The Turkish intervention 1974

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
09/10/2009 23:31

http://www.rivierahotel-northcyprus.com/cyprus_history/Historical14.htm



This is what really happened,

Paul.

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 02:09

2of 2 and people on here complain that there is not enough input on Cyprus.Lets have this one bumped and stuck.More people need to know the truth about 74.My daughter who has worked in the South for the last five years has been brain washed by the gcs into thinking that crossing the border to the "dark side" means instant death.Long live HullK.R.

Paul.

AlexF065


Joined: 07/09/2009
Posts: 271

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 03:12

It is good you have posted this but I and other have called the so called "invasion " a Humaniterian rescue many a time to no avail

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 06:23

The article is correct except it was the Greeks who called the dividing line the Atilla Line.

ismet

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 09:50

The article is 'correct' ?!



It omits the fact that :



1/ The CIA and Kissinger were playing off the Greek Junta and the Turks



2/ The USA had agreed a plan with TR about how much of Cyprus they would be 'allowed' to take- BEFORE the Greek Junta inspired coup



3/ Ecevit asked Britain to allow TR to launch it's invasion via the SBA - to 'save lives' - Britain refused.



4/ The Royal Navy could have prevented the TR invasion by blockading, but Callaghan ( the then Foreign Secretary ) was 'told' by the US not to stand in the way.



Anyone who thinks this was a simple TR reaction to the coup...is naive.. this was planned by TR along time ahead.. they were just waiting for 'an excuse'



The Aug 14 push - was a clear breach of negotiating protocol...



The UN were the peace-keepers in Cyprus - agreed by TR and GR.. neither nation had a 'right' to 'intervene'

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 10:21

Marky,

"Correct" in my dictionary means that it is true but it does not mean that it is complete or exhaustive.

The so called UN Peace Keeping force was nothing more than observers with no authority to use force except when they are directly attacked. So whenever the GCs launched an attack on TCs, they just observed and reported but no action to keep the peace.

The UN Peace Keeping force did not replace the rights of the guarantor powers to upheld the constitution. Indeed the UN Peace Keepers had no authority to oversee the constitution.

Did the Americans encourage the generals in Greece to take over power and thus precipitate the action of Turkey? May be, not sure but what is certain is that the Americans would not do such a thing without consulting their British mentors.

If the British navy tried to blockade Cyprus and try to prevent the Turkish intervention, would they be successful against a determined Turkish army with all the resources nearby? Indeed, Britain as a

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 10:23

guarantor power, trying to prevent another guarantor power wanting to act on her responsibilities would not look good in the international arena.

ismet

http://www.elkocyprus.com

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 10:34

RE msg 5, 6xm: Most of your remarks are a repeat from many repeats in the past 5-6 years. Yawn.

As an advisor to the UN, Kissinger, the Greek, British and Turkish foreign ministers - and some minor authorities - you show again your deep knowledge and insight of what *really* happened (according to MarkyMark, 6xm etc etc)...

I'm not asking too much, am I, when I invite you to give your sources - for a change - for all the claims in your argumentation?

dobbo



Joined: 13/06/2007
Posts: 72

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 11:09

I can not see the point in blaming each other side for what has happened in the past, in my opinion the country was not set up right in the first place, doomed to fail. I believe if you actually asked the Cypriots which way they want there country governed would be a good place to start.

Arthur


Joined: 04/11/2008
Posts: 687

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 11:21

Mark, I normally take most things you say on board [particularly re satellite TV], but I think Ismet is in a far better position to give an informative [and balanced] view.



I'm just glad we haven't got the hellenic ramblings of PP, Suzanne and their multiple aliases.

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 12:06

Re-mess 3 i never said it was an invasion i called it an intervention,

Paul.

Magbs


Joined: 26/02/2009
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 15:00

"Clerides asked for a recess of thirty-six to forty-eight hours to consult with the government in Nicosia and with Makarios in London. His request was refused, and early on August 14 the second phase of the Turkish intervention began."



Any ideas why was the rush?

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 15:10

Paul, no metter how many times you post these 'gems' you are always going to get these responses. They did this or they did that, they started this they started that, he said this or he said that. Most of us know who started it and who finshed it.



Mark, who really cares that 'The Aug 14 push - was a clear breach of negotiating protocol' or that 'The Royal Navy could have prevented the TR invasion by blockading, but Callaghan ( the then Foreign Secretary ) was 'told' by the US not to stand in the way'. We can't do nothing about it now.



What happens in the next few months should be uppermost in our thoughts.

kibrissibel


Joined: 18/02/2008
Posts: 562

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 15:16

MMMMMMMMMM - message 5 - "Anyone who thinks this was a simple TR reaction to the coup...is naive.. this was planned by TR along time ahead.. they were just waiting for 'an excuse' "



Do you mean an an 'excuse' such as the Akritas plan? An 'excuse' such as the massacre and genocide of Turkish Cypriots ongoing since 1963 and of course prior to? An 'excuse' such as no other guarantor power wanted to act? Hmmmmmmmmmm?

MartinM


Joined: 03/10/2009
Posts: 166

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 15:49

There is a great deal of truth in what M6 has to say and also a great deal of truth in what Elko2 has to say and I'm not sure we will ever learn the real truth. Suffice it to say it happened. My personal beliefs and those of everybody else will not be taken into account during the present "negotiations" between the two Presidents of Cyprus.



They will be taken into account when we vote in the next referendum. (I assume that there will be one, as there was in 2004, Elko2 any comment here most welcome). And so as No1 points out, what happens in the next few months should be more relevant.



What would be a "Fair" settlement? Is it possible ? I thought Annan V was fair. Why did the GC's believe otherwise?



Any views most welcome.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 16:00

I think the bottom line is trust. Neither party trust's each other.

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 17:05

The next presidential elections in TRNC is in April 2010. It will be a contest between Talat and Eroglu.

Talat had stated previously that he may not stand for president again unless there is a solution to the Cyprus Problem but now it is certain that nothing will come out of these talks-at least not by April 2010. It is also almost certain that he will stand for presidency and his only chance is to bolster hope for a settlement after the elections. Will Christofias help him or hinder him in these elections? Way back Denktash hindered Clerides openly and helped Papadop to win. One Mr. No wanted the other Mr. No to win. You may think that Christofias will make statements to help Talat. I don't think so. He will put out statements to hinder him because he would like Eroglu to be elected in the hope that he will get up and walk away from the negotiations. All the GCs are interested in is not a solution but to be able to put the blame on TCs. To be fair, the overwhelming majority of TCs do not

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 17:10

want a united Cyprus but hope to put the blame on the GCs in the hope of a better deal such as the Taiwan model i.e. no official recognition but free trade, communictaions etc.

The trouble is that at every stage both GCs and TCs think that the time is on their side. The TCs now attach great importance to the rising star of Turkey in international politics and her efforts to make Turkey an energy hub.

My prediction is that even Erdogan will treat Talat lukewarm and open the way for a victory for Eroglu but he will keep him sitting tight at the table. Unlike Denktash, he can be the "yes man" and do as he is told. We will see.

ismet

http://www.elkocyprus.com

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 17:13

RE msg 11, newlad: (...) Re-mess 3 i never said it was an invasion i called it an intervention, (...)

=> Just for the record (again): You can't have an intervention or Peace Operation (on an island) without an invasion.

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 17:19

Come on Hans,of course it was a Peace Operation, didn't we divide Cyprus into two peaces?

ismet

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 17:21

What peaches, Ismet?

Biker



Joined: 11/01/2008
Posts: 396

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 17:21

MMMMMMMMMM - message 5 - "Anyone who thinks this was a simple TR reaction to the coup...is naive.. this was planned by TR along time ahead.. they were just waiting for 'an excuse' "



What better excuse do you need when the the country you are the quarantor of is being killed from the age of 14 days to 80 year old?

I wonder what the situation would be if the shoe was on the other foot. i.e Turkish army went around killing Greek nationals and Turkey trying a coup to overthrow the government.

Any suggestions welcome



Biker

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 17:57

http://northcyprus.biz/north_cyprus_FeedRedir.asp?FID=9435



Thought this was relevant,

Paul.

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 18:20

Eventually in 1960,the British conceded the independence of Cyprus and left the island,but under the Treaty of Guarantee,Turkey,Greece and Britain were appointed as "Guarantor Powers" to ensure that the newly drawn up Constitution was adhered to,and that Cyprus would be properly and fairly governed.Among other things,the new arrangement provided for the minority Turkish Cypriot population to be given fair representation in Government,the civil service and other government controlled areas.Such as schools hospitals,customs and police.



What ever happened to the treaty of guarantee,

Paul.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 22:21

It is certainly the case that Turkey intervened in 1974 under proper and legal prtocol supportede by the treaty of Guarantee.

Of course the ROC now present the case that the Turkish Army presence has long served its purpose and should leave. It is the case however that the ROC would welcome the opportunity to re-posses the Northern territory. Given the case that the Turkish Army should leave; then the ROC would very likely move upon the North supported by EU.



The Turkish army will most certainly not leave and continue to maintain the peace.

My view is that current talks are now doomed to failure. The UN must grasp the lead and accept that Cyprus is incapaple of finding a suitable solution internally. Turkey, the UN, EU and USA are serious influencers in the region and Cyprus stability is their asspiration.

If civil litigations and failed talks are allowed to purpetuate then the situation could once again become grave and destructive.



The powers must act and act quickly.

Stubs


Joined: 01/07/2008
Posts: 641

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 22:39

Warren



Turkeys intervention as per the treaty of guarantee was to re-establish the consitition of the ROC which they have not done.

Brinsley


Joined: 04/04/2009
Posts: 6858

Message Posted:
10/10/2009 23:49

Ismet



Should Talat decide to run again and be re-elected I give up all hope for TRNC. Rauf Denktash, as old as he is, still has all his 'marbles' working and should he bring himself back into the political arena, I'm sure he would be gratefully received to those who are able to vote!



Richard

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
11/10/2009 01:26

Msg 26.

Yes that is an accepted statement.

However at what point in time post 1974 has the said Constitution been deemed secure.

The Turkish intervention has become one of peace keeping. Peace has certainly prevailed since 1974.

The said constitution is now somewhat inafectual and the de-facto situation must be considered in the urgent and invevitable Island division.

Stubs


Joined: 01/07/2008
Posts: 641

Message Posted:
11/10/2009 01:46

Turkey never tried to re-establish the constitution like they signed up for in the treaty of guarantee instead they wanted a seperate state for the TC community which goes against the 1960 constitution

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
11/10/2009 07:25

Turkey was supposed to restore the constitution and leave according to the treaties of guarantee. Fair enough. For this to be done the Greek Cypriot side had to cooperate which they never did. Even if Turkey took over the control of the whole of Cyprus, this would still not be possible without their cooperation. In the circumstances, the Turkish army is rightfully here to stay and maintain the peace until an alternative solution is found. This has gone on for too long and now almost everybody agree that the Cypriots are not fit to govern Cyprus jointly in a peaceful manner. The trouble is that the GCs do not evaluate a proposed solution according to what they would gain but rather what would the TCs get from it i.e. they are more interested in suppressing the Turkish Cypriot community and eventually get rid of them rather than look at the proposals in the light of what they will get out of it.

Under the circumstances there can be no solution and hence formal partition

ismet

http://www.elkocyprus.com

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
11/10/2009 11:47

Dear Elko



re msg 6/ 30



You and I BOTH know that the UN mandate was a little more strong than that, my friend.. the problem was BOTH sides had extreme factions, with different agendas - neither of which caring a jot for the welfare of Cypriots. As ever, a determined local military force will normally 'put one over on any UN peacekeeping force - as they don't 'play by the rules' ...



>>On 27 December, the Security Council met to consider a complaint by Cyprus charging intervention in its internal affairs and aggression by Turkey. Turkey maintained that Greek Cypriot leaders had tried for more than two years to nullify the rights of the Turkish Cypriot community and denied all charges of aggression.<<



http://www0.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unficyp/background.html



The UK could most defo have stopped the TR Navy.. they had more than enough fire power in the location.



Just like Suez.. the US did NOT 'consult' .. it TOLD the UK what to do... !

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
11/10/2009 11:55

(cont) from 31



Not only should TR not have stayed.. they - along with GR should never have 'come' .. but they both did and it is true to say that some GCs wanted all TCs off island and some TCs wanted Taksim partition - backed by the strength of TR. It is foolish to argue against this point..



You don't seem to think Cypriots could ever run things for themselves.. *I* think they could given support from the EU.



TCs still don't trust GCs and GCs don't trust TR - this is a simplistic analysis ... they need their heads banged together by a VERY though third party..



It is sad to note that 35 years on the TR military are still putting unreasonable restriction on the UN



>>UNFICYP, November 2008—May 2009 .. [re buffer zone] Nevertheless, that generally good cooperation was marred by increased restrictions imposed on the Force by the Turkish forces, which constrained its ability to carry out its mandate and posed significant difficulties for its personnel.<<

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
11/10/2009 12:03

RE msg 8 DC

>>Most of your remarks are a repeat from many repeats in the past 5-6 years. Yawn.





I'm not asking too much, am I, when I invite you to give your sources - for a change - for all the claims in your argumentation? <<



Dear Hans.. if you spent less time yawning, you'd admit that I have ALWAYS quoted my sources - and *you* are 'naughty' to suggest otherwise.



We have spent too long discussing this issue for you to try THAT one on me :o

MUSIN M


Joined: 26/06/2008
Posts: 1352

Message Posted:
11/10/2009 12:58

ismet abi



very well put ,fundamentally the intervention was to save lives mainly turkish and this has been achieved



by turkey and only turkey ,and everyone else should hang their heads in shame ,and stop looking for



excuses .we have said yes before ,it,s the gc,s who continue to say no .



6ms keeps bringing up ,we have the un the eu the us the british and the list goes on and on ,TALK,



action is what we need and we won,t get it WHY ,i,ll leave that too you guys.



musin



long live the kktc

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
11/10/2009 13:08

Dear Musin M



re msg 34



>>fundamentally the intervention was to save lives mainly turkish and this has been achieved <<



I guess you meant Turkish CYPRIOT lives, but forgot to mention how many CYPRIOTS and Turks died or went missing in the 'peace movement'



There was NO excuse for either GR or TR to intervene... that was the UN's mandate...



If the UK / US had been less interested in keeping CY as an aircraft carrier - stirring up Cypriot tensions - this mess would probably never have happened .

MUSIN M


Joined: 26/06/2008
Posts: 1352

Message Posted:
11/10/2009 16:07

6ms

:i guess you meant turkish cypriots lives ,read the post and stop repeating yourself.



you also say that the uk had the fire power to attack the turkish navy,well my question to you as



you seem to be in the know ON WHAT GROUNDS ,should they not of been alongside the turkish.



when they put pen to paper along with greece and turkey in order to stop such events as has



transpired .



so please for me and many others on this board ,WHY and on WHAT GROUNDS could the uk have



attacked the turkish navy ,the floor is yours sir.







musin



long live the kktc

paddywack


Joined: 04/05/2009
Posts: 959

Message Posted:
12/10/2009 00:06

The only mistake in 1974 was the intervention force stopped where it did,it should have carried on and taken the whole island.

horny


Joined: 12/05/2008
Posts: 42

Message Posted:
12/10/2009 08:10

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/cyprus/Davidcarter/UNFICYP.html





if you have the time read this .

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
12/10/2009 10:05

Dear Musin M, re 36



YOU read ! .. You said 'Turkish' - the distinction is important ..



The UK could have prevented the TR invasion - like it had on previous occasions - merely through making it CLEAR to TR that the UN was mandated to keep peace..



You'll note that following the 'intervention of GR and TR that UN resolutions were REPEATEDLY passed asking for the third parties to withdraw from Cyprus.. THAT is the grounds, Musin....



The UN were guarantors... GR and TR accepted this... the UK COULD have stopped the 'peace movement' that resulted in FAR more Cypriots dying in 3 weeks than at any time before - may be all the way back to 1578..

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
12/10/2009 13:39

re msg re 38



Hmm



Sorry, but David's account is one of several respected sources all giving differing reasons for what 'kicked off' the disturbances in Dec 63.



HE is saying it was the GCs.. other non Cypriots clam otherwise.. some say it was a dispute over prostitution..



Also David says the TCs were kicked out of govt



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_dispute#Constitutional_breakdown_and_intercommunal_talks.2C_1960-74



This is also heavily contended.



Who knows WHO is 'right'? For SURE TMT were more than happy to see a step closer to their aim of division

( Taksim) and extremist GCs thought this gave them a green light to govern without the constant 'veto's by the TC contingent.

ROBnJO


Joined: 30/06/2008
Posts: 1289

Message Posted:
12/10/2009 14:05

mark msg 31



Do you really think the British Navy would ever have countenanced a 'face off' or direct battle with the Turkish Armed Forces a few miles off the Turkish coast with or without UN or NATO backing ( which was always a no-no!)???



Don't be silly!

MartinM


Joined: 03/10/2009
Posts: 166

Message Posted:
12/10/2009 14:07

Sorry 6m . When I think you are right I do say so. But when I think you are wrong I will say so as well.



I do believe Foreign Minister Callaghan strongly suggested to Bulent Ecevit that it would not be a good idea to invade Cyprus, citing the British Air Bases and the presence of phantom jets.In other words he tried hard.



Further, wikipedia is a well dodgy source, but even the reference you gave seems to indicate that there was a fear of continuing by some MP's while others were excluded by force of arms by apparently both TMT and the Greek Cypriots.

MartinM


Joined: 03/10/2009
Posts: 166

Message Posted:
12/10/2009 14:18

PS 1878, not 1578 close but not close enough

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
12/10/2009 15:57

Dear RobnJo



re msg 41



>>Do you really think the British Navy would ever have countenanced a 'face off' or direct battle with the Turkish Armed Forces a few miles off the Turkish coast with or without UN or NATO backing ( which was always a no-no!)???

<<



Ahem.. IF you knew your history.. you'd know it HAD happened previously ... Of course it would have been foolhardy in 74 The UK didn't have US backing - hence the climbdown



re msg 42/43



I'm WELL aware that wiki is as good/bad as the contributors.. but other CAN contribute / dispute 'facts'..



The reference I gave suggests both perspectives and what you have to decide is, was the fear there BEFORE or after the riots of Dec 1963..?



BTW 1578 was NOT a mistake... .. !!! The landing by the British in 1878 was peaceful.. One cannot say the same for the arrival of the Ottomans in 1578...

MUSIN M


Joined: 26/06/2008
Posts: 1352

Message Posted:
12/10/2009 20:17

6ms



you stated in your message 31 that the uk could defo have stopped the turkish as it had enough FIRE power



to do so ,my question to you was on what grounds and on whose authority could the british have attacked ,as



turkey had every right to protect it,s people.



had the british attacked turkey ,in your wise judgement what do you think this would of achieved .



your reply in msg 39 states that the uk could have stopped the turkish through the un mandate ,keep moving the



goal post mark ,that way you will keep a clean sheet ,even though you make very little sense.





musin long live the kktc

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
12/10/2009 20:26

Dear Musin M



re 45



The people were Cypriots.. not turks.. in the same way the Cypriots that speak Greek are no way Greek ...



I'm not moving any goal posts.. the UN were mandated as peace-keepers in 63.. GR and TR agreed to that ... THAT is why they were asked to cease military operations and pull out of Cyprus.



I have covered all you points, Musin .. you just need to pay a little more attention



msg 44 covers the 'role' of the RN ..

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
12/10/2009 21:27

I can completely see the point that Musin makes to mmmmm.



Mark,

You clearly think that the intervention of 1974 was improper and wrong.

Turkey made it very clear in Athens, Geneva, and in Ankara that they would intervene under the terms of guarantee. The British navy had no cause or reason to attack a fellow guarantor. Ther de-facto situation upon the Island had deteriorated sufficiently to warrent an intervention.

The UN were clearly inafectual and loss of life continued to escalate.

Turkey made several clear and precise indications to the Americans , Greeks and to the British proir to their action.

The British were shamefull in their lack of response...too little too late. The Americans made efforts but to no effective avail.



Turkey was right to act and certainly peace has prevailed. UK and USA and indeed the Greek Cypriots should not sulk over spilt milk.

ROBnJO


Joined: 30/06/2008
Posts: 1289

Message Posted:
12/10/2009 22:07

mark



comments from you such as "if you knew your history" do make you out as an illinformed pontificating prat, who has a little knowledge but a lot of preconcieved bullshit.



Give up man, you really don't have a clear grasp of current views.



If you want to really understand the history of Cyprus, DC is your man.

MUSIN M


Joined: 26/06/2008
Posts: 1352

Message Posted:
12/10/2009 22:26

6ms

i have covered all your points .musin, you just need to pay a little more attention.



sorry mate ,i am not asking you for a history lesson of cyprus ,i have lived it and my parents before me and their

parents before them .



my question was simple ...you stated that the uk had enough FIRE power to deal with the turkish army if they wanted

and my question to you was HOW and WHY ,and what this would of achieved .



if you choose not to answer the question directly ,i will understand ,you made a mistake,we all make them.





musin



long live the kktc

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
12/10/2009 22:31

Dear RobnJo



re msg 48



>>comments from you such as "if you knew your history" do make you out as an illinformed pontificating prat, who has a little knowledge but a lot of preconcieved bullshit. <<



No, they mark you out as someone who DOESN'T know his recent history - very simple.. I pointed out your error re the role of the RN in 'persuading' TR to back down.. you'd do better to check it out - 'without throwing your dolls out of the pram' ..



Always happy to indulge in debate.. happy to learn and apologise if I'm wrong..



>>If you want to really understand the history of Cyprus, DC is your man.<<



For SURE - if I want to know pre 20C history.. He'd be right up there.. .

ukturk



Joined: 01/09/2007
Posts: 1974

Message Posted:
13/10/2009 07:45

trust you to start up a hornets nest new lad!!!!!! lol

to me this is quite comicial most perople get bits of info from here and there and then add togther to get their own view!!!!

if you guys want to read a book which is quite unbiased to this topic i suggest get a book called the cyprus conspiracey read it and then make a judgement and not make a second hand judgement on it got to many people doing this and thats where false propaganda comes from!!!!

i do know one thing for sure if i were to ask any of my family or freinds or freinds of friends what they are they will defo answer you TURKISH CYPRIOT!!!!

MartinM


Joined: 03/10/2009
Posts: 166

Message Posted:
13/10/2009 08:42

Sorry for this late response. Actually the Ottomans arrived in 1571 and took Cyprus from the Venetians who took it from the Lusignans who took it from the Byzantines.................... In the 9000years of habitation on Cyprus it would appear that the Cypriots have only managed to govern themselves for 3, i.e. 1960 to 1963. Although the UN may have been mandared as Protectors in 1963 ( Really ?) they actually started "Protecting" in April 1964. They were not as effective as the Turkish Air Force in protecting the Turkish population of Kokkina ( Erenkoy). Nor were the Brits in their bases.



As to wether there was "Fear" pre 63 , I think there was, Intercommunal troubles started as early as 1955, and came to a head in December 1963.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
13/10/2009 12:08

Dear Martin M



re msg 52 - referring to my msg 44



You are QUITE correct.. 1571 - my "bad" .. Now I DID mean 1571 re the last time CY had seen such a scale of death. Weren't those bringing 'peace' from the same place ?!



>>Although the UN may have been mandared as Protectors in 1963 ( Really ?<<

WHAT is that supposed to mean , please ?



>>They were not as effective as the Turkish Air Force in protecting the Turkish population of Kokkina ( Erenkoy). Nor were the Brits in their bases. <<



Yes.. the UN don't use Napalm



re 'fear' - I VERY much doubt Mr Denktash was fearful.. he knew EXACTLY what he was about ..

Rottolover



Joined: 21/06/2009
Posts: 519

Message Posted:
13/10/2009 12:20

As, EXACTLY, did Mr Mousskos...

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
13/10/2009 12:21

Dear Warren re 47



>>You clearly think that the intervention of 1974 was improper and wrong. <<



Strangely, enough at the time I thought it was JUST what the GCs had 'asked for' .. I was 15 then..



I even still thought it when I moved to Cyprus.. I have always sort of favoured the 'underdog'...



BUT..



then you meet the people.. my neighbours lost their 'shirts' and relatives .. They didn't ask the Greeks to 'remove' Makarios.. OK, they weren't screaming from the rooftops of Varosha about the plight of TCs living within the walls of Famagusta, either, but did they deserve to be expelled or die?



This was a mess of UK/ US creation - make NO mistake about that.. instability in CY is what was needed to keep those bases and listening posts..



Don't believe me.. listen to Ismet ..



I'm not suggesting things can / should go back to 1960.. too much water under the bridge.. but CYPRIOTS deserve a chance to solve their own probs and an admission of complicity from old m

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
13/10/2009 12:34

RE msg 52 and 53, MartinM & 6xm: (...) Actually the Ottomans arrived in 1571 (...)

=> No, wrong! The Ottoman fleet arrived "in Cyprus waters" on July 1, 1570. The main army disembarked at Salines (Larnaca's medieval port) on July 3, 1570. Followed by the Attack of Nicosia and later in 1570 Famagusta. Fall (truce and surrender) of Famagusta: August 1, 1571.

Map and dates: http://is.gd/4h0jv

P.S. If you had attended my lecture "The Ottoman Conquest of Cyprus" a couple of weeks ago (1: Invasion & Fall of Nicosia. 2: Famagusta: Siege, fall and aftermath) you would have known.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
13/10/2009 13:09

re 55 ( cont)



I'm not suggesting things can / should go back to 1960.. too much water under the bridge.. but CYPRIOTS deserve a chance to solve their own probs and an admission of complicity from old men / or public records in other countries.

MartinM


Joined: 03/10/2009
Posts: 166

Message Posted:
13/10/2009 13:18

Sooo Sorry DC Will promise to attend next one. Used only a short cut implying Ottoman Conquest was completed in 1571.



Re Message 53 mandared should read mandated.



Not only didn't the UN use napalm, THEY DIDN'T OR COULDN'T do anything at all!!!! except watch. I believe a Finnish UN officer was trying desperately to stop The advance of the GC soldiers,but was unable to do so.



Denktash was most certainly a sophisticated and well educated lawyer and politician. he made a great number of mistakes as do most, and it has been implied that he encouraged TMT to help the TC MP's to stay away from Parliament. Even if one accepts this as the truth it does not necessarily follow that EOKAwas not engaged in the same activity. TC's were being abduted by force from their places of work and "Disappearing".



The scale of deaths in 1570-71 was huge. However the Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox peasants/clergy helped the Ottomans so much that they were rewarded with the gifts of Roman Churches, f

MartinM


Joined: 03/10/2009
Posts: 166

Message Posted:
13/10/2009 13:27

For example Sourp Magyar ( Spelling?) was given to the Armenian church as well as a church in Nicosia and Bellapais Abbey was given to the Cypriot Orthodox where they could conduct their services for the first time ever.



Many Greek Cypriots suffered death, loss of home and chattels and many unspeakable atrocities in the 1974 operation. There is no way anyone can condone what happened. In exactly the same way no one should condone the similar atrocities levelled against the TC population from '55 to 74.



A GC friend of mine was on his holidays here in 74 and I went to his father's house in London to ask about his well-being. Thankfully he was safe but his father then told me "They deserved it".



"They" however can only be considered "Collectively" rather than individually. The personal horror stories on BOTH sides are attest that we are human beings after all.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
13/10/2009 13:38

Dear 58 MartinM



I think you'll find he was Swedish Soldier - representing the UN and he left / got the push for 'taking sides' with the TC locals. He is regarded a hero by the locals



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgios_Karayiannis



an interesting perspective..



re Mr Denktash / TC 'leaving' RoC .. I think we are close to agreement that there were elements of both factions seeking polarity - but for differing reasons.



TCs were also coerced not to do biz with GCs by TMT.. neither 'side' can claim to be 'angels'..



So, can we agree that the 'peace movement' resulted in more deaths than any period for over 400 years.. ? Akin to the numbers of 9/11 and all those killed in Northern Ireland ?

MartinM


Joined: 03/10/2009
Posts: 166

Message Posted:
13/10/2009 14:24

Dear 6m



I'm sure we can agree on many things but unfortunately the total numbers dead Re '74 are not known to me.



As the Ottoman Empire decayed in it's decline there was an uprising in Cyprus that was put down rather forcefully and several priests/bishops and others were killed.. I'm not sure of the date but probably mid 18th to mid 19th century.



"Angels" on either side are few and far between in my experience.



I'm still against doing "Biz" with the South, but have to admit to hypocracy since when any friends ask if I would like anything brought back I reply "Bacon please"

MartinM


Joined: 03/10/2009
Posts: 166

Message Posted:
13/10/2009 14:31

Even Hipocrisy :(

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
13/10/2009 15:17

Dear Martin M



re msg 61



>>I'm sure we can agree on many things but unfortunately the total numbers dead Re '74 are not known to me<<



Well allow me to 'inform' you ! .. I found this Wiki page



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus



Bottom right hand corner..



Now I know the 'dangers' of wiki, but I respect that the contributor(s) is/ are listing the missing as 909 - not the 1400+ many GCs often incorrectly quote



He / They also refer to Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots.. ( slightly worrying) - but even if we deduct nearly 800 TCs and include this with the 'Cypriots' we'll still see that approx 5K folk lost their lives or a re still missing



Would you agree, then, that calling this a 'peace' movement was a bit ( to say the least) of a misnomer...



I often hear that 'we've had peace' since 1974 .. but at WHAT price? ..

Rottolover



Joined: 21/06/2009
Posts: 519

Message Posted:
13/10/2009 21:48

The same price most aggressors (e.g. Germany, Japan) end up paying...it's called defeat.



6ems, you seem to consider that the "price" paid by all involved in the invasion is more important than the 35 years of peace that have existed on Cyprus since then, and the lives saved (predominantly TC lives) therefrom.



I'm not sure you'll get many here to agree with you...

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
14/10/2009 00:49

Dear Rottolover



>>you seem to consider that the "price" paid by all involved in the invasion is more important than the 35 years of peace.....I'm not sure you'll get many here to agree with you...<<



I'm sure you are correct.. I wasn't aware that being outnumbered made someone 'right' .. The polarisation of Cypriots has too much to do with interests off the island...



TR wasn't particularly interested in the plight of the TCs until the UK DRAGGED them into a tripartite with Greece.

Brinsley


Joined: 04/04/2009
Posts: 6858

Message Posted:
14/10/2009 00:54

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm



So what is your "price", every turncoat has one?



Richard

littlejohn


Joined: 09/03/2009
Posts: 316

Message Posted:
14/10/2009 02:50

Many ms - I keep telling you- you are wasting your time - but one observation I will make is , that in my experience as a serviceman in the 60s the UN were as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike and we ( the brits) didn't care. My fellow servicemen treated both Greeks and Turks as inferior beings !!!

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
14/10/2009 10:14

Dear Richard,



re msg 66



>>So what is your "price", every turncoat has one? <<

1/ Price - what's the going rate on a life..?



2/ 'turncoat'..oooh that's quite an emotive word.. implying betrayal.. please explain.. so I may answer your question?



re 67



>>you are wasting your time<<



>>my experience as a serviceman in the 60s the UN were as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike and we ( the brits) didn't care. My fellow servicemen treated both Greeks and Turks as inferior beings !!!<<



I think the thread is well worth it with honest contributions like yours.. The poor old Cypriots didn't stand much of a chance with odds like this stacked up against, 'em...

1/ UK govt stirring ethnic tensions - to keep the bases

2/ UK govt troops prevailing attitude..



Thanks.. you help me to understand.. a lot ..

Brinsley


Joined: 04/04/2009
Posts: 6858

Message Posted:
14/10/2009 10:46

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm



Have a word with Messrs Blunt, Blake, Burgess, Maclean and Philby. You'll be in good company!



Richard

MartinM


Joined: 03/10/2009
Posts: 166

Message Posted:
14/10/2009 13:26

Dear 6m



Seems like quite a lot. It is a good thing that the numbers of "missing" is a little more realistically indicated.



I cannot dispute the numbers, nor would I, so thank you for the information.



What does intrigue me though is that there was a Civil War between Greek Cypriot and Greek Cypriot for at least a couple of days before the Turkish Army arrived and I have often wondered how many were killed and went "missing" during these few days.



Any idea?

MartinM


Joined: 03/10/2009
Posts: 166

Message Posted:
14/10/2009 13:32

Dear littlejohn



Wow . What an honest post. Thank you. Particularly liked the bit about ashtray on a motorbike.



What I find also interesting is that post 74 many ex servicemen who served in Cyprus, either on the bases or with the UN, have settled in Cyprus but have chosen different "sides" of the line to settle in. Clearly they were influenced by what they saw or experienced, but since so many more seem to have settled in the South would it be fair to say there was more bias against the Turkish Cypriots?

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
14/10/2009 13:53

I've had a quick read about Turkey's invasion/intervention but it seems that only by leaving a peace-keeping/occupation force have they upset the international community and led to the UN security council resolution which isolates north Cyprus. I know it sounds daft, but why haven't they gone home now? I don't mean that if they leave the GCs will invade and they'll only have to come back again with loss of troops lives - surely the UN forces can deal with that. Even in Iraq it seems that foreign troops will be leaving sooner.

Mal

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
14/10/2009 14:04

Dear Martin M



>>What does intrigue me though is that there was a Civil War between Greek Cypriot and Greek Cypriot for at least a couple of days before the Turkish Army arrived and I have often wondered how many were killed and went "missing" during these few days.







Any idea?<<



Nope .. but we should find out .. I can't see how the figures would be accurate as the subject matter of this thread followed the commencement of the coup.



What is also interesting ... It is probably true to say that the VAST TCs deaths occurred post the TR landings - I've oft seen it claimed 2 TCs died before...



I'm pretty sure the most reasoned observer would agree the 'peace movement' TRIGGERED the killings.. rather than preventing.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
14/10/2009 14:17

Dear Malsancak



re msg 72



I feel more than quick read is necessary.



IF you look further you'll find:



1/ the UN SEC Council Resolutions of the time ask for immediate end to hostilities and withdrawal of said forces out of Cyprus.. that applied to GR and TR



2/ the UN Resolution that isolates TCs to this day came about due to a 'declaration of independence' ..



The Annan Plan of April 2004 would have meant 950 TR troops remained - but the GCs voted no - on the advice of their President .. the better deal he promised, gone along with his good self..



The two main obstacles - from a GC perspective were ( gleaned from my foot slogging - hoping for a GC YES):



a) Property - even now the RoC govt discourages it's citiens from testing out TR's remedy - as suggested by the ECHR - NOT 'wise'



b) trusting TR to pull out - Certainly the UN - to this day - get 'jerked around' by the TR military to such a degre it has been a matter of public report.

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
14/10/2009 17:27

msg 74, thanks for that Mark

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
14/10/2009 17:38

re 75



NP.. sorry about my spelling.. tried to response whilst on the blower..

Rottolover



Joined: 21/06/2009
Posts: 519

Message Posted:
14/10/2009 22:55

Dear 6ems, re:message 73.



I fear you are becoming unhinged, for your posts are getting increasingly outlandish! Not only are they full of non-sequiturs, they are riddled with euphemisms.



"It is probably true to say" (no, it certainly isn't) "that the vast TCs (sic) deaths" (presumably you meant the vast number of TCs' deaths) "occurred post the TR landings"! What absolute nonsense. You have "oft seen it claimed 2 TCs died before" ! My God, 6ems, just have a look at Photo 3 after page 126 in "The Cyprus Conspiracy", the book you continue to recommend to all and sundry as a rational and factual account of what REALLY happened, for a picture of four poor souls who were murdered by GC gunmen in 1963. Twice as many as 2, 6ems, and 12 years before the landings.



I'm pretty sure "the most reasoned observer", (your euphemism for anyone who agrees with your dreadfully one-sided point of view), couldn't come anywhere near your insane conclusion that the TR landing TRIGGERED the killing

Brinsley


Joined: 04/04/2009
Posts: 6858

Message Posted:
14/10/2009 23:06

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm



'The Red Under The Bed'!



Richard

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
15/10/2009 09:53

Dearest Rottolover re msg 77



sorry, if my grammar/ spelling 'offends' you.. but we both know it's the content...so let's deal with THAT..



This thread is about the immediate events leading up to the TR intervention in 74.



Now can you counter with some offer of numbers of TCs killed by GCs in JULY, prior to the Turks *arriving*?



I have NEVER tried to defend the murder of anyone of either ethnicity.. so if you are *trying* to diminish the validity of my posts by simply labelling me a 'GC sympathiser' .....



OF COURSE, the TR landings triggered off killings of TCs .. what is 'insane' is your trying to suggest otherwise..early July was about GCs killing each other.. Please tell us about an incident where TCs were murdered by EOKA B 'heroes' in between the coup and the TR landings..





If you wish to discuss the picture from 1963 - suggest you start a new thread re that..

Rottolover



Joined: 21/06/2009
Posts: 519

Message Posted:
15/10/2009 10:43

Dear 6ems, where the hell do I start??



Firstly, although your grammar and spelling are not quality items, I never mentioned them...non sequiturs and euphemisms are fallacies of argument (content if you prefer), and have nothing to do with grammar and spelling.



Secondly, who are you to decide what defines "immediate"? Only July? Perhaps you'd care to stipulate days and times as well...trying to debate a topic of this nature in isolation, as you are doing, is really pointless. How many TCs were killed on July 24th, between the hours of 1:00 and 3:00 PM, for example?



Thirdly, I'm not *trying* to do anything...you diminish the validity of your posts perfectly well on your own. I didn't, and don't need to, label you a "GC sympathiser"...I think most people on this board are well enough aware of that.



Finally, the last part of your message refines the time scale even further, to "early July", and again further still to the time between the coup and the landings!



Give me a brea

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
15/10/2009 13:22

My take is this



Professor Nial Ferguson argues that World War 3 happened. 20 million people were killed in the ideological war (battle of the memes) between communism and capitalism. The two Superpowers never clashed directly (nearly at the bay of pigs), they played the war through other countries (except in Vietnam/Korea), getting other nations to do the dirty work for them. It would not surprise me if the US duped Turkey in to doing its dirty work for them. This would be consistant with the theme of the times.



Greece and Turkey fought the most horrific war during the 20's. Many people are still displaced from this event. This war is carried epigeneticaly in the two countries history. Turkey could not allow Greece to win in Cyprus on its own back door.



Britain was skint, brasic, poor, without funds. It could not afford a bloody conflict with any country. There was no will to intervene.



As I have argued before a pattern of conflict is inevitable when

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
15/10/2009 13:23

A ‘them’ and ‘us’ system is allowed to play out (it is helped by lower levels of meaning making in the system as a whole which is still a problem). For more information look at the work of Barry Oshry’s ‘the terrible dance of power’.



The ‘terrible dance of power’ starts with one creed of people believing that they are superior to another i.e the GC’s over the TC’s. Eventually after much humiliation a radical group in the lower group (TC’s) would emerge. The radicals would attack the superior group (GC’s) as well as the moderates on their own side (TC’s). At the same time Radicals of the superior group (GC’s) would be at war with the moderates in their own creed (GC’s.)



The pattern has and is continuing to play out in the world

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
15/10/2009 15:07

Dear Rottolover



re msg 80



AGAIN a lecture on my use ( incorrect or not) or the English language and a lot sarcasm, but ( no surprise) no attempt respond with some specific examples.. Let's clarify for you .. the thread is about July / August 1974 .. so the time frame is simply July / August 1974

Brinsley


Joined: 04/04/2009
Posts: 6858

Message Posted:
15/10/2009 15:47

Moscow IS very pleasant this time of year!



Richard

Rottolover



Joined: 21/06/2009
Posts: 519

Message Posted:
15/10/2009 16:35

6ems,



You're probably unaware of it, but it is exactly your poor use of the language that causes problems in communication.



e.g. "and a lot (of) sarcasm"...in fact, there isn't a sarcastic word or comment in my post at all. I quite seriously meant every word. If you're going to throw accusations around, you really should take the trouble to learn what they mean.



And have you taken the point I made about trying to debate an issue in isolation?

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
15/10/2009 18:56

Dearest Rottolover



re 85



Oh we're 'communicating' just fine ... one of us thinks he knows more the the other, and they are probably BOTH right... sadly for you this thread is about things that happened in July/ August 1974 and you don't seem to know much about THAT..



You only have a two month 'window of history' to look up - specifically references to pre July 20th... GC atrocities aimed at TCs.. that's WHY the Turks came.. right?















Get back to us when you

Brinsley


Joined: 04/04/2009
Posts: 6858

Message Posted:
15/10/2009 19:16

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm



The thing you need to know is I've just declared Unilateral Declaration of Independence, myself, for the WHOLE of Cyprus as the self appointed Head of State Dictator! Good time of year to visit Russia!



Richard

Lincsman



Joined: 02/04/2008
Posts: 117

Message Posted:
15/10/2009 19:56

To mmmmm,



You are correct on the history immediately prior to July 1974. My understanding is that the initial "intervention" by the TR army was generally accepted on the grounds of restoring the constitution, under the guarantor status, but I need more information on the "further intervention" in August, on the TR side the reason given was because of continuing GC attacks on the TC enclaves in Famagusta and Paphos between July and August. Did these happen? or is that not true? What is correct is that there very few inter-communal attacks for 6 yrs prior to July 1974, although it didn't take the GC extremists long to "revert to type", I understand that the massacres of TC's at Tochni and the villages near Famagusta happened on the 14th August, on the day the TR army started their "further intervention"

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
16/10/2009 10:44

Hi Lincsman re 88



My contention is that the Cypriots, in general, were pawns in a much bigger 'game'.. control of the island's bases / listening posts, being THE most important thing.



The Coup and the subsequent Invasion: some folks say it was all orchestrated by the CIA. I believe they were involved in stirring the respective leaders/ military of GR /TR up to a point were both events would occur, with NO thought to the indigenous population.



The point I'm trying to get through is that the atrocities started AFTER the Turks landed... I'm not condoning the murder / killing of anyone - just asking members to realise that saying the arrival of the Turks brought 'peace' to the island for 'x' years sounds a bit ..... 'thoughtless', may be?

Lincsman



Joined: 02/04/2008
Posts: 117

Message Posted:
16/10/2009 12:53

Mark, re message 89.



You may be right regarding the CIA etc, my take on this is that in the main the TC's got the worst deal prior to 1974. Maybe one of the guarantors should have intervened in 1963 to preserve the constitution, instead of the UN, UK, US etc psuedo recognising the entirely GC administration that emerged after 1963, this may have prevented a lot of bloodshed that happened after 1963. You are correct that there was very little inter-communal violence in the period leading up to July 1974, however you have to remember that in the main the TC's were in defensible "enclaves" and pretty much ran their own affairs and were very good at defending themselves if necessary. I am still interested in the events between July 20th and Aug 14th 1974, did the initial TR army intervention cause the GC attacks on the TC enclaves? because if that were the case, that gave the TR army the excuse it needed to expand the intervention area.



But we might never know!

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
16/10/2009 13:30

Dear Lincsman



re 90



IF I'm right about the CIA / UK policy of divide and rule - to keep the island unstable, I think THAT is THE most important thing..



Our Elko is a 'most helpful member' and whilst he don't agree with me on many things... he also will point out , 'it was about the bases'.



I hope we do find out, about many things, but MY guess is it will be when all the payers are 6' feet under and forgotten.



Cypriots deserve a truth and reconciliation committee - *if* then can con to some sort of accommodation - *if* they are 'allowed' ..

MartinM


Joined: 03/10/2009
Posts: 166

Message Posted:
16/10/2009 14:55

Re Mssge 90



Dear Lincsman the last major offensive against the TC's pre 74 was in 1968 at Erenkoy (Kokkina), which today is a TC enclave and to which an annual pilgrimage is made. The leader of the GC forces at that time and place was George Grivas. Turkey stopped the inevitable slaughter of this village by bombing several GC Villages and the GC Military. After this disastrous"defeat" George Grivas was sent packing back to Greece.See also messages 51 to 56.



Although it is claimed that inter-communal hostilities ended at this time I do find it very hard to believe.

Rottolover



Joined: 21/06/2009
Posts: 519

Message Posted:
16/10/2009 15:55

Yeah, me too Martin.



6ems, you continue to claim that "the atrocities started AFTER the Turks landed", which is a clear statement regardless of time limits and which completely ignores all those dreadful occurrences at Kumsal, Omorphita, the Nicosia General Hospital, Aiyos Vasilios, Kykkos School, et al, all of which occurred well before the TR landings. How on Earth do you figure that?!



You've also just made another claim which I find really sad..."IF I'm right about the CIA / UK policy of divide and rule - to keep the island unstable, I think THAT is THE most important thing.." To me, this is anything BUT the most important thing. I can easily believe that the two superpowers (well one anyway) were acting to foment trouble simply due to self interest, but surely anyone with any claims at all to some humanity would consider THE most important thing would be the atrocities being committed in the name of "freedom" and their complete termination.

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
16/10/2009 16:04

RE msg 92, MartinM: (...) Erenkoy (Kokkina), which today is a TC enclave (...)

=> Just for the record: Erenköy (formerly known by its Greek name: Kokkina) is not a TC enclave. It is a KKTC (TRNC) exclave.

Lincsman



Joined: 02/04/2008
Posts: 117

Message Posted:
16/10/2009 16:10

Dear Martin M,



I am also sure that inter-communal hostilities didn't end in 1968 either, however it is true that they never again reached 1963/64 levels prior to 1974 and that a period of relative calm ensued. GC commentators when referring to the TR army "invasion" of 1974 often point out this period of calm when they refute the TR army's reason for "intervention" was to save TC lives.



I also believe that if TR hadn't intervened in July 1974 the GC extremists would have turned on the TC's after they had finished their own infighting.

MartinM


Joined: 03/10/2009
Posts: 166

Message Posted:
16/10/2009 18:18

Hello DC TC= Turkish Cypriot NOT TURK CUMHURIYETI



Yes Lincsman I also believe that to be true. To be fair to 6M's I think he means that the second Turkish Army Intervention in August 74 resulted in the GC ( Sorry DC Greek Cypriots) frenzy of mass murder, which some describe as Genocide. Things were relatively quiet 1968 to 1974 but irrespective of the geo/political reasons for Turkey's intervention I honestly feel it was well timed and that if it hadn't happened there would be no TCs ( Turkish Cypriots) on the island today. learly I am biased in my opinions, I live in the North and my roots are Turkish, but from the GC propoganda bandied about since before 1974 and the lengths they go to. currently, in Europe to limit all Turkish Cypriot initiatives it is clear that they still wish to maintain an isolationist policy in order to starve us out. Hardly the actions of friends who want to live peacably with us in a united country. As agood friend of mine , the late US Col, Tom

MartinM


Joined: 03/10/2009
Posts: 166

Message Posted:
16/10/2009 18:21

Mooney said " They want it all ( the whole island) and they wanna see you guys as bus-boys again"



bus-boy I believe refers to a commis waiter. One who helps the proper waiter by holding the tray of food while the waiter serves it. In other words the lowest of the low.

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
16/10/2009 18:36

RE msg 96, MartinM: (...) Hello DC TC= Turkish Cypriot NOT TURK CUMHURIYETI (...)

=> Hi MartinM, not being pedantic (--- ---), but 1: Erenköy is an exclave (not enclave) and only states can have exclaves. Thus: Erenköy is a KKTC (TRNC) exclave (where Turkish Cypriot soldiers live). The Greek speaking Cypriots will call it an enclave. Please mind the x and the n in this short text.

MartinM


Joined: 03/10/2009
Posts: 166

Message Posted:
16/10/2009 19:01

Not being pedantic but since when did the TRNC enjoy the status of a "state" or can illegal, non-existatnt states also have exclaves?



I thank you for your "correction" since you are clearly correct, but I must admit you are , on occasion, a little too pedantic, since the meaning of my post, I am confident, was clear to all.

MartinM


Joined: 03/10/2009
Posts: 166

Message Posted:
16/10/2009 19:03

PS Whatever happened to the guide tour?. I e-mailed you with my preferred day but have not had a response yet.

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
16/10/2009 21:16

RE msg 99, MartinM: (...) Not being pedantic but since when did the TRNC enjoy the status of a "state" or can illegal, non-existatnt states also have exclaves? (...)

=> I recognise TRNC as a state. And if you don't or have your doubts about the status of TRNC you'd better read Rule 5 here: http://www.cyprus44.com/forums/rules.asp



RE msg 99, MartinM: (...) clear to all. (...)

=> But still wrong.



RE msg 100, MartinM: (...) PS Whatever happened to the guide tour?. I e-mailed you with my preferred day but have not had a response yet. (...)

=> My answer will be written in this thread: http://www.cyprus44.com/forums/24137.asp