Cyprus-Forum.com

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

The different concepts you spout, show that the subject really is way above your level of understanding !

What is it you find so difficult to understand about TERRORISM being primarily directed at civilian targets, the softer the better, and the other forms of warfare are at the military level.

Hezbollah, that you so readily condemn, is far more fitting the definition of a military force by your own description, than a terrorist group as their retaliation against their foe is overt. They do not set off bombs in European countries for a start! They fight a war, they do not target civilians. The same cannot be said for Hamas; but they do match what you say about a force that lacks the weapons to defeat an occupying force but will use ALL means available to retaliate ..... as unpleasant those actions may be in our eyes.

BTW: The British did not occupy Cyprus by force ..... they rented it off the Turks. Then they annexed it when the Turks decided to side with Germany in the First World War. I normally would not comment on the subject and apart from that ..... I wont!

[Robin Hood]

you might as well because even the daily mail is better than all of your sources.

You are a low information reader. One that looks for sources which agree with your misguided world view.

Quite the contrary, to prove that what I think is true, I look for sources that say that what I understand is not correct and guess what, the most frequent sources that oppose my views are the MSM ....... just like events in the US have disclosed over the last week or so, the fake/false news emanates mostly from the MSM and more obvious loony fringe sites!

Recent events in the US indicates that it is the sources I use that are far nearer the truth than ANY of the MSM rags you base your beliefs on. You should try watching RT ..... it is far more informative than CNN, Fox, SKY, BBC etc. and they are having a field day with all the 'Putin/Russia were behind everything' paranoia that the US/UK MSM is spewing out ..... it is a good evenings entertainment.

But of course myself and others on the Forum don't have access to Prime Ministers, senior intelligence sources, politicians and top military personnel, that you do and of course you can't disclose your sources and breach their confidence ......... or they would have to kill you!

[Paphitis]

You haven't proved anything, you just look for sources that agree with your narrative.

Because if for instance you had an ounce of credibility, you would actually agree with many of the Coalitions policies and not look for opportunities to discredit the Coalition and its principle leader (USA) at every opportunity which not only encompasses the political but also the financial sectors and also you adopt every ludicrous theory which endeavors to discredit the USA such as subscribing to far out theories such as SEP11 being an American false Flag, or the Americans staging the moon landing as it was a hoax and on and on you go.

At the same time, you seem to justify criminal elements in Russia, of which Pootin is a leading force within the Russian Oligarchy and criminal underground. just one example, you congratulated Pootin for being frugal with public money but let's be frank here. Is he more frugal than Obama or any of our Western leaders? How can he be.

How did he amass a private wealth exceeding 70 Billion? Where did that money come from? He was on the public payroll as a KGB spy and then in politics. Some sources estimate his Net Worth as 200 Billion.

How come Obama, Turnbull, Cameron or Theresa may are not that wealthy? They are well off sure, but how did they not accrue so much wealth?

But you will no doubt continue to tell us that Pootin is great whilst Obama, Theresa may, Cameron, and Turnbull are evil.

Well sorry, but only in a parallel universe maybe.

[Paphitis]

I'm sorry but your level of understanding is not quite there but you are not the only one. the vast majority of people will agree with your thinking that there is a difference between terrorism, freedom fighters, and Guerillas etc. fact is, there isn't. There is a narrative fed to the public.

But what they teach in Military Academies is far more realistic and actually strive to teach military personnel of all the dilemmas and complexities.

Terrorists target soft targets because that is pretty much their ONLY option. They can't engage the Coalition for instance in a war of attrition in the conventional sense. They lay mines, and improvised explosive devices, they can't engage in a real fire fight other than sporadic ambushes where their escape is assured because they would lose if they did. They also conduct suicide missions. Missions which often target civilians in market places. They also do it in Western Countries as a means of Psychological Warfare and as an attempt to break down our way of life and to bring attention to themselves. No different to a Russian Aircraft dropping cluster bombs on a hospital.

There is no moral high ground I am afraid. You can't tell me that the British had the moral high ground against EOKA or the IRA just because they killed civilians or attacked soft targets. The British killed many civilians in Cyprus too.

It's a very harsh thing, but the reality is, there is no difference between Al Qaeda, ISIL to the IRA and EOKA or the many hundreds of other militant groups world wide. The only difference being the justifications, and the motivations from organisation to organisation.

But that is not what the Government will feed you through the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph.

My Mum was in her back yard playing when 2 EOKA hitmen came through. The motioned for her to go inside to her Mum (my Grand mother). They were going next door where a GC lived and who worked as a Police officer for the British. He was killed point blank execution style and all the neighbors came out onto the street but along came this young female pushing a pram with a baby inside. The hitmen came out, put their weapons in the pram as the young lass walked off, and the 2 hitmen disappeared into the crowd before the British came. No one dared say a word because if EOKA found out, they would be next.

They did this to instill fear into people, and ensure 100% compliance with their movement and to send a message not just to the British but to all Greek Cypriots too. And it was effective! Very effective.

Was the above wrong? Many will say yes, but many would say no. Depends on which side of the fence.

There is NO higher ground, not even among countries, as they too will harp on about Terrorist Groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIL and a few others (and rightfully so) but at the same time willing to support General Pinochet in Chile or send money over to Sinn Fein (which was just a cover to allow for donations) to fund IRA. There are many terrorist groups even countries will fund and that isn't anything new or restricted only to Gulf States like Saudi Arabia.

Get it?

[miltiades]

" By 2008, 1,121 suicide bombers had carried out attacks in Iraq, killing on a massive scale. With the exception of Sri Lanka, where the Tamil Tigers used the tactic, suicide bombing has become an almost exclusively Islamic phenomenon. Whether religiously observant or driven by other motives, the bombers have been Muslims, regardless of their country of origin. Even Muslims raised and educated in non-Muslim countries (like Britain's 7/7 bombers) and exposed to cultures without overt jihadi propaganda have put on explosive belts and gone to their deaths in order to kill nonbelievers. Apart from their Islamic roots, these terrorists display a wide range of characteristics. Many have been young men, some of whom were mentally disabled, while others were very bright, some uneducated, others university graduates; a growing number are women, mostly young, some old, some virgins, others pregnant or mothers. Many have belonged to terrorist groups such as Hamas and have been indoctrinated in Islamist thought, anti-Semitism, or general hatred of the West. Others have been volunteers seeking to expiate sins or retrieve the honor of their families."

This thread should be titled "The Old Plagiarist exposed once again"since he habitually presents the work of 'Journalists' in such a manner as would convince the reader that they are his own work/thoughts etc.

In THIS particular case, he has dragged out an article which (I believe) is a number of years old and is part of a very in depth and interesting article written by a chap quite well known to me, (Denis MacEoin) in which the whole subject of 'Suicide Bombings' and their origins is perused.

It is quite shameful that such behaviour is tolerated and the exposure of it is the duty of ANY member to report it to others who may be influenced by it, more so in the offender's case, since he is in the habit of viciously attacking the views of others (if they are at variance to his own) and is seemingly incapable of contributing any counter to an issue which displeases him, without resorting to filth, insult and abuse.

I personally have tolerated his vile insults for some time (out of deference to his age) BUT, such blatant 'Plagiarism' should NOT be allowed to escape the notice of our members, particularly since the 'Complete Article' (as written, presented and published some time ago) by 'Denis MacEoin' is worth reading and certainly does not bolster the opinions of "You Know Who".

As they say, once a pervert always a pervert. Do learn the difference between plagiarism and quotes you stupid bastard. Now, let me make your day. Fuck off!!

[miltiades]

It's a very harsh thing, but the reality is, there is no difference between Al Qaeda, ISIL to the IRA and EOKA or the many hundreds of other militant groups world wide. The only difference being the justifications, and the motivations from organisation to organisation.

Paphitis stop making a fucking fool of your self for FS. Your statement above is further proof if one was needed of your total luck of logical thinking,. How the fuck can you make such diabolical analogies.

" ISIS claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing in Pakistan that killed at least 70 people and wounded more than a hundred on Monday in an attack on mourners gathered at a hospital in Quetta, the group's Amaq news agency reported.

"A martyr from the ISIS detonated his explosive belt at a gathering of justice ministry employees and Pakistani policemen in the city of Quetta," Amaq said.

The Pakistani Taliban faction Jamaat-ur-Ahrar has also claimed responsibility for the attack."

Did any of those you mentioned carry out such sadistic attacks ? Grow up will you, you have become a fucking joke.

[Robin Hood]

I'm sorry but your level of understanding is not quite there but you are not the only one. the vast majority of people will agree with your thinking that there is a difference between terrorism, freedom fighters, and Guerillas etc. fact is, there isn't. There is a narrative fed to the public.

No .... it comes down to common sense. Terrorism is a fairly modern phenomenon ..... I doubt it was even mentioned when you were in a Military Accademy!

But what they teach in Military Academies is far more realistic and actually strive to teach military personnel of all the dilemmas and complexities.

Military academy is in context the western equivalent of a Madrassa. Quite simply it imparts what those that command need you to understand. I am afraid there is no option to have your own opinion. So looked at in practical terms they are similar but diametrically opposed in the philosophy. (My apologies for offending any ex-military academy graduates)

Terrorists target soft targets because that is pretty much their ONLY option. They can't engage the Coalition for instance in a war of attrition in the conventional sense. They lay mines, and improvised explosive devices, they can't engage in a real fire fight other than sporadic ambushes where their escape is assured because they would lose if they did. They also conduct suicide missions. Missions which often target civilians in market places. They also do it in Western Countries as a means of Psychological Warfare and as an attempt to break down our way of life and to bring attention to themselves. No different to a Russian Aircraft dropping cluster bombs on a hospital.

Terrorist target civilians. I don't think any military target could be regarded as soft. And Russian aircraft do not drop cluster bombs on hospitals .......... you are getting confused with Yemen !

There is no moral high ground I am afraid. You can't tell me that the British had the moral high ground against EOKA or the IRA just because they killed civilians or attacked soft targets. The British killed many civilians in Cyprus too.

Of course I agree ..... I have no illusions about my country's record over the decades. Yes .... I suppose EOKA and the IRA could be regarded at least in part, to be terrorists, as they both also targeted civilians.

It's a very harsh thing, but the reality is, there is no difference between Al Qaeda, ISIL to the IRA and EOKA or the many hundreds of other militant groups world wide. The only difference being the justifications, and the motivations from organisation to organisation.

But there is a difference ..... the first two are fighting a war against western backed forces but have a terrorist arm ....... the other two were a long time ago and terrorism as such had not been identified.

But that is not what the Government will feed you through the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph.

I have little faith in anything 'The Government' feeds me through a controlled propaganda machine ...... know as the MSM. Far better to look for sources that question those 'official' stories.

My Mum was in her back yard playing when 2 EOKA hitmen came through. The motioned for her to go inside to her Mum (my Grand mother). They were going next door where a GC lived and who worked as a Police officer for the British. He was killed point blank execution style and all the neighbors came out onto the street but along came this young female pushing a pram with a baby inside. The hitmen came out, put their weapons in the pram as the young lass walked off, and the 2 hitmen disappeared into the crowd before the British came. No one dared say a word because if EOKA found out, they would be next.

A similar thing happened to a Cypriot friends older cousin, although he was not killed. He was tied to the hood of a Land Rover and driven along a road that the British thought had been mined. They were convinced he knew where it was but he didn't ...... and there was no mine!

They did this to instill fear into people, and ensure 100% compliance with their movement and to send a message not just to the British but to all Greek Cypriots too. And it was effective! Very effective.

Yes it was terrorism but at that time not really recognised as something different from irregular warfare.

Was the above wrong? Many will say yes, but many would say no. Depends on which side of the fence.

IMO: Wrong ...... whichever side you are on. Civilians should never be deliberately targeted or put in danger. But .... try telling that to YOUR terrorists in Syria!

There is NO higher ground, not even among countries, as they too will harp on about Terrorist Groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIL and a few others (and rightfully so) but at the same time willing to support General Pinochet in Chile or send money over to Sinn Fein (which was just a cover to allow for donations) to fund IRA. There are many terrorist groups even countries will fund and that isn't anything new or restricted only to Gulf States like Saudi Arabia.

And of course, when it suits their plans certain countries will arm and support terrorists with total disregard for the effect on the civilian population ....... like recent events in Aleppo.

Get it?

More to the point ..... have you ?

[Paphitis]

It's a very harsh thing, but the reality is, there is no difference between Al Qaeda, ISIL to the IRA and EOKA or the many hundreds of other militant groups world wide. The only difference being the justifications, and the motivations from organisation to organisation.

Paphitis stop making a fucking fool of your self for FS. Your statement above is further proof if one was needed of your total luck of logical thinking,. How the fuck can you make such diabolical analogies.

" ISIS claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing in Pakistan that killed at least 70 people and wounded more than a hundred on Monday in an attack on mourners gathered at a hospital in Quetta, the group's Amaq news agency reported.

"A martyr from the ISIS detonated his explosive belt at a gathering of justice ministry employees and Pakistani policemen in the city of Quetta," Amaq said.

The Pakistani Taliban faction Jamaat-ur-Ahrar has also claimed responsibility for the attack."

Did any of those you mentioned carry out such sadistic attacks ? Grow up will you, you have become a fucking joke.

You do not even have a basic understanding of that which is conveyed.

I am talking about the definitions, not whether YOU or anyone in the West finds such actions as abhorrent, which is a completely separate issue altogether.

Fact of the matter is this, ISIL are waging a war whether you deem that right or wrong is beside the point. There are people in this world who do not deem their actions unjustifiable, much like there are Cypriots who would justify an EOKA action in the 50s even against civilians, and jkust like there are Irish who would justify an IRA attack against British civilians in the London tube as abhorrent as that may be as well.

They all have one thing in common. They will target civilians, even their own people, and they do it to achieve strong objectives. They engage in these kind of tactics because it is where they will achieve the most amount of success, and because it is very difficult to counter and defend against.

it's the same as any war. Civilians are killed. That is 100% At times, civilians are even deliberately targeted as we all saw Russia and the Regime do in Aleppo. They deliberately obliterated civilians areas and hospitals. That is a War Crime.

The same tactics are employed in places like Syria and Iraq. They employ IED, and conduct ambushes against their enemy. They do not have the ability to fight against a modern conventional army.

My suggestion to you is to pay little attention to any media outlet and for you to start using your brain. The media is to feed and instill a particular narrative, and for countries to control that narrative. it is a well known tactic for Governments to instill a good amount of fear into the populace. even when it isn't warranted, to prepare the population for a war whether that be in Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria.

The threat levels however for terrorism are indeed high. no one is misleading in that.

[Paphitis]

I'm sorry but your level of understanding is not quite there but you are not the only one. the vast majority of people will agree with your thinking that there is a difference between terrorism, freedom fighters, and Guerillas etc. fact is, there isn't. There is a narrative fed to the public.

No .... it comes down to common sense. Terrorism is a fairly modern phenomenon ..... I doubt it was even mentioned when you were in a Military Accademy!

But what they teach in Military Academies is far more realistic and actually strive to teach military personnel of all the dilemmas and complexities.

Military academy is in context the western equivalent of a Madrassa. Quite simply it imparts what those that command need you to understand. I am afraid there is no option to have your own opinion. So looked at in practical terms they are similar but diametrically opposed in the philosophy. (My apologies for offending any ex-military academy graduates)

Terrorists target soft targets because that is pretty much their ONLY option. They can't engage the Coalition for instance in a war of attrition in the conventional sense. They lay mines, and improvised explosive devices, they can't engage in a real fire fight other than sporadic ambushes where their escape is assured because they would lose if they did. They also conduct suicide missions. Missions which often target civilians in market places. They also do it in Western Countries as a means of Psychological Warfare and as an attempt to break down our way of life and to bring attention to themselves. No different to a Russian Aircraft dropping cluster bombs on a hospital.

Terrorist target civilians. I don't think any military target could be regarded as soft. And Russian aircraft do not drop cluster bombs on hospitals .......... you are getting confused with Yemen !

There is no moral high ground I am afraid. You can't tell me that the British had the moral high ground against EOKA or the IRA just because they killed civilians or attacked soft targets. The British killed many civilians in Cyprus too.

Of course I agree ..... I have no illusions about my country's record over the decades. Yes .... I suppose EOKA and the IRA could be regarded at least in part, to be terrorists, as they both also targeted civilians.

It's a very harsh thing, but the reality is, there is no difference between Al Qaeda, ISIL to the IRA and EOKA or the many hundreds of other militant groups world wide. The only difference being the justifications, and the motivations from organisation to organisation.

But there is a difference ..... the first two are fighting a war against western backed forces but have a terrorist arm ....... the other two were a long time ago and terrorism as such had not been identified.

But that is not what the Government will feed you through the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph.

I have little faith in anything 'The Government' feeds me through a controlled propaganda machine ...... know as the MSM. Far better to look for sources that question those 'official' stories.

My Mum was in her back yard playing when 2 EOKA hitmen came through. The motioned for her to go inside to her Mum (my Grand mother). They were going next door where a GC lived and who worked as a Police officer for the British. He was killed point blank execution style and all the neighbors came out onto the street but along came this young female pushing a pram with a baby inside. The hitmen came out, put their weapons in the pram as the young lass walked off, and the 2 hitmen disappeared into the crowd before the British came. No one dared say a word because if EOKA found out, they would be next.

A similar thing happened to a Cypriot friends older cousin, although he was not killed. He was tied to the hood of a Land Rover and driven along a road that the British thought had been mined. They were convinced he knew where it was but he didn't ...... and there was no mine!

They did this to instill fear into people, and ensure 100% compliance with their movement and to send a message not just to the British but to all Greek Cypriots too. And it was effective! Very effective.

Yes it was terrorism but at that time not really recognised as something different from irregular warfare.

Was the above wrong? Many will say yes, but many would say no. Depends on which side of the fence.

IMO: Wrong ...... whichever side you are on. Civilians should never be deliberately targeted or put in danger. But .... try telling that to YOUR terrorists in Syria!

There is NO higher ground, not even among countries, as they too will harp on about Terrorist Groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIL and a few others (and rightfully so) but at the same time willing to support General Pinochet in Chile or send money over to Sinn Fein (which was just a cover to allow for donations) to fund IRA. There are many terrorist groups even countries will fund and that isn't anything new or restricted only to Gulf States like Saudi Arabia.

And of course, when it suits their plans certain countries will arm and support terrorists with total disregard for the effect on the civilian population ....... like recent events in Aleppo.

Get it?

More to the point ..... have you ?

Terrorism is not a modern phenomenon. terrorism has existed for at least 2 centuries. There were even "terrorist" groups in Australia during early settlement - Eureka Stockade and the Ned Kelly gang which use to blow up Post offices, banks, Railway Stations and kill lovely British Families and soldiers.

These were soft targets, and yes, Aleppo is a soft target. Which is why Coalition use ground troops to liberate Mosul and avoid Air Strikes on heavily populated areas there.

There is due care and process with very strict Rules of Engagement to ensure our forces on not on the wrong side of the Geneva Convention for one, but to also not attract turn the Sunnis living there against us and straight in the arms of ISIL as supporters and new conscripts. Ergo, there is at least an attempt to suffocate and disrupt their support and recruiting which is the only means to comprehensively defeat this organisation, something pootin and the regime don't care about.

Question: Which country would you prefer? Iraq or Syria?

Iraq has a FUTURE. SYRIA doesn't!

[miltiades]

Here is a ,,,synonymous analogy according to your thinking.
A young lad walks into a sweet shop and fancies a bar of chocolate but as he has no money to pay for it he ....steals it !!!
By all accounts he is a thief and he committed a criminal offence, on the other side of the road a man walks into a bank and ....robs it of one million pounds, also a thief who committed a crime. So much for your analogy concerning EOKA, IRA and ISIS.
Time to give your logic a service !!