Cyprus-Forum.com

[YFred]

Afroasiatis, the fact is that the TC minority in Cyprus has distinctive differences from the majority of the population, namely language and religion. These differences would have been exploited by the Imperialists regardless of what the aim of the liberation struggle was.

They did the same thing to India and several other places. Divide and rule was not something new for them.

In this thread I am not saying that TCs should have supported union with Greece. Union with Greece was a legitimate option for the de-colonization of Cyprus but they had the right to disagree with it, and support another legitimate option, e.g. independendance.

But they did not support any legitimate option. On the contrary they supported the partition of Cyprus, something which involves the annihilation of the majority of Cypriots from half of their island. Even worst, they initiated an inter-communal conflict which resulted in the deaths of many innocent people from both sides, in their effort to show that the two communities could not live together in peace and that their partition demands were therefore justified.

So those TCs that today talk about the inter-communal conflict and how much they suffered during this conflict, should be reminded that it is them who initiated this conflict because it served their own aim for partition. This is crystal clear.

Beyond that, if they disagreed with enosis that was their right, but burning the homes and shops of innocent ordinary Cypriots and massacring others was not an act against enosis, but an act aimed in creating conflict and hate between the ordinary GCs and TCs, something which only served their partition aim and nothing else.

The imperialists would try to exploit any differences, that's for sure, but at least some Cyrpiots could try to act against this. On the contrary, by putting Enosi as the aim of the struggle, these differences were made stronger and the inter-communal conflict became inevitable. For TCs who didn't want partition not many options were left. Without any allies among GCs, how could they resist the wishes of their leadership, of UK and of Turkey?

The basic problem which lead to the partition of Cyprus is nationalism, i.e. people putting the interests of their nation, which in post-ottoman Cyprus was practically identical to religious community, above everything else, above the interests of their common homecountry. Other ethnic groups are seen a potential obstacle to the national goals. Similar things to Cyprus happened also in Greece, Turkey, Yugoslavia, and almost in Bulgaria. There is a common pattern in all this. After nationalism prevailed among both GCs and TCs, the partition would come in one way or another.

Even the way TCs are accused collectively of aiming to partition has a nationalist logic behind it. You say for example:

So those TCs that today talk about the inter-communal conflict and how much they suffered during this conflict, should be reminded that it is them who initiated this conflict because it served their own aim for partition. This is crystal clear.

Why do you think that the TCs who suffered during the conflict were the same with the ones who initiated it?

In my dad's village, Analiontas, a TC woman and a child were killed by EOKA. It's hard to believe that they had anything to do with planning the partition of Cyprus or intitiating conflicts. Probably the same can be said for the inhabitants of Kataliontas, who saw their village getting burned. Accusing a community collectively and punishing some of its members for the acts commited by other members, is exactly the logic which was the basis for everything that happened in Cyprus and lead to partition.

You would make a good lawyer my friend. Well presented.

Listen you peasents, if GR, DT, Oracle and Piratis says so, how dare you think otherwise.

[denizaksulu]

Afroasiatis, the fact is that the TC minority in Cyprus has distinctive differences from the majority of the population, namely language and religion. These differences would have been exploited by the Imperialists regardless of what the aim of the liberation struggle was.

They did the same thing to India and several other places. Divide and rule was not something new for them.

In this thread I am not saying that TCs should have supported union with Greece. Union with Greece was a legitimate option for the de-colonization of Cyprus but they had the right to disagree with it, and support another legitimate option, e.g. independendance.

But they did not support any legitimate option. On the contrary they supported the partition of Cyprus, something which involves the annihilation of the majority of Cypriots from half of their island. Even worst, they initiated an inter-communal conflict which resulted in the deaths of many innocent people from both sides, in their effort to show that the two communities could not live together in peace and that their partition demands were therefore justified.

So those TCs that today talk about the inter-communal conflict and how much they suffered during this conflict, should be reminded that it is them who initiated this conflict because it served their own aim for partition. This is crystal clear.

Beyond that, if they disagreed with enosis that was their right, but burning the homes and shops of innocent ordinary Cypriots and massacring others was not an act against enosis, but an act aimed in creating conflict and hate between the ordinary GCs and TCs, something which only served their partition aim and nothing else.

The imperialists would try to exploit any differences, that's for sure, but at least some Cyrpiots could try to act against this. On the contrary, by putting Enosi as the aim of the struggle, these differences were made stronger and the inter-communal conflict became inevitable. For TCs who didn't want partition not many options were left. Without any allies among GCs, how could they resist the wishes of their leadership, of UK and of Turkey?

The basic problem which lead to the partition of Cyprus is nationalism, i.e. people putting the interests of their nation, which in post-ottoman Cyprus was practically identical to religious community, above everything else, above the interests of their common homecountry. Other ethnic groups are seen a potential obstacle to the national goals. Similar things to Cyprus happened also in Greece, Turkey, Yugoslavia, and almost in Bulgaria. There is a common pattern in all this. After nationalism prevailed among both GCs and TCs, the partition would come in one way or another.

Even the way TCs are accused collectively of aiming to partition has a nationalist logic behind it. You say for example:

So those TCs that today talk about the inter-communal conflict and how much they suffered during this conflict, should be reminded that it is them who initiated this conflict because it served their own aim for partition. This is crystal clear.

Why do you think that the TCs who suffered during the conflict were the same with the ones who initiated it?

In my dad's village, Analiontas, a TC woman and a child were killed by EOKA. It's hard to believe that they had anything to do with planning the partition of Cyprus or intitiating conflicts. Probably the same can be said for the inhabitants of Kataliontas, who saw their village getting burned. Accusing a community collectively and punishing some of its members for the acts commited by other members, is exactly the logic which was the basis for everything that happened in Cyprus and lead to partition.

You would make a good lawyer my friend. Well presented.

Listen you peasents, if GR, DT, Oracle and Piratis says so, how dare you think otherwise.

Ipsori Yfredo. Ne haddime?

[YFred]

Afroasiatis, the fact is that the TC minority in Cyprus has distinctive differences from the majority of the population, namely language and religion. These differences would have been exploited by the Imperialists regardless of what the aim of the liberation struggle was.

They did the same thing to India and several other places. Divide and rule was not something new for them.

In this thread I am not saying that TCs should have supported union with Greece. Union with Greece was a legitimate option for the de-colonization of Cyprus but they had the right to disagree with it, and support another legitimate option, e.g. independendance.

But they did not support any legitimate option. On the contrary they supported the partition of Cyprus, something which involves the annihilation of the majority of Cypriots from half of their island. Even worst, they initiated an inter-communal conflict which resulted in the deaths of many innocent people from both sides, in their effort to show that the two communities could not live together in peace and that their partition demands were therefore justified.

So those TCs that today talk about the inter-communal conflict and how much they suffered during this conflict, should be reminded that it is them who initiated this conflict because it served their own aim for partition. This is crystal clear.

Beyond that, if they disagreed with enosis that was their right, but burning the homes and shops of innocent ordinary Cypriots and massacring others was not an act against enosis, but an act aimed in creating conflict and hate between the ordinary GCs and TCs, something which only served their partition aim and nothing else.

The imperialists would try to exploit any differences, that's for sure, but at least some Cyrpiots could try to act against this. On the contrary, by putting Enosi as the aim of the struggle, these differences were made stronger and the inter-communal conflict became inevitable. For TCs who didn't want partition not many options were left. Without any allies among GCs, how could they resist the wishes of their leadership, of UK and of Turkey?

The basic problem which lead to the partition of Cyprus is nationalism, i.e. people putting the interests of their nation, which in post-ottoman Cyprus was practically identical to religious community, above everything else, above the interests of their common homecountry. Other ethnic groups are seen a potential obstacle to the national goals. Similar things to Cyprus happened also in Greece, Turkey, Yugoslavia, and almost in Bulgaria. There is a common pattern in all this. After nationalism prevailed among both GCs and TCs, the partition would come in one way or another.

Even the way TCs are accused collectively of aiming to partition has a nationalist logic behind it. You say for example:

So those TCs that today talk about the inter-communal conflict and how much they suffered during this conflict, should be reminded that it is them who initiated this conflict because it served their own aim for partition. This is crystal clear.

Why do you think that the TCs who suffered during the conflict were the same with the ones who initiated it?

In my dad's village, Analiontas, a TC woman and a child were killed by EOKA. It's hard to believe that they had anything to do with planning the partition of Cyprus or intitiating conflicts. Probably the same can be said for the inhabitants of Kataliontas, who saw their village getting burned. Accusing a community collectively and punishing some of its members for the acts commited by other members, is exactly the logic which was the basis for everything that happened in Cyprus and lead to partition.

You would make a good lawyer my friend. Well presented.

Listen you peasents, if GR, DT, Oracle and Piratis says so, how dare you think otherwise.

Ipsori Yfredo. Ne haddime?

These are very important people Deniz, and some members just show no respect like. You know what I mean?

[denizaksulu]

Afroasiatis, the fact is that the TC minority in Cyprus has distinctive differences from the majority of the population, namely language and religion. These differences would have been exploited by the Imperialists regardless of what the aim of the liberation struggle was.

They did the same thing to India and several other places. Divide and rule was not something new for them.

In this thread I am not saying that TCs should have supported union with Greece. Union with Greece was a legitimate option for the de-colonization of Cyprus but they had the right to disagree with it, and support another legitimate option, e.g. independendance.

But they did not support any legitimate option. On the contrary they supported the partition of Cyprus, something which involves the annihilation of the majority of Cypriots from half of their island. Even worst, they initiated an inter-communal conflict which resulted in the deaths of many innocent people from both sides, in their effort to show that the two communities could not live together in peace and that their partition demands were therefore justified.

So those TCs that today talk about the inter-communal conflict and how much they suffered during this conflict, should be reminded that it is them who initiated this conflict because it served their own aim for partition. This is crystal clear.

Beyond that, if they disagreed with enosis that was their right, but burning the homes and shops of innocent ordinary Cypriots and massacring others was not an act against enosis, but an act aimed in creating conflict and hate between the ordinary GCs and TCs, something which only served their partition aim and nothing else.

The imperialists would try to exploit any differences, that's for sure, but at least some Cyrpiots could try to act against this. On the contrary, by putting Enosi as the aim of the struggle, these differences were made stronger and the inter-communal conflict became inevitable. For TCs who didn't want partition not many options were left. Without any allies among GCs, how could they resist the wishes of their leadership, of UK and of Turkey?

The basic problem which lead to the partition of Cyprus is nationalism, i.e. people putting the interests of their nation, which in post-ottoman Cyprus was practically identical to religious community, above everything else, above the interests of their common homecountry. Other ethnic groups are seen a potential obstacle to the national goals. Similar things to Cyprus happened also in Greece, Turkey, Yugoslavia, and almost in Bulgaria. There is a common pattern in all this. After nationalism prevailed among both GCs and TCs, the partition would come in one way or another.

Even the way TCs are accused collectively of aiming to partition has a nationalist logic behind it. You say for example:

So those TCs that today talk about the inter-communal conflict and how much they suffered during this conflict, should be reminded that it is them who initiated this conflict because it served their own aim for partition. This is crystal clear.

Why do you think that the TCs who suffered during the conflict were the same with the ones who initiated it?

In my dad's village, Analiontas, a TC woman and a child were killed by EOKA. It's hard to believe that they had anything to do with planning the partition of Cyprus or intitiating conflicts. Probably the same can be said for the inhabitants of Kataliontas, who saw their village getting burned. Accusing a community collectively and punishing some of its members for the acts commited by other members, is exactly the logic which was the basis for everything that happened in Cyprus and lead to partition.

You would make a good lawyer my friend. Well presented.

Listen you peasents, if GR, DT, Oracle and Piratis says so, how dare you think otherwise.

Ipsori Yfredo. Ne haddime?

These are very important people Deniz, and some members just show no respect like. You know what I mean?

Dont you /cant you see it as their reaction to their/our country being invaded by a 'foreign' power? Would you have been happy about it? An 'onest answer guv!!

[YFred]

Afroasiatis, the fact is that the TC minority in Cyprus has distinctive differences from the majority of the population, namely language and religion. These differences would have been exploited by the Imperialists regardless of what the aim of the liberation struggle was.

They did the same thing to India and several other places. Divide and rule was not something new for them.

In this thread I am not saying that TCs should have supported union with Greece. Union with Greece was a legitimate option for the de-colonization of Cyprus but they had the right to disagree with it, and support another legitimate option, e.g. independendance.

But they did not support any legitimate option. On the contrary they supported the partition of Cyprus, something which involves the annihilation of the majority of Cypriots from half of their island. Even worst, they initiated an inter-communal conflict which resulted in the deaths of many innocent people from both sides, in their effort to show that the two communities could not live together in peace and that their partition demands were therefore justified.

So those TCs that today talk about the inter-communal conflict and how much they suffered during this conflict, should be reminded that it is them who initiated this conflict because it served their own aim for partition. This is crystal clear.

Beyond that, if they disagreed with enosis that was their right, but burning the homes and shops of innocent ordinary Cypriots and massacring others was not an act against enosis, but an act aimed in creating conflict and hate between the ordinary GCs and TCs, something which only served their partition aim and nothing else.

The imperialists would try to exploit any differences, that's for sure, but at least some Cyrpiots could try to act against this. On the contrary, by putting Enosi as the aim of the struggle, these differences were made stronger and the inter-communal conflict became inevitable. For TCs who didn't want partition not many options were left. Without any allies among GCs, how could they resist the wishes of their leadership, of UK and of Turkey?

The basic problem which lead to the partition of Cyprus is nationalism, i.e. people putting the interests of their nation, which in post-ottoman Cyprus was practically identical to religious community, above everything else, above the interests of their common homecountry. Other ethnic groups are seen a potential obstacle to the national goals. Similar things to Cyprus happened also in Greece, Turkey, Yugoslavia, and almost in Bulgaria. There is a common pattern in all this. After nationalism prevailed among both GCs and TCs, the partition would come in one way or another.

Even the way TCs are accused collectively of aiming to partition has a nationalist logic behind it. You say for example:

So those TCs that today talk about the inter-communal conflict and how much they suffered during this conflict, should be reminded that it is them who initiated this conflict because it served their own aim for partition. This is crystal clear.

Why do you think that the TCs who suffered during the conflict were the same with the ones who initiated it?

In my dad's village, Analiontas, a TC woman and a child were killed by EOKA. It's hard to believe that they had anything to do with planning the partition of Cyprus or intitiating conflicts. Probably the same can be said for the inhabitants of Kataliontas, who saw their village getting burned. Accusing a community collectively and punishing some of its members for the acts commited by other members, is exactly the logic which was the basis for everything that happened in Cyprus and lead to partition.

You would make a good lawyer my friend. Well presented.

Listen you peasents, if GR, DT, Oracle and Piratis says so, how dare you think otherwise.

Ipsori Yfredo. Ne haddime?

These are very important people Deniz, and some members just show no respect like. You know what I mean?

Dont you /cant you see it as their reaction to their/our country being invaded by a 'foreign' power? Would you have been happy about it? An 'onest answer guv!!

What does 'onest mean? Is that in the Cyprus dictionary for Gibrea.

[denizaksulu]

Afroasiatis, the fact is that the TC minority in Cyprus has distinctive differences from the majority of the population, namely language and religion. These differences would have been exploited by the Imperialists regardless of what the aim of the liberation struggle was.

They did the same thing to India and several other places. Divide and rule was not something new for them.

In this thread I am not saying that TCs should have supported union with Greece. Union with Greece was a legitimate option for the de-colonization of Cyprus but they had the right to disagree with it, and support another legitimate option, e.g. independendance.

But they did not support any legitimate option. On the contrary they supported the partition of Cyprus, something which involves the annihilation of the majority of Cypriots from half of their island. Even worst, they initiated an inter-communal conflict which resulted in the deaths of many innocent people from both sides, in their effort to show that the two communities could not live together in peace and that their partition demands were therefore justified.

So those TCs that today talk about the inter-communal conflict and how much they suffered during this conflict, should be reminded that it is them who initiated this conflict because it served their own aim for partition. This is crystal clear.

Beyond that, if they disagreed with enosis that was their right, but burning the homes and shops of innocent ordinary Cypriots and massacring others was not an act against enosis, but an act aimed in creating conflict and hate between the ordinary GCs and TCs, something which only served their partition aim and nothing else.

The imperialists would try to exploit any differences, that's for sure, but at least some Cyrpiots could try to act against this. On the contrary, by putting Enosi as the aim of the struggle, these differences were made stronger and the inter-communal conflict became inevitable. For TCs who didn't want partition not many options were left. Without any allies among GCs, how could they resist the wishes of their leadership, of UK and of Turkey?

The basic problem which lead to the partition of Cyprus is nationalism, i.e. people putting the interests of their nation, which in post-ottoman Cyprus was practically identical to religious community, above everything else, above the interests of their common homecountry. Other ethnic groups are seen a potential obstacle to the national goals. Similar things to Cyprus happened also in Greece, Turkey, Yugoslavia, and almost in Bulgaria. There is a common pattern in all this. After nationalism prevailed among both GCs and TCs, the partition would come in one way or another.

Even the way TCs are accused collectively of aiming to partition has a nationalist logic behind it. You say for example:

So those TCs that today talk about the inter-communal conflict and how much they suffered during this conflict, should be reminded that it is them who initiated this conflict because it served their own aim for partition. This is crystal clear.

Why do you think that the TCs who suffered during the conflict were the same with the ones who initiated it?

In my dad's village, Analiontas, a TC woman and a child were killed by EOKA. It's hard to believe that they had anything to do with planning the partition of Cyprus or intitiating conflicts. Probably the same can be said for the inhabitants of Kataliontas, who saw their village getting burned. Accusing a community collectively and punishing some of its members for the acts commited by other members, is exactly the logic which was the basis for everything that happened in Cyprus and lead to partition.

You would make a good lawyer my friend. Well presented.

Listen you peasents, if GR, DT, Oracle and Piratis says so, how dare you think otherwise.

Ipsori Yfredo. Ne haddime?

These are very important people Deniz, and some members just show no respect like. You know what I mean?

Dont you /cant you see it as their reaction to their/our country being invaded by a 'foreign' power? Would you have been happy about it? An 'onest answer guv!!

What does 'onest mean? Is that in the Cyprus dictionary for Gibrea.

I really believe you ARE NOT trying to evade the answer.

so = HONEST.

[Oracle]

The only time that a civilised Cyprus has been free and independent in its recorded history, was when it was part of the collective Greek world.

It's no surprise, therefore, that the fight against the British (beloved of Bananiots) was foremost to recreate this freedom and independence -- hence its association with Greece.

If that's Nationalism, so be it. We have already shown how Nationalism is acceptable and healthy ..... and only denied to Greeks by racists.

By contrast, any allusions to 'Turkish Nationalism' being acceptable in Cyprus is a show of ignorance to the historical events. The Ottomans had relinquished "control" of Cyprus, and Turkey, once "established" in 1923, had no rightful/other ties with Cyprus, whatsoever.

[BirKibrisli]

Afroasiatis, the fact is that the TC minority in Cyprus has distinctive differences from the majority of the population, namely language and religion. These differences would have been exploited by the Imperialists regardless of what the aim of the liberation struggle was.

They did the same thing to India and several other places. Divide and rule was not something new for them.

In this thread I am not saying that TCs should have supported union with Greece. Union with Greece was a legitimate option for the de-colonization of Cyprus but they had the right to disagree with it, and support another legitimate option, e.g. independendance.

But they did not support any legitimate option. On the contrary they supported the partition of Cyprus, something which involves the annihilation of the majority of Cypriots from half of their island. Even worst, they initiated an inter-communal conflict which resulted in the deaths of many innocent people from both sides, in their effort to show that the two communities could not live together in peace and that their partition demands were therefore justified.

So those TCs that today talk about the inter-communal conflict and how much they suffered during this conflict, should be reminded that it is them who initiated this conflict because it served their own aim for partition. This is crystal clear.

Beyond that, if they disagreed with enosis that was their right, but burning the homes and shops of innocent ordinary Cypriots and massacring others was not an act against enosis, but an act aimed in creating conflict and hate between the ordinary GCs and TCs, something which only served their partition aim and nothing else.

The imperialists would try to exploit any differences, that's for sure, but at least some Cyrpiots could try to act against this. On the contrary, by putting Enosi as the aim of the struggle, these differences were made stronger and the inter-communal conflict became inevitable. For TCs who didn't want partition not many options were left. Without any allies among GCs, how could they resist the wishes of their leadership, of UK and of Turkey?

The basic problem which lead to the partition of Cyprus is nationalism, i.e. people putting the interests of their nation, which in post-ottoman Cyprus was practically identical to religious community, above everything else, above the interests of their common homecountry. Other ethnic groups are seen a potential obstacle to the national goals. Similar things to Cyprus happened also in Greece, Turkey, Yugoslavia, and almost in Bulgaria. There is a common pattern in all this. After nationalism prevailed among both GCs and TCs, the partition would come in one way or another.

Even the way TCs are accused collectively of aiming to partition has a nationalist logic behind it. You say for example:

So those TCs that today talk about the inter-communal conflict and how much they suffered during this conflict, should be reminded that it is them who initiated this conflict because it served their own aim for partition. This is crystal clear.

Why do you think that the TCs who suffered during the conflict were the same with the ones who initiated it?

In my dad's village, Analiontas, a TC woman and a child were killed by EOKA. It's hard to believe that they had anything to do with planning the partition of Cyprus or intitiating conflicts. Probably the same can be said for the inhabitants of Kataliontas, who saw their village getting burned. Accusing a community collectively and punishing some of its members for the acts commited by other members, is exactly the logic which was the basis for everything that happened in Cyprus and lead to partition.

You would make a good lawyer my friend. Well presented.

Listen you peasents, if GR, DT, Oracle and Piratis says so, how dare you think otherwise.

Listen YFred,enough of your sarcasm....Of course the Bash Partitionists are right....It is very rational :While the majority GCs were killing the British,the oppposition GCs,and some TCs, to unite Cyprus with Greece,the TCs should've demanded INdependence...It follows as day follows night...That was our big mistake...So it is all our fault, my friend. You can't grease your way out of that one...

[denizaksulu]

Afroasiatis, the fact is that the TC minority in Cyprus has distinctive differences from the majority of the population, namely language and religion. These differences would have been exploited by the Imperialists regardless of what the aim of the liberation struggle was.

They did the same thing to India and several other places. Divide and rule was not something new for them.

In this thread I am not saying that TCs should have supported union with Greece. Union with Greece was a legitimate option for the de-colonization of Cyprus but they had the right to disagree with it, and support another legitimate option, e.g. independendance.

But they did not support any legitimate option. On the contrary they supported the partition of Cyprus, something which involves the annihilation of the majority of Cypriots from half of their island. Even worst, they initiated an inter-communal conflict which resulted in the deaths of many innocent people from both sides, in their effort to show that the two communities could not live together in peace and that their partition demands were therefore justified.

So those TCs that today talk about the inter-communal conflict and how much they suffered during this conflict, should be reminded that it is them who initiated this conflict because it served their own aim for partition. This is crystal clear.

Beyond that, if they disagreed with enosis that was their right, but burning the homes and shops of innocent ordinary Cypriots and massacring others was not an act against enosis, but an act aimed in creating conflict and hate between the ordinary GCs and TCs, something which only served their partition aim and nothing else.

The imperialists would try to exploit any differences, that's for sure, but at least some Cyrpiots could try to act against this. On the contrary, by putting Enosi as the aim of the struggle, these differences were made stronger and the inter-communal conflict became inevitable. For TCs who didn't want partition not many options were left. Without any allies among GCs, how could they resist the wishes of their leadership, of UK and of Turkey?

The basic problem which lead to the partition of Cyprus is nationalism, i.e. people putting the interests of their nation, which in post-ottoman Cyprus was practically identical to religious community, above everything else, above the interests of their common homecountry. Other ethnic groups are seen a potential obstacle to the national goals. Similar things to Cyprus happened also in Greece, Turkey, Yugoslavia, and almost in Bulgaria. There is a common pattern in all this. After nationalism prevailed among both GCs and TCs, the partition would come in one way or another.

Even the way TCs are accused collectively of aiming to partition has a nationalist logic behind it. You say for example:

So those TCs that today talk about the inter-communal conflict and how much they suffered during this conflict, should be reminded that it is them who initiated this conflict because it served their own aim for partition. This is crystal clear.

Why do you think that the TCs who suffered during the conflict were the same with the ones who initiated it?

In my dad's village, Analiontas, a TC woman and a child were killed by EOKA. It's hard to believe that they had anything to do with planning the partition of Cyprus or intitiating conflicts. Probably the same can be said for the inhabitants of Kataliontas, who saw their village getting burned. Accusing a community collectively and punishing some of its members for the acts commited by other members, is exactly the logic which was the basis for everything that happened in Cyprus and lead to partition.

You would make a good lawyer my friend. Well presented.

Listen you peasents, if GR, DT, Oracle and Piratis says so, how dare you think otherwise.

Listen YFred,enough of your sarcasm....Of course the Bash Partitionists are right....It is very rational :While the majority GCs were killing the British,the oppposition GCs,and some TCs, to unite Cyprus with Greece,the TCs should've demanded INdependence...It follows as day follows night...That was our big mistake...So it is all our fault, my friend. You can't grease your way out of that one...

Grease?

Grease pole

Kataklysmos

Hey Bir. do have Deniz Panayırı ın Oz:

[denizaksulu]

The only time that a civilised Cyprus has been free and independent in its recorded history, was when it was part of the collective Greek world.

It's no surprise, therefore, that the fight against the British (beloved of Bananiots) was foremost to recreate this freedom and independence -- hence its association with Greece.

If that's Nationalism, so be it. We have already shown how Nationalism is acceptable and healthy ..... and only denied to Greeks by racists.

By contrast, any allusions to 'Turkish Nationalism' being acceptable in Cyprus is a show of ignorance to the historical events. The Ottomans had relinquished "control" of Cyprus, and Turkey, once "established" in 1923, had no rightful/other ties with Cyprus, whatsoever.

Take a dip in your swimmig pool Oracle. Its the heat you know; It can oft be hallucinogenic.

Lets re-cap; you did say 'independent'. Yep. Checked and double checked.