In what circumstances is war acceptable in Cyprus

stavrizatz

I am often wondering, IF Turkish troops have no intentions of moving out of Cyprus and the division of Cyprus is to become permanent, then do Greek Cypriot refugees have the right to revolt and demand their ancestral homes back? Under what circumstances can they take up arms and move to the North to liberate their homes from the invader that is occupying their land for the past 33 years. Don't forget that the invading forces to not take over the administration of the North peacefully and in the agreement of the people living there. They came and furiously they displaced 200.000 Greek Cypriots leaving behind a total mess.

Saying that I acknowledge that Turkish Cypriots also suffered in the hands of Greek Cypriots before 1974 and they were forced to live in enclaves. Furthermore 55.000 Turkish Cypriot refugees were forced to move from south to north after the tragic events of 74.

For now please leave on the side who is or who was more responsible for the Cyprus problem. Also please leave on the side who suffered the most out of the two communities. Also forget if it is realistically possible. The question I am asking is:
Can the Greek Cypriot community revolt against Turkey to liberate their ansestral lands? If yes, under what circumstances? If no, why not?

stavrizatz · Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:11 am Post subject:

To mods: I added a fourth option in the poll "Never" but it didn't appear, can someone please add that for me?

erolz · Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:16 am Post subject:

Under what circumstances can an oppressed ethnic minority take up arms to liberate themselves from oppression ? Under what circumsatances can they demand their right to run their own affairs and control their own destiny and use force of arms to achieve this ?

These are not simple questions and these things have been and are being played out around the world even as we type.

My own personal view at the simplest level is that force of arms and violence can never provide a real solution that can last. It can change the status quo and balance of power but not provide a true solution.

erolz · Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:17 am Post subject:

stavrizatz · Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:17 am Post subject:

April of '69 · Villager Joined: 09 Aug 2007 Posts: 17

Wars and revolts are started by those who think they can prevail by force of arms, and those who have made this decision won't ask whether the war or revolt is "acceptable". They'll generally deal with anyone who thinks it's unacceptable also by force of arms, as demonstrated among both communities of Cypriots in the 1950's and 1960's. If you were a Turkish Cypriot and tried telling the TMT that force of arms wasn't an acceptable recourse, or a Greek Cypriot who similarly crossed EOKA during the anti-colonial struggle or the "Organisation" in the early years of the Republic, you would quickly find out whether there was a point to arguing what was "acceptable" - and there were plenty who paid with their lives.

So the question isn't whether war or revolt is "acceptable". The question for each one of us is, do we want to give the people with the guns the right to decide for us once more - and once that right is given it is very difficult to revoke as we have all seen. My parents' generation made that mistake in the 1950's, more by omission than commission. They omitted, or were unable, to stop the cession of decision-making power to the people with the guns until it was too late. I would not be wise to make the same mistake, when quite arguably I am in a much better position to influence events than they ever were.

In Cyprus, all those who thought they could prevail by force of arms - those from among the two communities, and those from outside the island - have been proven conclusively wrong. None of them prevailed, and their wars solved nothing and instead created a huge set of extremely difficult problems for every Cypriot, none excepted.

Note that I have not even entered the discussion of who was "right" to seek to prevail by force of arms and who was "wrong", or for whom it was "acceptable" to do so, and I'm not about to either. It won't take us anywhere.

Right or wrong, they all failed to prevail by force of arms or solve any problems - even when they enjoyed crushing military superiority against their opponents, cf. the National Guard against the TMT in Kokkina 1964 or the Turkish Army against the National Guard in 1974. Military and political screwups and a multiplicity of tragic consequences were the only results.

Let's leave all that behind shall we. It was tried several times before, and it didn't work. Time to try something else.

Best to everyone,

brother · Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:04 pm Post subject:

War is NEVER the answer, in 1974 we had one and thus the current partition of our island, for arguements sake in the future the Greek Cypriot attack and take all of cyprus back and the turkish army is expelled but then we all know further down the line Turkey will come back and probably do a repeat of 1974 and so on, all that is accomplished is that many people will die every time, for me the answer is the EU way, despite the many faults it has the one thing they excel in is diplomacy and that is the only true way to ever resolve the cyprus problem and no other way imo.

Mete · Deputy Joined: 16 Aug 2005 Posts: 1150 Location: Boston

Violence is not acceptable when there can be a another non-violent alternative to solve the problem. Of course, there are cases where you literally have to kill or be killed, and in that case, there's no choice but to exercise violence but these cases are very limited.

repulsewarrior · Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:51 pm Post subject:

Interesting question, stav. War is never a good or "right" choice. It shows a weakness in our being as Humans. However, when it comes to choice, as an act of defense, it is still nesessary.

In Cyprus, somehow, if Turkey was to win sovereignty of the island, or a part of it, I would hope that its "Greek" majority would have a right to self determination and the respect of this State for their natural desire to sustain themselves. This would be not unlike the subjugation of thousands of years to which they had lived in the past.

If this is not the case, it would be not unnatural for these people to fight, with or without their brethren, the Turkish Cypriot.

xxturkishdelight · Villager Joined: 13 Aug 2007 Posts: 10 Location: U.K.

Re-read what you have just written - you ask the question and then you answer it. Why should we "forget" what happened. The Turks from Turkey invaded Cyprus because their people were being slaughtered. Had they not invaded, a race of innocent people would have been totally wiped out. But of course that doesn't get mentioned does it. So far as the Greeks are concerned, Turks invaded, took North Cyprus, end of! To be very honest with you. There will always be a Turkish Army in North - they are a deterrent and they will stay!

depurple · Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:43 pm Post subject:

xxturkishdelight YES! BUT?
What the UN and the EU say about Turkey occupying Cyprus is what really counts!
cheers!
PS I agree that Turkey invaded to save the Turkish Cypriot because they would of been slaughtered by the Greek Cypriot! The Greek Cypriot showed NO REMORSE for their own kind so what would they have done to the Turkish Cypriot given the chance!
Having said this what Turkey did during the agreed UN ceasefire is another question! The question that is a mill stone around Turkeys neck and which the UN and the EU know the truth!
DP!

repulsewarrior · Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:06 pm Post subject:

xxturkishdelight welcome.

I ask you to reflect on your post.

When the coup against Makarios occured, did "Greek" Cypriots rise up in support of it?

When the slaughter occured, were "Greek" Cypriots victimless by the few that we can call fanatics, to say the least?

When Denktash opened the gates, were(or are) there a flood of terrorists amongst your midst, who murder and mame?

Somehow in Isreal, or in Afganistan and Iraq, are the mighty coalitions less successful than the Turkish Army? Needless to say, in Turkey, are Turks safe from those who have chosen to take up arms?

Do you remember the Cyprus that was? One of the Great Co-operators (in its true and economic sense), the most Socialised country in the world.

You mistake the ugly generalisation that you make for logic, because the next grecophone you meet is not unlike yourself.

100%cypriot · Ministerial Joined: 27 Jun 2006 Posts: 2181

depurple · Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:43 am Post subject:

No Dp why does it count ,? if it counted as much as you say then the UN would have forcefully removed the Turkish Army from Cyprus !
DP: And who says it wont happen one day? 1974 was still in the Cold War mentality: BUT it is now in the Terrorist/Islamic phobia!

So Ask yourself

Was it Possible to remove the Turkish Army?
DP: In 1974? NO! 2007? Anything can happen!

Does the UN see Turkey as the Criminal in this conflict ?
DP: I say Yes1 and what do you say NO? Thou the UN hasn't fulfilled the UN resolutions on Turkey's invasion of Cyprus does NOT meant they are forgotten: Only now is justice being done in Russia and other countries!

Does the UN Blame Turkey for its actions ?
DP: Yes! Most of the countries in the UN do: Maybe not Turkeys because it took the heat off them over they power hold on Cyprus and made SURE that they will never leave the bases!

And if so why haven't they done something about it .
DP: Again who says they wont? Turkey has that Ottoman we won it in a war! Come one force us! Well that stance does not work after 9/11! If Turkey goes more extreme Islamic then the USA and others WILL certainly divide Turkey into pieces:
IF Turkey was so loved why will it take 100 years to join the EU and WHY isn't Turkey attacking the PKK? It has been barking like a dogs for over 2 years and let nothing! Maybe Turkey is afraid of western repercussions? Maybe what has happened in Iraq has made Turkey start to think that the pen is mightier than the GUN!

I think and that is just my view , The UN does Blame Turkey for its actions in August (100%you are contradicting yourself? You know say they DO blame Turkey?) but probably Blamed the Greek Junta so much that their finger pointing at Turkey would have gone unnoticed without also Punishing Greece

DP:
100% Cyprus can NOT be divided and Turkey can not join the EU unless this is fixed! AND it will NEVER disappear and Turkey can NOT use its big stick on the EU!
Also the Republic of Cyprus can not claim to be the masters of all Cyprus either! BUT partner living in the same house!
cheers

xxturkishdelight · Villager Joined: 13 Aug 2007 Posts: 10 Location: U.K.

[quote="stavrizatz"]I am often wondering, IF Turkish troops have no intentions of moving out of Cyprus and the division of Cyprus is to become permanent, then do Greek Cypriot refugees have the right to revolt and demand their ancestral homes back? Under what circumstances can they take up arms and move to the North to liberate their homes from the invader that is occupying their land for the past 33 years. Don't forget that the invading forces to not take over the administration of the North peacefully and in the agreement of the people living there. They came and furiously they displaced 200.000 Greek Cypriots leaving behind a total mess.

Saying that I acknowledge that Turkish Cypriots also suffered in the hands of Greek Cypriots before 1974 and they were forced to live in enclaves. Furthermore 55.000 Turkish Cypriot refugees were forced to move from south to north after the tragic events of 74.

For now please leave on the side who is or who was more responsible for the Cyprus problem. Also please leave on the side who suffered the most out of the two communities. Also forget if it is realistically possible. The question I am asking is:
Can the Greek Cypriot community revolt against Turkey to liberate their ansestral lands? If yes, under what circumstances? If no, why not?[/quote

Maybe you should read the Orams case! ]