Cyprus-Forum.com

[GreekIslandGirl]

You on the other hand claimed it was written for the Ministry of Defence

NO I didn't!

When did I say written? Find THAT quote! NOW!!!

Your'e the one who said:

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 when I challenged you for Mallinson's quote you came up with something that said nothing of the sort. Now, you're trying to TWIST it round to me saying it was 'written'!!!!!!!

You make stuff UP! You wrote that and then when challenged you blamed Mallinson and when challenged again for the quote you then blame me. FIND me my QUOTE that you say states I said it was written for the MOD!

Unbelievable cheek even for you!

This is what I said:
"This paper has been prepared at Ministry of Defence Instigation"

That's not the same as written by them - you psychopathic distortionist!

I NEVER said "written by" the MOD (that was YOU). How many times!?!

Regardless of department or sub-department - since they were "British Aims for Cyprus" within the document - in the end what matters to me are the contents!

[B25]

Seems Erolz has no real arguement other than trying to destroy the poster. So far he has made NO comment on the content, the fact that the British Government were talking about this, writing about this irrespective of who wrote it for whom etc etc etc, Erolz just attacks and trolls the poster.

Where there is smoke there is fire, for the Brits to have even been considering this means they had reason to. To argue about the 'By', 'For', 'To', is just plain pathetic and shows the level to which these people will go to twist and turn things in an attempt to discredit the original poster.

GiG, call it day with these trolls, the content is there for ll to see and digest and make up their own minds. Just typical Turkish BS and propaganda.

[erolz66]

You on the other hand claimed it was written for the Ministry of Defence

NO I didn't!

How she twists and turns and squeals and squirms.

You said the document was prepared for the MOD. Mallinson says it was for the defence and overseas Policy (offical) Committee. Fact. So one of you is wrong and telling porkys. Which one of you is it ?

You make stuff UP! You wrote that and then when challenged you blamed Mallinson and when challenged again for the quote you then blame me. FIND me my QUOTE that you say states I said it was written for the MOD!

You said the document was prepared for the MOD. Mallinson says it was for the defence and overseas Policy (offical) Committee. Fact. So one of you is wrong and telling porkys. Which one of you is it ?

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

That's not the same as written by them - you psychopathic distortionist!

And neither does it mean the document was intended FOR the MoD - your psychopathic distortion. A classic GiG manipulation of language.

I ask my assistant at work to get arrange getting some flowers FOR my wife. The flowers are at my instigation but to say that the flowers were FOR me would be a gross distortion of fact.

I NEVER said "written by" the MOD (that was YOU). How many times!?!

No you said the document was prepared for the MOD - you tried to create an impression that the intended recipient of the documents was the MOD - which is a lie clearly shown by the FACT that mallinson describes it as being FOR somebody entirely different to who you claim it was FOR. How many times.

Regardless of department or sub-department - since they were "British Aims for Cyprus" within the document - in the end what matters to me are the contents!

To make out that the this section you quoted was a 'British Aim for Cyprus'

....efforts should be concentrated on easing the path to the unitary state, e.g. by providing U.N. safeguards for the minority and by giving financial and other assistance for the resettling of those Turkish Cypriots to whom Cyprus may no longer appear a tolerable home.

Is exactly the kind of distortion of fact you specialise in. You pluck words out of all their context , you take the word 'policy' from the title and then you take words from a heading 'british aims in cyprus' then you pluck a half sentence and then you string them all together to try and support the goal that you want to reach. To try and create an impression that it was official British policy to offer TC money and other aid to leave Cyprus. The fact that the British never actually did this is irrelevant to you. The truth is irrelevant to you. All that mattered to you was how could I distort what is said in this document to create an impression that something that patently is not true looks like it is true. This is what you did, it is what you always do.

[erolz66]

Seems Erolz has no real arguement other than trying to destroy the poster. So far he has made NO comment on the content, the fact that the British Government were talking about this, writing about this irrespective of who wrote it for whom etc etc etc, Erolz just attacks and trolls the poster.

The document , that was released under the the 30 year rule (so is not recently released) is of some interest. It is interesting principally for the reasons Mallinson suggests it is - namely that it shows that a mere 4 years after brokering and signing Treaties the British government was prepared to consider the 'writing off' of those treaties if they thought doing so best served their interests. This is what is of relevance to this document. All the distortions that GiG tries to make to what the document means and why it is of interest are in fact of no interest (to me or to mallinson it would seem) because they are simply that - distortions.

[Garavnoss]

erolz66 :- liked your joke about the "Coon" and the laptop :- but you are no match in a political debate with GIG.

[GreekIslandGirl]

You on the other hand claimed it was written for the Ministry of Defence

NO I didn't!

When did I say written? Find THAT quote! NOW!!!
Your'e the one who said:

Mallinson - your quoted source, explicitly says the document was written BY the Ministry of Defence

How she twists and turns and squeals and squirms.

Where's the quote?

[cypriotnado]

erolz66 :- liked your joke about the "Coon" and the laptop :- but you are no match in a political debate with GIG.

Nonsense! She has mastered the art of misrepresention and misquoting She does this with everyone,why only yesterday she did the same to Jerry and like a child she always but always needs to have the final word. Its easy to play such dishonest games with the written word but face to face she would fall apart. Only last week I had two pms from posters pointing this out. Don't you people have jobs?

[GreekIslandGirl]

All the distortions that GiG tries to make to what the document

Which distortions?

The one where you keep accusing me they were "written by the MOD"?

Where's the frigging quote?

........... are in fact of no interest (to me or to mallinson it would seem) because they are simply that - distortions.

I know they are of no interest to you (they are truths, facts and evidence), but to also now (again) assume something about Mallinson, who wrote a whole book (among others) based on these and other documents entitled "Britain and Cyprus: Key Themes and Documents Since World War II", is to demonstrate too much lunacy.

How you have the audacity to accuse others of so much falsity, straight out of your twisted brain, must be a clue as to how you can also support the illegalities of the continuing Turkish occupation of Cyprus and then still call yourself a "Cypriot".

[Sotos]

Seems Erolz has no real arguement other than trying to destroy the poster. So far he has made NO comment on the content, the fact that the British Government were talking about this, writing about this irrespective of who wrote it for whom etc etc etc, Erolz just attacks and trolls the poster.

The document , that was released under the the 30 year rule (so is not recently released) is of some interest. It is interesting principally for the reasons Mallinson suggests it is - namely that it shows that a mere 4 years after brokering and signing Treaties the British government was prepared to consider the 'writing off' of those treaties if they thought doing so best served their interests. This is what is of relevance to this document. All the distortions that GiG tries to make to what the document means and why it is of interest are in fact of no interest (to me or to mallinson it would seem) because they are simply that - distortions.

Erolz, (leaving aside your arguments with GiG) there is no doubt that the the British would only do what serves their own interests. They don't care about GC, TCs, Greeks or Turks... they only care about themselves and if it serves their interests to change their policy on something they will do it. I hope you accept this fact. The other fact is that without foreign involvement (by the last 2 foreign rulers of Cyprus) the outcome in Cyprus would be whatever the majority of the Cypriot people wanted it to be. The minority would either simply respect the choice of the majority or they would fight against it and lose. Therefore there is a 100% correlation between the problem we are having and the foreign involvement of UK and Turkey in Cyprus. And I should note that their involvement was not sanctioned by the UN, so it can not be argued that they were acting on behalf of the UN based on universally accepted principles. It was simply a case of them using their power to serve their own interests on the expense of ours (just like they have been doing while ruling Cyprus against our will). Without foreign involvement there would be no Cyprus Problem. Beyond that, if the minority would have some issues with the majority that would be a completely different kind of problem... a not a very unique problem, since many countries had such issues... especially back in the 50s and 60s.

[insan]

Why did the British government change it's mind in 1974, even most probably any point before 1974?

It didn't 'change its mind' about the Turks. It just jumped into bed with them. Secured its Bases. Thwarted possible USSR influence. Many reasons.

"UK behind Turkish terrorism in Cyprus

According to the BBC Radio 4 documentary programme “Document” transmitted on Monday 23 January 2006 evidence exists which shows that the UK was directly behind Turkish terrorism in Cyprus after it gained its independence in 1960 in order to bring about the partition of the island."

"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


How comes? While they were supporting Enosis after the events of 63? There must be 2 versions of these so-called declassified documents or one version should be fake...

Well... the issue has gained a new dimension by comparing the allegations of 2 different sources about the British aims for Cyprus in the same time period... supposedly both were based on the evidences existed in official declassified secret documents... While Greecce.org alleges hat partition was the aim and official policy of Britain since the establishment of RoC up until 1974 and even further and base it's allegations on some supposedly official declassified secret British documents; Mallinson implies and alleges that British aims and official policy for Cyprus was recognizing Enosis and moving TCs to somewhere else... and he based his allegations on supposedly written documents of some British policy makers submitted for review of the concerned government departments of Britain, in May 1964...

How comes?

Partition plans

Although Martin Packard refers to George Ball’s statement regarding "their policy being partition," he and the programmers make no mention whatsoever of the policy of the Foreign Office, which is clearly demonstrated in no uncertain terms through the PRO files.

In fact, George Ball was at the time referring to the British plans to which he and his department were privy.

In February, 1964, the Planning Department of the Foreign Office (Packard’s superiors) devised a comprehensive plan named ‘ The Future of Cyprus’ which stated: "It is now clear that any long term solution in Cyprus must involve geographical separation of the Greek and Turkish communities.

"This could of, course, be achieved by wholesale removal of the Turkish community elsewhere. Less drastic alternatives following some redeployment of the population in the island are:

"a Partition so that a predominantly Greek area is united with Greece and a predominantly Turkish area is united with Turkey.

"b Partition so that one or both areas are independent, perhaps with special relationships with Greece and Turkey respectively, or

"c A Federal Constitution, in which the island would be divided into cantons, one or two of which were Turkish.

"It would already be difficult for the Greeks to intervene successfully in Cyprus. The Turks would have completed their intervention before they could prevent it.

"The obvious Greek counter-move would be to invade Turkish Thrace. One way of preventing this would be for a small force drawn from all NATO countries to police the frontier.

"We could make much greater use of United States and British naval power to deter Greek naval assault across the Aegean. The ability of the Greeks to mount an airborne intervention is strictly limited…".

(A month before, in London, where representatives of both communities were summoned for a conference, Rauf Denktash had placed on the table in the presence of Glafcos Clerides, Tassos Papadopoulos, Stella Soulioti and others his and Turkey’s demands i.e. geographical federation...).†

From the masses of the PRO documents released so far, one can build upon the theory that it was in fact the British and not the Americans who thought of, prepared and instigated the Greek Junta takeover in Greece in 1967, in order to achieve their planning objectives over Cyprus.

The Americans were used as and when it suited the British, always retaining a secondary and assisting role to date.

In early 1964, British government was either working on a comprehensive plan to partition Cyprus or aiming to support Enosis... which one? Working and establishing both in the same time period were impossible... who lies here?