www.talkcyprus.org

[erolz]

stavrizatz wrote: EOKA was a revolution and if you call EOKA, Makarios and Tpap terrorists then we can call Gandhi, Che Guevara, Nelson Mandela and others famous revolutionaries as terrorist.

I am SHOCKED !

Che Guevara was a terrorist.

Ghandi most certainly WAS NOT a terrorist. He believed , championed and pretty much created the entire concept of 'passive NON VIOLENT revolt'.

Nelson mandella is a more complicated example. The ANC DID engage in terrorist activities and as far as they did this they were a terrorist organisation. Nelson Mandlella was the head of the ANC but in reality he was incarcerated through most of the period that the ANC engaged in terrorist activities. However I believe he did support the use of violence in the struggle in SA (ie a resort to terroism) but may be wrong about this.

That you can apparently put Ganhdi and his national congress and his NON VIOLENT struggle for INDEPENDANCE (not a a different colonial ruler) on some kind of parity with Makarios (and Grivas and Yiorjardis) and their struggle for ENOSIS is to me shocking !

[Dhavlos]

Its all a matter of opinion:

one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

It will never be decided if they were definately terrorists or not, becuase of the role they played in 'liberating' the country from UK rule.

[Cyprus rules!]

Hi, I agree with Dhavlos on this one.

To be honest with you, Apart from Ghandi and Martin Luther King, what other liberation struggle didn't involve some form of violence?

(Don't get me wrong, I'm not excusing all actions of EOKA, some are inexcusable, but others...well I think it's poignant that on the first day of the EOKA campaign when all those bombs went off across the Island, only one man died, and he was planting a bomb....)

And why was the underground gorilla struggle in Greece, for example, against the Nazis, and even against the Turks, so commended by Britain and others? They used, what you would call, terrorist tactics, and not everyone was a a 'good egg', some people were also killed for being so called 'traitors'. Why are they not known as terrorists?? I mean I know that the fight against the Nazis, was well, against the Nazis, but they
were an occupying force, just as England was, in many Greek Cypriots minds....

I just don't like the hypocrisy....

(Sorry if I seem a bit agitated, it just annoys me a bit...)

[Leyla]

People will always twist and distort facts and history to suit their own agendas.. the reference made about Ghandi and EOKA just proves it. To some people this is a fair and justified opinion, to me, its majorly twisted and highly distorted.

[Cyprus rules!]

Leyla wrote: People will always twist and distort facts and history to suit their own agendas.. the reference made about Ghandi and EOKA just proves it. To some people this is a fair and justified opinion, to me, its majorly twisted and highly distorted.

Hi Leyla.

I wouldn't put Ghandi in the same category as EOKA, especially when it comes to the EOKA leadership (Grivas,etc..).... Although I guess you could say there was a slight similarity because they were both fighting the British...but the methods, well they were different...although the ordinary Greek Cypriot's were encouraged to be passive resistant...(I could be wrong though...)

[Bananiot]

I think the issue is much simpler than what you make it to be. If EOKA, or any armed organisation waging a war, targets the military, then we cannot talk of a terrorist organisation. However, if civilians at large are targeted, just to spread terror, then yes, this organisation and its leaders are terrorists. The question, thus, to be asked is: Did EOKA and its leaders target civilians? If it did, then it falls into the category of a terrorist organisation. Did TMT target civilians? Again, if it did, the organisation and its leaders will be classified as terrorist.

[Cyprus rules!]

Bananiot wrote: I think the issue is much simpler than what you make it to be. If EOKA, or any armed organisation waging a war, targets the military, then we cannot talk of a terrorist organisation. However, if civilians at large are targeted, just to spread terror, then yes, this organisation and its leaders are terrorists. The question, thus, to be asked is: Did EOKA and its leaders target civilians? If it did, then it falls into the category of a terrorist organisation. Did TMT target civilians? Again, if it did, the organisation and its leaders will be classified as terrorist.

Hi Bananiot, I believe that EOKA's policy wasn't to attack civilians..

A small faction however killed people it felt were so called 'traitors', communists (who opposed their methods) and both Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot's who were apparently working too closely with the British, so in effect 'working with the enemy'...well as they saw it...

[Bananiot]

Then, how do you account for the murder, from behind, of two 18 year old English girls in Famagusta, sometime in 1958, I believe? Anyway, the above was meant to give a general definition of terrorism.

[stavrizatz]

Leyla wrote:
Quote: People will always twist and distort facts and history to suit their own agendas…
Exactly and the Fact about EOKA is that it wasn’t a terrorist organization. The term terrorism was used by British to suit their agenda (unfortunately by many Turkish Cypriots as well).

As Bananiot said; the question is whether if EOKA had civilian targets as the main method to achieve its purpose? The answer is NO…the method that EOKA used to achieve its incentive purpose was guerilla warfare.
I can accept that individuals within EOKA maybe used terrorism, but EOKA as an organization didn't use terror methods by RANDOMLY killing civilians, the targets were specific not aiming to spread fear in the general public but to liberate Cyprus.

To sort out the confusion about the comparison i made of EOKA with Gandhi, Che Guevara and Nelson Mandela in my previous post...

Gandhi's work focused upon the goal of self-determination for India. Gandhi famously led Indians in an open call for the British to quit India in 1942. The Quit India Movement was a civil disobedience movement launched in 1942 in response to Gandhi's call for immediate independence of India. The positive thing about Gandhi was that he remained committed to non-violence and truth even in the most extreme situations. The aim was to bring the British government to the negotiating table.

About Che Guevara, he joined Fidel Castro's paramilitary movement, which seized power in Cuba in 1959. He started a revolution using guerrilla warfare. My comparison to the movement in Cuba was referring to the method used to achieve the aims.

Nelson Mandela fought for equal rights for the black people of South Africa. he was a prominent anti-apartheid activist and leader of the African National Congress. The armed struggle was an integral part of the overall campaign against apartheid. The apartheid regime and nations sympathetic to it considered Nelson Mandela and the ANC to be communists and terrorists.

Makarios raise the ‘Cyprus Question’ at the United Nations, arguing for the principle of self-determination to be applied to Cyprus. This was viewed by advocates of Enosis as likely to result in the voluntary union of Cyprus with Greece following the public referendum. Makarios lead the EOKA movement that fought for the expulsion of British troops. The aim was to bring the British government to the negotiating table.

There is a degree of similarity between all liberation struggles and the attempt to undervalue their initial purpose annoys me.

[stavrizatz]

By the way by using the word FACT I meant the fundamental fact (the almost certain fact). We can never be sure about anything so real facts don't exist. Einstein said "I whish i had the eyes of God for one istance so as to see reality"

[cypezokyli]

Bananiot wrote: I think the issue is much simpler than what you make it to be. If EOKA, or any armed organisation waging a war, targets the military, then we cannot talk of a terrorist organisation. However, if civilians at large are targeted, just to spread terror, then yes, this organisation and its leaders are terrorists. The question, thus, to be asked is: Did EOKA and its leaders target civilians? If it did, then it falls into the category of a terrorist organisation. Did TMT target civilians? Again, if it did, the organisation and its leaders will be classified as terrorist.

dont want to defend EOKA, but again with this definition all organisations were terrorist organisations. i cannot recall any group in history that it didnot attack civilians.

[erolz]

stavrizatz wrote: Exactly and the Fact about EOKA is that it wasn’t a terrorist organization. The term terrorism was used by British to suit their agenda (unfortunately by many Turkish Cypriots as well).

Sigh :(

In the pursuit of it's political goals did EOKA use terror fear intimidation violence and murder? Yes it did. It was clearly a terrorist organisation because of the way it operated. What the British said about it is irrelevant.

stavrizatz wrote:
As Bananiot said; the question is whether if EOKA had civilian targets as the main method to achieve its purpose?

Actually Bananiot is imho wrong in this definition. An organisation that seeks to achieve political goals by bombing infrastructure without killing civilians is still a terrorist organisation. As to the insertion of 'main' into the above - what can I say? As long as a group does not mainly kill civilians they are not terrorists? Is that what you are saying ?

stavrizatz wrote:
The answer is NO…the method that EOKA used to achieve its incentive purpose was guerilla warfare.

Guerilla warfare that involved the execution of Greek Cypriot leftists and opponents of ENOSIS. Guerilla warfare that used fear violence terror and intimidation on both the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities.

stavrizatz wrote:
I can accept that individuals within EOKA maybe used terrorism, but EOKA as an organization didn't use terror methods by RANDOMLY killing civilians, the targets were specific not aiming to spread fear in the general public but to liberate Cyprus.

A greater distortion of reality is hard to imagine. Killing civilians but not randomly (which did happen in any case) absolves a group of the label terrorist does it? The fact is Grivas - as the head of EOKA ordered the execution of civilians (Greek Cypriot primarily) and with one of the specific aims of such murders being to create fear within the Greek Cypriot community re opposing EOKA or ENOSIS. This fear and intimidation against opposition to EOKA and ENOSIS was real and largely successful and an integral part of Grivas tactics and extended way past the 60's agreement. Just to highlight this point have a read of this story from the cyprus mail.

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=16072&archive=1

Quote: "I remember, the murder was condemned by all the people in Famagusta at the time," Demetriou told the Sunday Mail. "And we couldn't go out and speak against it because we were truly afraid for our lives."

"But no more," he said. "Now, we have to speak out."

So who exactly was Dr Demetriou afraid of in 1964? The climate of fear established by EOKA and their terrorist activities prior to the 60's agreements continued on way past the 60's and 'notional' end of EOKA and after independence had been gained. By now of course the EOKA terrorist were safely ensconced within the government itself , though still using illegal armed bands of thugs as well as the offical state forces to spread and maintain their terror and control.

stavrizatz wrote:
Makarios raise the ‘Cyprus Question’ at the United Nations, arguing for the principle of self-determination to be applied to Cyprus. This was viewed by advocates of Enosis as likely to result in the voluntary union of Cyprus with Greece following the public referendum. Makarios lead the EOKA movement that fought for the expulsion of British troops. The aim was to bring the British government to the negotiating table.

Again your understanding of history is grossly distorted and perverted. By the 50's the British were already at the negotiating table. They made countless attempts to move towards greater self rule of Cypriots and eventual indpendance was inevitable. The fact is the Greek Cypriot leadership under Makarios rejected all such attempts by the British because he wanted ENOSIS and not indpendance and all these attempts by the Brisith blocked ENOSIS. It was the desire for ENOSIS that required the use of terror and violence of EOKA. If all Makarios had wanted was indpendance of Cyprus from British rule this could have been and would have been acheivable without a resort to violence. It was because Makarios did not want indpendance but wanted colonial rule of Cyprus transferred from Britiain to Greece and wanted this forced on the Turkish Cypriot community agsinst their will that he rejected all the British efforts prior to 60 for greater Cypriot self rule leading up to eventual independance and instead choose a resort to terrorist violence. Inpdepdance was achieveable without a resort to violence. Enosis was not acheivable without a resort to violence as as histpory prooved it was not acheievable even with it !

stavrizatz wrote:
There is a degree of similarity between all liberation struggles and the attempt to undervalue their initial purpose annoys me.

The pursuit of ENOSIS was not a struggle to liberate Cyprus but actually a struggle to change its colonial rulers from Britain to greece. Attempts to re write history as though ENOSIS was the same as liberation (which is not true for Greek Cypriot but most definately not true for Turkish Cypriot) annoy me.

It is in the name of ENOSIS that Cyprus was destroyed. Now who said that ?

[pg]

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20061104&hn=37934
Quote:
Talat emphasized that opening Maras (Varosha) to settlement just to surmount the ordeals of Turkey’s membership process was not just and criticized the difficulty of Finland’s willingness to accept them as a party of the talks.

Varosha is occupied by the TAF, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus does not use it for anything, and has no power over what goes on in Varosha. Now the Republic of Cyprus government is discussing a deal with Turkey where Turkey is given something, and the TAF leaves Varosha.

So, not Talat says the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus should be involved in the Varosha talks. In short, Talat wants to claim that he is using TAF to keep Greek Cypriot civilians out of their homes, in order to reach his political goals.

Does this make a terrorist of Talat or of TAF?

[Evagoras]

erolz wrote: stavrizatz wrote: EOKA was a revolution and if you call EOKA, Makarios and Tpap terrorists then we can call Gandhi, Che Guevara, Nelson Mandela and others famous revolutionaries as terrorist.

I am SHOCKED !

Che Guevara was a terrorist.

Ghandi most certainly WAS NOT a terrorist. He believed , championed and pretty much created the entire concept of 'passive NON VIOLENT revolt'.

Nelson mandella is a more complicated example. The ANC DID engage in terrorist activities and as far as they did this they were a terrorist organisation. Nelson Mandlella was the head of the ANC but in reality he was incarcerated through most of the period that the ANC engaged in terrorist activities. However I believe he did support the use of violence in the struggle in SA (ie a resort to terroism) but may be wrong about this.

That you can apparently put Ganhdi and his national congress and his NON VIOLENT struggle for INDEPENDANCE (not a a different colonial ruler) on some kind of parity with Makarios (and Grivas and Yiorjardis) and their struggle for ENOSIS is to me shocking ! erolz do you believe the resistance organisations in ww2 against the nazis were terrorists?

[Kifeas]

pg wrote: http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20061104&hn=37934
Quote:
Talat emphasized that opening Maras (Varosha) to settlement just to surmount the ordeals of Turkey’s membership process was not just and criticized the difficulty of Finland’s willingness to accept them as a party of the talks.



What a pathetic remark from Talat! The return of a stolen city and its properties to its owners, who have been deprived of billions of pounds of incomes and sustained damages for 32 years due to their illegal expulsion from it, is not a just act according to him, even when there are international court decisions and UN resolutions since the 80's asking for the end of such an injustice and illegality; but the maintenance of isolation of 30,000 people from accessing their properties and homes for 32 years, in order to further his community's and Turkey's political blackmailing over the Greek Cypriots, is a perfectly "just" and "ethical" practice! What a pathetic argument and claim indeed!