Cyprus-Forum.com

[umit07]

The majority of TC's can be considered "Kemalist".

[cypriotnado]

The majority of TC's can be considered "Kemalist".

Whereas on this forum a fair number of our Native Cypriot friends so to speak are raving Enosis fans!

[DrCyprus]

The majority of TC's can be considered "Kemalist".

Are you going to tell me you also believe that Hittites were Turks?

[DrCyprus]

The majority of TC's can be considered "Kemalist".

Whereas on this forum a fair number of our Native Cypriot friends so to speak are raving Enosis fans!

All donkeys tied to plastic chairs.

cyprus44206-10.html#p828854

[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.

WHERE are the quotes for which you claim the above?

Stop trying to wriggle out with other stuff (even that other one is not quite right) - answer THIS one first!

[erolz66]

Stop trying to wriggle out with other stuff (even that other one is not quite right) - answer THIS one first!

You claim I must have been lying because I failed to show where Mallinson wrote that the document was FOR the policy committee despite the FACT that I had previously shown exactly where Mallinson wrote this and I showed it yet again and you then ignore all of that as if it never happened and have the gall to claim I am wiggling out of stuff ! This is what you do. This is what you have always done.

If you can admit the plain and obvious undeniable FACT that Mallinson did write that the document was FOR the policy committee and that I had shown exactly where he said this both before your claimed I was lying because I had not shown it and again after you claimed this, and then you deal with the FACT that Mallison's description of who the document was for is different from your description of who it was for - THEN we can move onto your question.

However we both know that you can not and will not accept the plain and obvious undeniable facts above - because this is what you do , this is what you have always done - simply ignore or deny or distort undeniable plain fact when ever doing so suits your propaganda needs.

[Sotos]

Of course I do. This is what every country in the world does, seek to serve its own best interests. There are countless examples of where the British Government has abandoned principal to the expediency of its own self interest - one example of which being their recognition of a rump GC only RoC administration as a legitimate government of the RoC.

The example you gave is not a good one because RoC is recognized by all countries, most of which have no special interests in Cyprus. Most governments are recognized... even dictators and those taking the power with a coup, so I don't see why a government which is elected democratically by the majority shouldn't be recognized. One country recognizing the government of another is just the "default" option, not an action that aims to benefit you on the expense of another.

You can suggest that if GC and TC had fought over the future of Cyprus without any involvement from Greece or Turkey (or anyone else), that the TC would have simply 'lost' and there would today be no problem in Cyprus. You can suggest it but it is far from clear that it would have been as simple and clean as you suggest.

I didn't say that there would be no problems in Cyprus. Maybe we would have some problems, as other countries have with ethnic minorities. But those are common problems found in many countries.

Or you could say without foreign involvement their could have been no enosis or desire for it and if there had not have been there would be no problem in Cyprus today.

That is not a conclusion that follows logically from the facts. The interests of the UK for Cyprus would not cease to exist merely by excluding enosis. And the differences in language, religion, culture and our bloody history would still be there to be exploited, enosis or no enosis.

I just do not accept this 'charter' for an abdication of responsibility of Cypriots for the mess we are in today. I believe our failure and what was at the core of the mess we are in today is that neither community chose to want to be Cypriot more and ahead of choosing to want to Turks or Greeks who happened to live in Cyprus and that we were too willing to use illegal violence and murder against innocent Cypriots from our own communities and the other, or we stayed too silent when others did this in pour names. My view is that this is the core of what got us into this mess and that foreign powers then exploited this failure on OUR part to their own ends , as they inevitably would.

If we were left alone, without foreign involvement (imposing on us a constitution, invading us, ethnically cleansing us etc) and today we had a mess ONLY THEN we would be responsible for that mess. I am NOT arguing that if we were left alone that there would be no mess and everything would be perfect. But it would certainly be DIFFERENT kind of problems (e.g. we wouldn't invade and ethnically cleanse ourselves) and there is no reason to believe that those problems would be worst than the quite frequent problems between similar majorities and minorities elsewhere. And IF the mess we would have created would be as bad or worst, then yes, you could blame Cypriots or even blame GCs or TCs separately depending on whose actions created the problems. But that is an alternative history scenario. In reality there was and continues to be A LOT of foreign involvement and we are NOT going to accept any major share of the responsibility if we are not allowed to FREELY take the decisions!

[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.

WHERE are the quotes for which you claim the above?

[GreekIslandGirl]

The majority of TC's can be considered "Kemalist".

I thought the Kemalists left in the 1920s?

Or is it by default they are 'Kemalist' because they only know of one supposedly rational Turk?

[erolz66]

WHERE are the quotes for which you claim the above?

Thank you for proving me correct when I said

However we both know that you can not and will not accept the plain and obvious undeniable facts above - because this is what you do , this is what you have always done - simply ignore or deny or distort undeniable plain fact when ever doing so suits your propaganda needs.

Once again I will answer all your questions once you first answer mine that were posed long before yours.

You claim I must have been lying because I failed to show where Mallinson wrote that the document was FOR the policy committee despite the FACT that I had previously shown exactly where Mallinson wrote this and I showed it yet again and you then ignore all of that as if it never happened and have the gall to claim I am wiggling out of stuff ! This is what you do. This is what you have always done.

If you can admit the plain and obvious undeniable FACT that Mallinson did write that the document was FOR the policy committee and that I had shown exactly where he said this both before your claimed I was lying because I had not shown it and again after you claimed this, and then you deal with the FACT that Mallison's description of who the document was for is different from your description of who it was for - THEN we can move onto your question.

It is easy GiG

Did Mallinson in fact write that the document was FOR the policy Committee. Yes or No ?
Had I already shown where he wrote this by screen capture and link before you claimed I must be lying because I had not shown it as well as after you claimed it ? Yes or no ?
Is Mallison's description of who the document was for different from who you claimed it was for ? Yes or No ?

Once again we know do we not GiG that you will not answer these questions, that you will continue to try and distract and ignore and deny them - because that is what you do, isn't it - what you have always done.