Cyprus-Forum.com

[tsukoui]

Ain't there a discrepancy between the two allegations which are claimed that based on official declassified British secret documents?

"Other documents show that other members of British armed forces were up to their necks in gun running and espionage for the Turks and Turkish Cypriot terrorist militias.

In May 1964 senior RAF aircraftsman Keith Marley was arrested by Cypriot police after they discovered two mortars in the boot of his car along with incriminating letters from senior member of Turkeys civilian militias.

Documents from the national archives in London show that three other airmen were involved, the ringleader being corporal Sam Bass."

http://www.greece.org/hec01/www/projects/cyprus/MI6.htm

It seems to me that some circles feed some people with lies in order to either get huge donations or huge cash... where's Piratis when we need him... he was an expert of the so-called divide and rule policy...

They have mastered demons, the "White" devils

[GreekIslandGirl]

Your screen capturing doesn't nullify what I said, now does it, but actually confirms how in-keeping the quotes were.

No the screen shots show clealry how what you said and what you tried to imply are just not true. Nothing new there then.

No it doesn't. The quotes follow what I said but your brain doesn't like it.

and the fact it WAS....

Defence and Oversea Policy (Official) Committee D.O. (O) (64) 26 Brief.

A paper prepared for the Ministry of Defence!

Now finally you add the word 'brief' meaning it was prepared as a brief FOR the Defence and Oversea Policy Committee

No. 'Brief' was after the document title, not part of it, so take that up with Defence and overseas Policy Committee or even the MOD. I don't know who was in the audience if the document brief was read our or which were all the members to which it was sent.
A brief is usually presented to the Ministers who haven't got time to read everything. There's nothing wrong with it. It's the only one released for viewing as far as I know.
If I re-typed every single word of every single document, you would complain I left out an 'and'.

The quotes I used were EXACTLY as written from the sources stated and you haven't got a case despite how absurdly ridiculously you will search!

Tel me now, were any of those quotes lies?

The quotes were not lies -

Thank you! Finally!

what you tried to present those quotes as being and meaning and representing, who wrote them for whom, were and are lies.

No I didn't. I gave the documents their titles. Who was present, I didn't mention because I didn't know. I used them as sources of evidence during discussion. That's what you don't like!

It is a lie to say the paper was prepared for the ministry of defence.

No, you're just a distortionist of the most ridiculous example!

From the document, it says:

"This paper has been prepared at Ministry of Defence Instigation."


Now, stop wasting my time and learn to accept truths graciously without treating them like aliens!

[cypriotnado]

Far more interesting then dwelling in the past, worrying abt the content of some silly documents is the today, the NOW

The Brits are challenging the right of Cyprus to register Halloumi/Hellim. Claiming its origins are Egyptian, apparently the word hallum is Egyptian for cheese? They also claim the product produced in Cyprus is inferior in quality to that produced in the UK, and elsewhere.......how very dare they!! Hands of our cheese Brits.

[erolz66]

No. 'Brief' was after the document title, not part of it, ...

The word 'brief' is part of the title. However your propaganda needs required that you create an impression that the document was written by the the policy committee so you could then make untrue claims that anything within it was therefore British policy. So you just left it out and now you make up lies that it was not part of the title at all.

The quotes I used were EXACTLY as written from the sources stated and you haven't got a case despite how absurdly ridiculously you will search!

Straw man. I never questioned the validity of the sections you quoted. I pointed out how you used partial quoting and misrepresentation of who wrote the document, omission of who was reported to have said the things you quoted and misrepresentation of what this meant.

It better suited your propaganda that the document you misleadingly quoted from was written BY the Policy committee - so you simply made untrue claims to suit this need. You said explicitly that the document was

A paper prepared for the Ministry of Defence!

This is totally and absolutely untrue. The document was prepared BY the ministry of defence, at their instigation, FOR the policy committee. The truth is the exact opposite of your untrue claim above. This distortion of factual truth to suit your propaganda needs is what you have always done as is the then pages of pathetic attempts to claim you have not done so when challenged, even when the evidence you have done so is irrefutable.

[GreekIslandGirl]

All the rest of your arguments are to save your face so they're worthless for further consideration.

A paper prepared for the Ministry of Defence!

This is totally and absolutely untrue. The document was prepared BY the ministry of defence, at their instigation, FOR the policy committee. The truth is the exact opposite of your untrue claim above. This distortion of factual truth to suit your propaganda needs is what you have always done as is the then pages of pathetic attempts to claim you have not done so when challenged, even when the evidence you have done so is irrefutable.

Wrong, again!

The document states, again:

"This paper has been prepared at Ministry of Defence Instigation"

It doesn't say it was prepared "by" so give up, twister! It was 'at' their instigation. This means someone prepared it 'for' them - the MOD didn't sit and write it 'by' themselves!

The brief was on "British Aims for Cyprus" to present to various Ministers and the UN Mediator in Cyprus.

[erolz66]

Wrong, again!

The document states, again:

"This paper has been prepared at Ministry of Defence Instigation"

It doesn't say it was prepared "by" so give up, twister! It was 'at' their instigation. This means someone prepared it 'for' them - the MOD didn't sit and write it 'by' themselves!

It doesn't say that anywhere! That's your complete fabrication.

Capture5.JPG

Mallinson - your quoted source, explicitly says the document was written BY the Ministry of Defence (he even names the person who prepared it) FOR the policy committee. It is there in black and white , from your own beloved (and highly partial) source. And yet you STILL try and claim that your LIE that it was prepared FOR the ministry of defence is not a lie. Clearer proof that you have NO INTEREST in the truth what so ever would be hard to find.

[erolz66]

The brief was on "British Aims for Cyprus" to present to various Ministers and the UN Mediator in Cyprus.

Are you insane ? You now claim this document was prepared for the UN mediator in Cyprus, as something to be presented to him ? What utter and total garbage you post here with such unashamed abandon.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Wrong, again!

The document states, again:

"This paper has been prepared at Ministry of Defence Instigation"

It doesn't say it was prepared "by" so give up, twister! It was 'at' their instigation. This means someone prepared it 'for' them - the MOD didn't sit and write it 'by' themselves!

It doesn't say that anywhere! That's your complete fabrication.

Capture5.JPG

Mallinson - your quoted source, explicitly says the document was written BY the Ministry of Defence (he even names the person who prepared it) FOR the policy committee. It is there in black and white , from your own beloved (and highly partial) source. And yet you STILL try and claim that your LIE that it was prepared FOR the ministry of defence is not a lie. Clearer proof that you have NO INTEREST in the truth what so ever would be hard to find.

No, again! I quoted exactly from the document itself and presented it for you above which you choose to ignore.

Even your search from what Mallinson said (not the document), it still does NOT support your claim. Your own screen capture says 'Mottershead submitted on 27th April ...'

So contrary to your belief, it doesn't say it was written "BY the Ministry of Defence" !It said it was 'submitted' by Mottershead.

Sadly, this is another example of your twisting games which divert from the enormity of the document. Another attempt to try and bury the truth.

[erolz66]

No, again! I quoted exactly from the document itself and presented it for you above which you choose to ignore.

No you EXPLICITLY claimed the document was produced FOR the Ministry of Defence. You exact words. Yet Mallinson EXPLICITLY says it was produced FOR the Policy Committee. You directly and absolutely reversed the truth to suit your propaganda needs. This is what you always do. It is absolutely clear beyond any possible constructed ambiguity by yourself that YOUR claim that the document was produced FOR the ministry of Defence is directly and explicitly contradicted by Mallision (your source) who says it was produced FOR the policy committed, submitted TO that committee BY the Ministry of Defence and the document itself makes clear it was produced for that committee at the instigation of the Ministry of defence.

Please do go on and and on trying to make out you that YOUR claim that the document was produced FOR the Ministry of Defence is not a lie, is not directly contradicted by Mallinson's description of the document. All you do is just show how totally pathological your distortion of historical fact is.

As for you total ludicrous and absurd latest claim that the document was in fact produced for and to be presented to the UN mediator in Cyprus, what can one say to such a total and gratuitous distortion of plain obvious fact ? Your behaviour reminds me of a very old joke. How can you tell when GiG is distorting historical fact to suit her propaganda needs ? When ever her fingers move to type a post on this forum.

[Sotos]

Ethnic minorities exist in most countries and the rights you have as an ethnic minority are the same as theirs.

And in none of those countries (and in 59 Cyprus was not a country) does the ethnic majority say you are not part of the people of this country, your a separate and different people to the majority and native peoples of this country. Yet this is what you are saying to me. The paradox is as clear and glaring as your inability to face it.

Erolz, being different is what makes an ethnic minority what it is. It is part of the definition: "ethnic minority: a ​group of ​people of a ​particular ​race or ​nationality ​living in a ​country or ​area where most ​people are from a different ​race or ​nationality". I am just stating the obvious here: That in Cyprus there is an ethnic majority which are of the Greek ethnicity and an ethnic minority with people of the Turkish ethnicity. I am not saying that you being an ethnic minority means that you don't belong to Cyprus. I am saying that your rights as an ethnic minority should be the same as all other ethnic minorities. And if you want to form a single Cypriot ethnicity which we will all be part of, so there will be no ethnic majorities and ethnic minorities... no problem with me. But that is something which will take time to be created. You can't blame us that a single Cypriot ethnicity doesn't exist when for centuries the Ottomans kept as divided. It is not like we could flip a switch in the 50s and from Greeks and Turks become of the "Cypriot ethnicity".