False flag operations, 1958-1963

[samarkeolog]

[stavrizatz]

[samarkeolog]

[stavrizatz]

I've said that Makarios was scared to come in direct conflict with the paramilitaries in fear they will turn against him, but himself was not in support of their actions, neither involved. How can you use Richard Patrick, the swedish UN, and BBC to support what you have said, when specifically Richard Patrick himself said exactly what I have been trying to tell you!!!

[stavrizatz]

As for EOKA, I expressed my views in the following threat.

http://www.talkcyprus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=86684#86684

I have been talking about the hypocricy of the west calling oppressed people fighting for the their freedom terrorists while the actions of the west has cost way more misery and death to the world.

[samarkeolog]

[samarkeolog]

[stavrizatz]

I feel like Makarios advocate;) Well I am not Christian either, neither I want to defend the Greek crimes/responsibilities in Cyprus. We Greeks have done a lot to our compatriots Turks and some of our actions were shameful. Nevertheless I want to call things with their names. And what often you international scolars and journalists do is write the wrong doings of the two communities, usually blame both responsible and conclude that a solution to Cyprus has to be a compromise and the two sides need to give up their positions.

Balance for international scolars is to blame both at the same level so because EOKA was first labelled as a terrorist organisation, TMT was too and EOKA B'. What I say is that none of those 3 organisations were terror groups, simply because they did not launch any terrorism attacks. Their attacks were subbotage attacks and assissinations. The difference of EOKA to TMT and EOKA B or Akritas and other paramilitaries was that EOKA launched a struggle against the colonial power while the other groups were formed to protect some ideologies / aspirations.

When EOKA was formed by Makarios, he had in mind Gandi's path of passive resistance and Grivas pursuaded him to use subotage attacks because Cyprus did not have the population of India to be as effective only with passive resistance. Makarios accepted with condition to Grivas that the attacks were set up carefully to minimise casualties. So I wouldn't say that EOKA was careless of their victims. EOKA was very accurate with their targets and in thousands of bombs that were launched only few hundred people were killed.

Also most of EOKA's violence was after Makarios was in excile. Of course by then Britain used other Cypriots to go against EOKA to stir up the relations between Cypriots themselves so as to stay in power and gain international sympathy and respect by claiming that Cypriots were fighting one another! The British placed posters in Greek and Turkish urging Cypriots to go against EOKA and often rewarded people that gave information to British authorities. After the provocation the EOKA campaign became more violent and often involved in war crimes, of which some you mentioned earlier. I don't want to justify the crimes and no EOKA men had the right to kill those who opposed them of whom some were completely innocent. However these incidences are found in all wars with some confidence I will say with no exception. It is human nature to react to actions against you, and in the situation of conflict to commit a crimes is easier because the emotions are more tense. The purpose of armded struggles are often beyond the killings and incidences of violence. It is unfortunate but history teaches us that things earned with violence cannot be won back without violence. Therefore I would consider the struggle of EOKA against the British and for re-union of Cyprus with Greece, a struggle which was supported by the vast majority of Cypriots, as a struggle for a fair cause but at the end I guess it was perhaps a mistake because eventually it caused friction with Turkish Cypriots and the dream of enosis was not achieved.

As for Makarios, look you have said that Makarios made the threats to ethnically cleanse every Turkish village in Cyprus but when he threatened to attack Turkish Cypriots in 1964 is because the later were organised and prepared for an invasion. Turkish aircrafts were bombing the region of Tylliria, ships were on the way to Cyprus, his threats were in the context of war and the threats were to dissarm the Turks not to ethnically cleanse them. You make a judgement by making assumptions on some things written about what he said by others. Read also what he said, read his interview with Oriana Fallacci, his speeches. His actions were never extreme, he always criticised fanaticism, he was a socialist, a man with great wisdom, very spiritual with passion for justice. In Cyprus not everyone likes him, Turkish Cypriots don't like him because they have lots of misconceptions about him, the right wing doesn't like him because he abondened the efforts for enosis and he signed the 1960 constitution, many other Greek Cypriots don't like him because he resisted western imperialism and had closer bonds with Russia instead of looking at the interest of his country and give a base to the US to make them happy and have them on our side to protect us from Turkey.

I like him and I do consider him a moderate not because he was less extreme than Grivas or Sampson as you say but because of what he said and what he did and because of the way he treated those who were against him, his enemies. The reason I beleive he was not liked is because he was not scared to express his opinion so perhaps he was not a good diplomat.

[repulsewarrior]

people change their minds; they learn and adapt, it is the difference between dogma and principal. it is clear that by the end of his carreer, like Denktash an evolution had taken place, i still ask myself why Denktash opened the gates, and it is clear that Makarios was not a Juntist, which had they his support, something like the Akritas plan would have come about.

[stavrizatz]

[samarkeolog]

[samarkeolog]

[stavrizatz]

[samarkeolog]

[stavrizatz]