Cyprus-Forum.com

[GreekIslandGirl]

It is easy GiG

Yes, I know. Just find the quotes, thanks.

[erolz66]

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.

The recognition of a RoC government that only had GC representatives in it as legitimate stems from the 1964 UN resolution to place UN Troops in Cyprus. Placing UN troops in Cyprus to avoid the conflict spreading to Greece and Turkey was what was in the interests of world powers like the UK and USA. The easiest way of achieving their objective for their interests was for a legitimate RoC government to request such troop deployment. Hence it was expedient to those world powers self interest to simply accept a GC only run RoC government as legitimate, even though such a government was clearly in breach of the RoC constitution and the Treaties that founded the RoC in the first place and that same rump GC only government had already acted in breach of those treaties and was at various levels involved in the use of illegal armed ethnic based militias. The legitimacy that a GC only run RoC government had in the period 64-74 is based on this placing of expediency to world powers self interest ahead of legality and what was 'right' or what was best for Cypriots. Business as usual.

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.

Britains interest would be the same enosis or no enosis - to get the sovereign bases. So what ? To make out that GC and TC wanting totally and mutually incompatible future for Cyprus post colonial rule did not make it easier and more inevitable that world powers would exploit this for their own ends then if we both wanted the same future for Cyprus post colonial rule is to me ridiculous.

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!

We freely chose to seek a future for Cyprus post colonialism that was defined by our differences rather than one that placed our commonalties ahead of those differences.

[erolz66]

It is easy GiG

Yes, I know. Just find the quotes, thanks.

Thank you for showing how right I am about you and how you behave, how you always behave.

Why not answer my questions - simple straight forward questions ? What are you trying to hide and ignore and deny GiG ? Is it the truth you are trying to ignore or deny or distract from ?

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 ?

It is plainly CLEAR why you will not answer these questions isn't it GiG ? You will not answer them because denying or ignoring or distracting from undeniable objective truth when it suits your needs is what you do. It is what you do here and is what you have always done. Please continue to refuse to answer these questions because with every such refusal you show how right I am about you.

[GreekIslandGirl]

It is easy GiG

Yes, I know. Just find the quotes, thanks.

Thank you for showing how right I am about you and how you behave, how you always behave.

Oh yes, you are always so 'right' ......... except when you're wrong!

What has happened here, is that you have been hoisted by your own petard!

You were so busy trying to derail discussions about the contents of the document that you snatched at anything circumforaneous with the sole aim of pinning your usual, false labels on to me.

Again, another of your wild accusations with no factual support. True to form, twister.

[erolz66]

Oh yes, you are always so 'right' ......... except when you're wrong!

I am wrong that you are unable to answer my simple questions am I ? Yet you refuse to answer them. Does not look like wrong to me. Looks like I am very very right to me.

I have already said I am more than happy to answer you questions if you first answer mine ? Yet you still refuse to answer my simple three questions. Why is that GiG, as if that needs to be asked.

Go on GiG say you will answer my questions if I answer yours first. You will not say that because you know you are unable to answer my questions where as you know that I am able to answer yours. Or you will say answer my question first and then I will answer yours and then when I fulfil my said of the bargain you will simply fail to fulfil your side. Go on do it, show to everyone, as if such needs any more showing, that this is what you will do.

You are unable to answer my questions and the only way to show that is not true that I am wrong to assert your are unable to answer my questions would be to answer them. Yet we both know you will not do that dont we GiG.

[Sotos]

The recognition of a RoC government that only had GC representatives in it as legitimate stems from the 1964 UN resolution to place UN Troops in Cyprus. Placing UN troops in Cyprus to avoid the conflict spreading to Greece and Turkey was what was in the interests of world powers like the UK and USA. The easiest way of achieving their objective for their interests was for a legitimate RoC government to request such troop deployment. Hence it was expedient to those world powers self interest to simply accept a GC only run RoC government as legitimate, even though such a government was clearly in breach of the RoC constitution and the Treaties that founded the RoC in the first place and that same rump GC only government had already acted in breach of those treaties and was at various levels involved in the use of illegal armed ethnic based militias. The legitimacy that a GC only run RoC government had in the period 64-74 is based on this placing of expediency to world powers self interest ahead of legality and what was 'right' or what was best for Cypriots. Business as usual.

The RoC government was already recognized before 1964. Not placing UN troops in Cyprus wouldn't "un-recognize" the government of Cyprus so your story is not relevant. Furthermore the UN has no authority to choose state governments. If anything the government of RoC after 1964 was more democratic than before, and that is what matters most. If a country has a racist, sexist constitution (e.g.based on Sharia Law) and then a new government of that country doesn't follow the racist and sexist provisions of their constitution (e.g. doesn't stone people to death), would you expect the UN to stop recognizing that government?

Britains interest would be the same enosis or no enosis - to get the sovereign bases. So what ? To make out that GC and TC wanting totally and mutually incompatible future for Cyprus post colonial rule did not make it easier and more inevitable that world powers would exploit this for their own ends then if we both wanted the same future for Cyprus post colonial rule is to me ridiculous.

My point is that it didn't "make it easier and more inevitable" to any significant degree. The fact that we are of different religion, ethnicity, culture and had a bloody history (and therefore mistrust) made it already extremely easy for them.

We freely chose to seek a future for Cyprus post colonialism that was defined by our differences rather than one that placed our commonalties ahead of those differences.

What we choose to seek post-colonialism was not defined by our differences. We didn't say "hey, lets ask what the TCs want and then lets seek the exact opposite". What we sought was our freedom after centuries of oppression and safety for us as people and to preserve our language, religion and culture in a region where we are surrounded by Muslims and people who do not share our ideals. Most Cypriots at that time believed that those aims would be best served with enosis and that was not an unreasonable assumption for those times.

[GreekIslandGirl]

I am wrong that you are unable to answer my simple questions am I ? Yet you refuse to answer them. Does not look like wrong to me. Looks like I am very very right to me.

These meaningless questions (matter already dealt with*) are desperate diversionary tactics.

Why can't you give me the quotes, erolz?


(*You're ignoring my pointing out earlier that Mallinson wrote "Mottershead submitted on 27 April 1964 a secret briefing for the Defence and Oversea Policy (Official) Committee."
You choose to ignore Mallinson is describing the submission of the document and not referring to who wrote it or for whom it was written. You chose to quote Mallinson on this matter because you are circumnavigating to divert attention from the contents.
I think you realise your mistakes now and are backtracking )

[repulsewarrior]

The recognition of a RoC government that only had GC representatives in it as legitimate stems from the 1964 UN resolution to place UN Troops in Cyprus. Placing UN troops in Cyprus to avoid the conflict spreading to Greece and Turkey was what was in the interests of world powers like the UK and USA. The easiest way of achieving their objective for their interests was for a legitimate RoC government to request such troop deployment. Hence it was expedient to those world powers self interest to simply accept a GC only run RoC government as legitimate, even though such a government was clearly in breach of the RoC constitution and the Treaties that founded the RoC in the first place and that same rump GC only government had already acted in breach of those treaties and was at various levels involved in the use of illegal armed ethnic based militias. The legitimacy that a GC only run RoC government had in the period 64-74 is based on this placing of expediency to world powers self interest ahead of legality and what was 'right' or what was best for Cypriots. Business as usual.

The RoC government was already recognized before 1964. Not placing UN troops in Cyprus wouldn't "un-recognize" the government of Cyprus so your story is not relevant. Furthermore the UN has no authority to choose state governments. If anything the government of RoC after 1964 was more democratic than before, and that is what matters most. If a country has a racist, sexist constitution (e.g.based on Sharia Law) and then a new government of that country doesn't follow the racist and sexist provisions of their constitution (e.g. doesn't stone people to death), would you expect the UN to stop recognizing that government?

Britains interest would be the same enosis or no enosis - to get the sovereign bases. So what ? To make out that GC and TC wanting totally and mutually incompatible future for Cyprus post colonial rule did not make it easier and more inevitable that world powers would exploit this for their own ends then if we both wanted the same future for Cyprus post colonial rule is to me ridiculous.

My point is that it didn't "make it easier and more inevitable" to any significant degree. The fact that we are of different religion, ethnicity, culture and had a bloody history (and therefore mistrust) made it already extremely easy for them.

We freely chose to seek a future for Cyprus post colonialism that was defined by our differences rather than one that placed our commonalties ahead of those differences.

What we choose to seek post-colonialism was not defined by our differences. We didn't say "hey, lets ask what the TCs want and then lets seek the exact opposite". What we sought was our freedom after centuries of oppression and safety for us as people and to preserve our language, religion and culture in a region where we are surrounded by Muslims and people who do not share our ideals. Most Cypriots at that time believed that those aims would be best served with enosis and that was not an unreasonable assumption for those times.

a "like" button, i would have pushed.

[erolz66]

These meaningless questions (matter already dealt with*) are desperate diversionary tactics.

Of course these questions are meaningless to you because that is what you do - deny, ignore or distract from the truth when it suits your needs to do so. It is what you always do.

Mallinson did write that the document was for the policy committee - you know it, I know it and I have shown it beyond any possible doubt that he wrote which is WHY it is now meaningless to you - because the TRUTH is meaningless to you when it does not suit your propaganda needs. It is what you always do and have always done.

You accused me of lying based on the you claiming that I had not shown were Mallinson wrote that the document was for the policy committee, when in fact I had shown it multiple times as a link and as a screen grab both before and after you made the accusation that I was lying based on this failure to show where he wrote this. Of course this is now meaningless to you because the TRUTH is meaningless to you when it does not suit your propaganda needs

You did claim the document was for the MOD when Mallinson wrote it was for the policy committee. Of course this is meaningless to you because the TRUTH is meaningless to you when it does not suit you propaganda needs.

Thank you once more for just showing yet again so very clearly the very behaviour that I sought to highlight all those posts ago. The truth is simply irrelevant and meaningless to you when it does not meet your needs. This is what you do - ignore, deny or distract from absolute objective truth any time such truth does not suit your needs. It is what you have always done.

(*You're ignoring my pointing out ....

I am not ignoring it at all. I am saying clearly and directly that I will not explain this discrepancy you have seized on as part of your standard distraction techniques unless you answer my simple three questions first, or unless you publicly pledge to answer them if I answer you first. But we know you will not , indeed can not do either of these things dont we. We know this and we know why dont we.

[GreekIslandGirl]

... because that is what you do - deny, ignore or distract from the truth when it suits your needs to do so. It is what you always do.

Where are those quotes, erolz?

I am not ignoring it at all.

Where are those quotes, erolz?