer to stand by my arguments supported by black and white International Law, UN Resolutions, and the Geneva convention.

Apartheid is not a war crime, but ethnic cleansing is!

Neither I nor your chief interlocutor has never denied that an invasion and a period of ethnic cleansing took place, and I did not use the word "occupation" accidentally.

Both you and my 'interlocutor' will do very well to also stand firm on universally accepted points of definition and determination as supported by the RoC and International Law, and not create things which can only confuse and belittle the situation.

The act of ethnic cleansing took place over a fixed period in 1974. The process that provided the justification for the invasion and ethnic cleansing was the offical turk policy of apartheid - implemented by encouraging and forcing TCs to live apart from the GCs, and convince them they there is no prospect of their successful co-existence with the GCs. This was one aspect of the apartheid discussed here.

This may be so, but you do not have an "Apartheid' in Cyprus, and any allegations as such can easily be deflected when Turkey will tell you that both you and Oracle are free to claim land, purchase land and even reside in the "trnc". Your chosen embellishments will fall flat on their face.

However, the International Community and the RoC have categorized the Cyprus problem as one of invasion, ethnic cleansing of some 160,000 Cypriots, and occupation. Turkey can not escape.

You can use your Apartheid rhetoric if and when there is a so called racial solution to the Cyprus issue. The Annan Plan would be a good example of such an Apartheid solution. If the Annan Plan was accepted and implemented, then Cypriots would have the right to use Apartheid to describe their lack of freedom of movement, as segregation will become Primary Law. You can not do this right now, because Cyprus is an occupied nation, and as an occupied nation, their are clear and concise terms of usage within UN Resolutions and the 4th Geneva Convention that describe Turkey's illegalities much better than any of your embellished terms that are constructed for maximum emotional impact.

Since the opening of the Green Line, a GC is able to cross into the north, but is not able to enjoy the same freedoms and civil liberties from the occupation regime as what a TC who crosses into the south can enjoy. This is the other aspect of apartheid - the policy of the occupation regime keeps TCs and GCs apart by denying GCs their civil liberties in the occupied territory. A GC who visits the north is not denied his rights by a turkish soldier who will come along and "ethnically cleanse" him back to the south; the GCs rights are denied by the trnc pseudo regime's policy of apartheid with respect to GCs.

The "trnc" is nothing more than an occupied territory belonging to the RoC! Turkey invaded this territory and ethnically cleansed 160,000 Cypriots in 1974. The RoC still gives all TCs their citizen rights and offers them, work, education, medical assistance, citizenship, and much more. The RoC doesn't have much choice in the matter. It will continue to honor TC rights, because as the recognised and sovereign authority on the island, it can not reject any group of peoples that also have a legitimate stake within the RoC as citizens of the nation. You will also find that Turkey, and the "trnc" regime will turn around and tell you that you are most welcome to come and live in the "trnc" and even apply for citizenship. You choose not to do this because it gives them legitimacy. There are still some enclaved on the Karpas peninsula, and I have also heard of one Australian Cypriot (GC) family that has actually moved back to Rizokarpaso and even claimed their property. So where does this leave your Apartheid terminology?

Whether you like it or not, things are very black and white. International Law is black and white with only a few shades of grey.

The whole definition of Ethnic Cleansing is to separate 2 peoples, by displacing one group and not letting them return.

No (both incorrect and irrelevant). The definition of apartheid is (roughly) the policy of separating 2 peoples. Ethnic cleansing is one mechanism by which a policy of apartheid might be implemented. In the case of Cyprus, the goal of apartheid was primarily (but not exclusively) achieved by the turks via an episode of ethnic cleansing in 1974, whereas in South Africa, apartheid was achieved mainly through the rule of law. Describing the situation in Cyprus today as the result of a single episode of ethnic cleansing does not do it justice. The current situation is the result of an invasion, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and many things beyond my limited understanding.

A policy of Apartheid can only be implemented within a State of some legitimacy. In Cyprus there is only one State. That State is the RoC! The "trnc" is a non entity. It is not legitimate. It is a territory belonging to the RoC which is currently under occupation and was previously ethnically cleansed.

If you want to debate with some integrity then you can only use International Law as your tools and Apartheid does not cut it as an appropriate term to describe Turkey's War Crimes in Cyprus. Ethnic Cleansing is the term to describe the displacement of 160,000 Cypriots by the occupying power. These people are still Displaced to this very day. These people are still the victims of ethnic cleansing and not Apartheid.

Apartheid, may or may not come into play at a later stage. Time will tell.

Although it's not important to me one way or the other (and I'll leave the rest of you to slug it out), I think that if you stopped being so self-assured and so single-minded, and accepted that nobody is trying to deny that an invasion and ethnic cleansing took place, and that it is only in principle and not in practice that there are similarities between the apartheid of South Africa and the apartheid of the turks, you would see that your position is not so far away from that of those with whom you are arguing. You might also learn that there is more than one way to analyse a situation, and that exchanging different analytical viewpoints might actually enrich everyone's understanding of the issue...and God forbid, reach some kind of consensus!

I never accused that person that they were denying the invasion, ethnic cleansing, or occupation.

She should just stop embellishing the Cyprus problem as if it were some cover story designed for maximum impact. If she wants to be credible, then she should stop using embellished rhetoric such as Apartheid, Holocaust, or whatever else, because these terms do not apply, yet.

I will be supporting Greece in the World Cup, and I will also be supporting Australia. I hope they both do very well.

This is a welcome surprise given some of your previous comments about Greece, even if I have my doubts about how well they will do (but then again, they have proved me stunningly wrong in the past). I have high hopes for Australia, maybe they can be the '02 South Korea of the 2010 world cup. I for one will be losing some sleep that month!

Why are you surprised?

Clearly, you don't know me well enough to be making any judgements.

I would like to see Greece do well. I don't have high hopes but the game is full of surprises.

Australia, is much more likely to do extremely well. The Australian Team is far stronger than Greece on paper. Australian players are much better, and all play in Europe's top leagues. If they jell as a unit, then watch out! They can beat anyone.

I am going to have a drink of whisky now, or is it Whiskey? can you help me out with the spelling please?

What is your favourite single malt?

[Oracle]

The ethnic cleansing was step ONE towards establishing Apartheid. Unfortunately the term "ethnic cleansing" was gaining some sort of credence/acceptable on the basis that it was in some way deserved ... we see the vast Turkish propaganda making up stories from the 60's to justify or substantiate ethnic cleansing as warranted. UTTER RUBBISH

Oracle you continue to deny that atrocities took place against TC's in the 50's and 60's. You are smarter than this - open your eyes.

As for Apartheid, technically you are correct as defined by the Dictionary:


An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.

A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.

The condition of being separated from others; segregation.

But you know what, the Cyprus version is vastly different than the SA version. It is a peacful version, where people get along with their lives, they can be educated, they can eat and live pretty well (especially in the South as they are not economically constrained). The bad is the freedom of movement and the displacement of people from their villages and land.

I don't deny individual events have darkened our history. It's the subsequent processing (usually by exaggeration) of these events, in order to manipulate the masses, which we should terminate. We've had many exchanges over this political trickery recently and, frankly, I am surprised by how little this process is, even, questioned, mostly, by the 'TC side' who, would appear, have a vested interested in holding on to the occupied territories.

[Oracle]

But you know what, the Cyprus version is vastly different than the SA version. It is a peacful version, where people get along with their lives, they can be educated, they can eat and live pretty well (especially in the South as they are not economically constrained). The bad is the freedom of movement and the displacement of people from their villages and land.

It's peaceful because the GCs have not taken it upon themselves to violently oust the Turks. Probably because they outnumber us so much, militarily,and we have had too many recent, thousands of, deaths at their hands to continue the battle with any other means than politically.

What do you mean by getting on with their lives?

People eat, live, read and continue daily habits as a minor step up from lower animals. But Man is a thinking creature. For the majority, and especially the 200,000 GC refugees and their offspring, it's like being asked to accept that murderers and thieves can freely roam the streets with rights to determine where you move and locate. Aussieturk, the Greeks aren't unique in their desire for democracy, freedom and respect for Law. But you do seem glibly unaware of how you describe the superficial level of the daily habits of man with the wider insult to Humanity of ignoring Human Rights abuses.

[erolz3]

We've had many exchanges over this political trickery recently .....

And this from the person who has claimed in the last couple week or so

EOKA did not fight for Enosis. Full stop

and

N.B. Neither Greece nor Makarios sought Enosis.

You really do do not have any shame do you Oracle ?

[Oracle]

We've had many exchanges over this political trickery recently .....

And this from the person who has claimed in the last couple week or so

EOKA did not fight for Enosis. Full stop

Quite right! EOKA did not fight for Enosis (full stop) before, and to the exclusion of, its fight for freedom from the Colonialist oppressors.

and

N.B. Neither Greece nor Makarios sought Enosis.

You have yet to show me how that was not the rightful conclusion from the article where Makarios was asking for extra assurances from the UN to guarantee it's Independence! Contradicting Enosis-itis!

You really do do not have any shame do you Oracle ?

But, I suppose you were merely demonstrating how the master rhetorician and political manipulator handles the trickery towards justifying the occupation.

[erolz3]

We've had many exchanges over this political trickery recently .....

And this from the person who has claimed in the last couple week or so

EOKA did not fight for Enosis. Full stop

Quite right! EOKA did not fight for Enosis (full stop) before, and to the exclusion of, its fight for freedom from the Colonialist oppressors.

And once again from

s/6253 26 March 1965

REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS MEDIATOR ON CYPRUS
TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

The strongest internal political pressure, which had led to armed revolt in 1955 on the part of the Greek-Cypriots, had been directed not at independence as such but rather at Enosis (union) with Greece.

and

My predecessor observed - and from my own knowledge I can confirm - that there could be no concealing the fact that the formal "prohibition" [in agreements of 1959-60] of the Enosis idea did not suppress it in Cyprus.

and

The demand of the Greek-Cypriot community for the right of self-determination requires certain clarifications. Its leaders have indicated that the exercise of the right of self-determination should be taken in the sense that, once fully independent, it will be for the Cypriot people alone to decide their political status and enter into relationships with any other State or States. It has usually been taken for granted that this will mean, in practical terms, a choice by the Cypriot people, by such means as a referendum, between continued independence and union with Greece (Enosis) and past discussions have proceeded on that basis.

and

On the timing of the referendum [for enosis], Archbishop Makarios has indicated that it is a decision for the people of Cyprus to take and that the proposed referendum could, for example,
take place either immediately, or in a year, or in five years. On the form of Enosis, Archbishop Makarios has merely said that this would be decided by the Government of Cyprus in agreement with Greece before the Cypriot people are consulted on the subject.

and

With regard to the form of Enosis, the Government of Greece agrees with Archbishop Makarios that this question should be decided by the Cyprus Government in agreement with Greece before the people of Cyprus are consulted. It considers this as a "family affair" which should not lead to any difficulties.

and

The Greek-Cypriots have coupled their aspiration for
"unfettered independence" with the demand for the right of self determination. Many of them have not concealed their hope and belief - and the Turkish-Cypriot leadership has not concealed its suspicion and fear - that the purpose and result of the exercise of this right would be to realise the long-cherished aspiration for union (Enosis) with Greece.

and

Archbishop Makarios and members of the Government acknowledged that Enosis had been the original aim of the uprising against British rule and that it remained a strong aspiration among the Greek-Cypriot community. They went so far as to express the opinion that if the choice between independence and Enosis were to be put to the people there would probably be a majority in favour of the latter. Some of the Ministers and other high officials of the Government have openly advocated it in public statements; but for the Government as a whole the formal objective is limited to unfettered independence, including the right of self-determination. I understood this position, of course, not to preclude the possibility of Enosis, which would
obviously be implied in the right of the people of Cyprus, once "fully
independent", to choose whatever future course they wished.

N.B. Neither Greece nor Makarios sought Enosis.

Headline from New York Times May 11, 1964, Monday

PAPANDREOU FAVORS CYPRUS-GREEK UNION

You have yet to show me how that was not the rightful conclusion from the article where Makarios was asking for extra assurances from the UN to guarantee it's Independence! Contradicting Enosis-itis!

And once more Makarios pursuing something that is itself a requirment if one did seek enosis is niether proof that he was seeking it NOR is is proof that he was not. Basic elemtary school level logic.

But, I suppose you were merely demonstrating how the master rhetorician and political manipulator handles the trickery towards justifying the occupation.

So we have you assertion that "EOKA did not fight for Enosis. Full stop" backed up with the indpendent credible evidence of er well you saying it was so

vs

From a UN document the evidence of the the UN mediator, in Cyprus at the time, with access to all the key players including Makarios, charged with the job of understanding the situation as a independent meditor that includes not just his impressions and understandings but also is record of direct statements made to him by Makarios that include "Makarios and members of the Government acknowledged that Enosis had been the original aim of the uprising against British"

And you claim I am the the "master rhetorician and political manipulator".

You really do do not have any shame do you Oracle ?

[Oracle]

You really do do not have any shame do you Oracle ?

No, I do not have ANY shame for my country nor the decisions Makarios EVER made!

You can bring forth any number of extracts of OTHER people's opinions of what was said and not said, and what the hidden agendas were and were not, but in the end Makarios only stood for Enosis when the majority of people sought it as a possible step with their very GRAND fight for freedom in the 50s. And the 1964 article, written before Turkey clouded the waters for TCs with its huge propaganda campaign, shows explicitly how Makarios was demanding extra assurances to continue the Independence of Cyprus.

What is more, I am also not ashamed of my people, who are progressive and not stuck in some time-warp such as the Turk-TCs clearly are ... My people, who even in 1968 massively (96%) endorsed an Independent Cyprus by backing Makarios against the pro-Enosis Evdokas.

So you see things happen in history, others change history; but there are some things which stand out as being consistent with the truth and the REALITIES and ACTUALITIES of what has come to pass, and are in force to this DAY, and those point to Turkey's ultimate aim to partition the island.

And that is nothing but a SHAME upon you and your people!

[erolz3]

No, I do not have ANY shame for my country nor the decisions Makarios EVER made!

What you should have shame for Oracle is your own actions, where you claim what is patently not true is true all the while accusing others of the exact manipulations that you so ineptly attempt yourself. You should be ashamed that that whilst you accuse others of presenting their own views as fact, you yourself do this constanly. You should be ashamed that whilst you demand others provide credible indpendant evidence and then dismiss it out of hand when they do, you present as 'proof' something that is clearly no such thing. All of this should make you ashamed Oracle but do not fret for I know as surely as you do that you will feel no shame in such behaviour.

What is more, I am also not ashamed of my people, who are progressive and not stuck in some time-warp such as the Turk-TCs clearly are ... My people, who even in 1968 massively (96%) endorsed an Independent Cyprus by backing Makarios against the pro-Enosis Evdokas.

But bizzarely the very same people whose deomcraticaly elected leaders in June 1967 Unanimously passed a resolution in the house of representatives that said

Interpreting the age-long aspirations of the Greeks of Cyprus, the House declares that despite any adverse circumstances it will not suspend the struggle conducted with the support of all Greeks, until this struggle succeeds in uniting the whole and undivided Cyprus with the Motherland, without any intermediary stages

Is this fact also to be dismissed out of hand as 'extracts of OTHER people's opinions of what was said and not said' and deemed by you the self appointed arbiter of truth as meaning nothing and indicative of nothing, just as you dismiss the report of the UN mediator to Cyprus in 64 even when it directly reports what Makrios and other aknowledged to him personaly because what YOU say Makrios stood for can be the only truth.

I am of the opinion Oracle that there can be few people left that do not see your comittment to 'truth' for what it really is. In many ways I should thank you for showing this so plainly and clearly, for if you were not so blatant in your determination to distort historical reality and apply nothing but double standards you might actualy be, in your own small way, dangerous.