Cyprus-Forum.com

by **GreekIslandGirl** » Thu Nov 12, 2015 11:42 pm

erolz66 wrote:
GreekIslandGirl wrote: WHERE are the quotes, straw man?

Already given multiple times.

NOT EVEN ONCE!

Strawman, rephrasing your own many mistakes is not the only matter here.

by **GreekIslandGirl** » Thu Nov 12, 2015 11:49 pm

insan wrote:
Actually they achieved the first step of what they had struggled for; while pushing TCs out of the government and keeping them in a neverending limbo...

Insan, that is soooo wrong. You obviously don't know that the Turk-Tcs walked out December 1963 and these aims by HMG were "submitted" the spring of 1964 - probably in response to that TC aggressive/disruptive act.
Then, Turkey invaded/bombarded Cyprus in the summer of 1964, probably in response to these documented British aims.
Seems to me, the Brits/Americans didn't manage to soothe Turkey's warmongering instincts. Turkey went for the kill in 1964 and was only stopped from a full invasion, by ........ whom?

Some pieces of the 1963-1964 puzzle are coming together.

by **erolz66** » Fri Nov 13, 2015 12:26 am

GreekIslandGirl wrote:
insan wrote:
Actually they achieved the first step of what they had struggled for; while pushing TCs out of the government and keeping them in a neverending limbo...

Insan, that is soooo wrong. You obviously don't know that the Turk-Tcs walked out December 1963 and these aims by HMG were "submitted" the spring of 1964 - probably in response to that TC aggressive/disruptive act.
Then, Turkey invaded/bombarded Cyprus in the summer of 1964, probably in response to these documented British aims.
Seems to me, the Brits/Americans didn't manage to soothe Turkey's warmongering instincts. Turkey went for the kill in 1964 and was only stopped from a full invasion, by ........ whom?

Some pieces of the 1963-1964 puzzle are coming together.

LOL. You are so funny.

Turkey launching air strikes against Cyprus in August 64 was probably because of the the British aims laid out in a secret cabinet level document from 4 months earlier. There was me thinking that Grivas launching a major attack against Kokkina, in defiance of the UN who were seeking to negotiate a local cease-fire there, had something to do with. Well now I have been set straight I guess by the sage and oracle that is GiG (or is that sage and onion ?). LOL

Still kind of refreshing to see you move away from attempts at blatant distortion to pure fantasy - they say a change is as good as a rest.

by **GreekIslandGirl** » Fri Nov 13, 2015 1:03 am

erolz66 wrote:Still kind of refreshing to see you move away from attempts at blatant distortion to pure fantasy - they say a change is as good as a rest.

GreekIslandGirl wrote:
GreekIslandGirl wrote:
GreekIslandGirl wrote:
erolz66 wrote:
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:

erolz66 wrote: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?

by **erolz66** » Fri Nov 13, 2015 1:14 am

GreekIslandGirl wrote: WHERE are the quotes for which you claim the above?

Yawn

You said the document was for the MoD - you can find the quote yourself. Mallison wrote that it was for the policy committee. So who is right GiG and who is wrong ? You or Mallinson ?

Yawn

by **GreekIslandGirl** » Fri Nov 13, 2015 1:25 am

erolz66 wrote: you can find the quote yourself.

But I can't because you lied!

by **erolz66** » Fri Nov 13, 2015 1:28 am

GreekIslandGirl wrote:
erolz66 wrote: you can find the quote yourself.

But I can't because you lied!

You can not find where you said the document was for the MoD ? Ok I will help you out and give you a clue. Try looking in the post where you said the document was for the MoD.

by **GreekIslandGirl** » Fri Nov 13, 2015 1:53 am

erolz66 wrote:
You on the other hand claimed it was written for the Ministry of Defence

Where's the quote, strawman?

by **erolz66** » Fri Nov 13, 2015 2:10 am

GreekIslandGirl wrote:
erolz66 wrote:
You on the other hand claimed it was written for the Ministry of Defence

Where's the quote, strawman?

Changed your post I see

You said on page 13 of this thread second post from the bottom

GreekIslandGirl wrote:A paper prepared for the Ministry of Defence!

So is this what the pages and pages of bold text and large size text and coloured text has been all about ? That you are disputing the document was written ? What are you suggesting here? That it was transmitted to its intended recipients (which were, as Mallinson says, the policy committee and not the MoD as your distortion above tries to make out) by telepathy ? Semaphore maybe ? Morse code ? Is that really what all these pages and pages of your screaming and shouting 'where is the quote' is all about ? The word 'written' ? You said it was for the MoD - you had a need to create a false impression that the MoD and not the policy committee were the intended recipients despite the actual truth. I said you said it was written for the MoD and this then is the basis for your pages and pages of screaming and shouting like a petulant child ? So what was I trying to distort then ? What was my objective ? To make out it was written for these intended recipients (policy committee) , when in actual fact it was what ? Spray painted on the inside of their homes ? Maybe you would like to explain to me how you prepare a document for someone without writing the document.

I think it is clear who, out of the two of us, is in 'distraction' game here