GreekIslandGirl wrote:Meanwhile, trying to ignore blatant derailing tactics and continue with extracts from the document of interest.
14. (a) If Mr. Tuomioja can be relied upon to keep what passes in the interview confidential he should be informed, in strict confidence, of the British Government's view on the type of solution (enosis or Greek Cypriot dominated unitary state) which offers the best hope of meeting the real interests of all the parties most directly concerned.
Classic straw man. Who is arguing that the document does not show that at that point in time 'the British' were of the view that enosis or Greek Cypriot dominated unitary state offered the best hope of meeting the real interests of all parties ? No one is arguing this. I am not arguing this because unlike you I do not (habitually, persistently, continuously, year after year) sacrifice and murder truth to suit my needs.
However the above is not what you presented the document as showing all those pages ago. What you tried to make out it showed all those pages ago and could only do so by distorting truth were things like
Any efforts at a united front by Cypriots were thwarted by the external self-interested Turk-TCs
and
They had made a mistake ever involving the external Turk-TCs in the 1960 constitution.
and
that it was Official British policy and the official advise of 'the British' to the RoC that TC should be given financial and other help to resettle outside of Cyprus.
and
we do now have some released British views on who was responsible for tearing up Cyprus, don't we?
and
Finally, the British admitted, the root to a unitary state was to remove 'those Turkish Cypriots'!
and
The British knew what a nasty piece of work was Turkey ....
and on and on and on.
So to take one example, the original one from all those pages back, the truth is this document does NOT show that it was an official policy or aim of 'the British' in 1964 to give TC financial and other help to resettle them outside of Cyprus and advise the RoC government to do so. The truth is that the document shows this was in fact a suggestion of the then high commissioner - nothing more and nothing less - though nothing more did not suit your needs. The only way that you could try and present it as being official policy or an official aim of 'the British' government was to distort the TRUTH of what the document shows, by distorting the truth of who the document attributed the part you quoted to, distorting what that persons role was (with regard to making policy and setting government aims), distorting for whom the document was created for - who the intended recipient of it was - and on and on and on.
This is what you do. This is what you have always done.