www.talkcyprus.org

[stavrizatz]

“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,”
Defining a national movement/organisation is often a debatable issue. EOKA purpose was to liberate Cyprus, hence freedom fighters but the methods used might determine whether if EOKA used terrorism or guerrilla warfare, "implications of defining the terms tend to transcend the boundaries of theoretical discussions."

The following site analyses clearly the debate of terrorism or liberation struggle.
http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/define.htm

Academic definition of terrorism:
"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html

Briefly from a UN general assembly at Geneva 21-03-87:

PREAMBLE
Against this background of torment and struggle, the debate about international terrorism is waged, being manipulated in the media and elsewhere by forces of domination; the public is encouraged to associate terrorism exclusively with those victims of this system. We seek to make clear that terrorism is overwhelmingly an expression of these structures of domination and only very derivatively of the struggles that arise in legitimate resistance.

NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENTS
As repeatedly recognized by the United Nations General Assembly, peoples who are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination have the right to use force to accomplish their objectives within the framework of international humanitarian law. Such lawful uses of force must not be confused with acts of international terrorism. Thus, it would be legally impermissible to treat members of national liberation movements in the Caribbean Basin, Central America, Namibia, Northern Ireland, the Pacific Islands, Palestine, and South Africa, among others, as if they were common criminals. Rather, national liberation fighters should be treated as combatants subject to the laws and customs of warfare and to the international laws of humanitarian armed conflict as evidenced, for example, by the 1907 Hague Regulations, the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and their Additional Protocol I of 1977. Hence, national liberation fighters would be held to the same standards of belligerent conduct that are applicable to soldiers
fighting in an international armed conflict. Thus, when a liberation fighter is captured by a belligerent state, he should not be tried as a criminal, but would be treated as a prisoner of war. He could be interned for the duration of the conflict, or released upon condition of a pledge to refrain from further participation in hostilities, or traded in a prisoner of war exchange. In the event such a national liberation fighter is found in a neutral state, he should not be subjected to extradition to the belligerent state.

In the spirit of Geneva Protocol I, just as is true for soldiers in regular armed forces, when a national liberation fighter is captured after directly attacking innocent civilians as such, he would still be treated as a prisoner of war, but would be subject to prosecution for the commission of war crimes before an impartial international tribunal, preferably in a neutral state or by an international court. And, to the extent that the concerned belligerent states refuse to treat national liberation fighters analogously to soldiers for political reasons or propaganda purposes, they must assume a considerable amount of direct responsibility for whatever violence that is inflicted upon their civilian populations by national liberation fighters.
Nevertheless, we wish to emphasize that the overwhelming majority of violations of the laws and customs of warfare have been and are still being committed by the regular, irregular, para-military and covert forces of states, not by national liberation fighters. The Western news media have purposely distorted and perverted this numerical relationship in order to perpetrate the cult of counter-terrorism for their governments' own militaristic and terrorist purposes.

http://www.i-p-o.org/GDT.HTM

Cheers

[stavrizatz]

To Erol: please read the above and try to understand what I have been trying to say, because it seems that you stuck to your subjective point of view, perhaps it suits you better to argue that EOKA were terrorists so as to stretch your point (my perception) that Turks are superior and better than Greeks!!!

[cypezokyli]

stavrizatz wrote: To Erol: please read the above and try to understand what I have been trying to say, because it seems that you stuck to your subjective point of view, perhaps it suits you better to argue that EOKA were terrorists so as to stretch your point (my perception) that Turks are superior and better than Greeks!!!

perhaps we need to ask the question the other way around stavrisatz.
Quote:
“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,”

in this sentence, it is clear that the Greek Cypriots would call eoka, freedom fighters , and the british (the colonial power) it is obvious that they would call them terrorists.

we should ask ourselves why did the Turkish Cypriots without being "the government" or the "oppressive colonialist" chose to view eoka as terrorist organization ? why didnt they consider the eoka fighters as their freedom fighters ? why did the Turkish Cypriots felt that they had more to loose if eoka achieved its aims , and preferred the colonial rule instead ?

i think that if you try to put yourself in the position of the Turkish Cypriots, its very clear why the view eoka as they do.

personally as a Greek Cypriot , i believe eoka made tragic mistakes , and it was simply all wrong if you view its leadership its targets etc . but since there were some Greek Cypriot who chose to sacrifice their life , i cannot but show respect to that choise they made. so i have no problem in calling the eoka leadrship as nationalist, fascist and above all extremely stupid , but at the same time i disagree with a label describing the whole group. there were some honorable men in there.

[zan]

I have no doubt in my mind that there were Honorable men that were members of EOKA but these men were in a terrorist organisation.

[erolz]

stavrizatz wrote: To Erol: please read the above and try to understand what I have been trying to say, because it seems that you stuck to your subjective point of view, perhaps it suits you better to argue that EOKA were terrorists so as to stretch your point (my perception) that Turks are superior and better than Greeks!!!

What I said - EOKA as an orgnaisation that used violence murder fear and intimidation (against its 'enemy' and against its own people) was a terrorist orgnaistation.

What you say / perceive I said - Turks are superior to Greeks.

How is it possible to have a sensible discussion when you do the above ?

[erolz]

stavrizatz wrote: Defining a national movement/organisation is often a debatable issue.

EOKA was not a national movement - it was an ethnic one. By defining it as a national movement you inherently say that the nation of Cyprus belongs to Greek Cypriot and only Greek Cypriot and a purely Greek Cypriot will is the same as a national will.

stavrizatz wrote:
EOKA purpose was to liberate Cyprus,....

EOKA purpose was to achieve enosis - the union (annexation) of Cyprus to Greece. For SOME cypriots this may also have represented 'liberation' but for others it clearly represented something very different. By defining EOKA's aim as liberation - with no cavetas no futher explanation and no mention of enosis and for whom such an objective was 'liberation' and for whom it was not you once again make it clear that you believe that your community alone is Cyprus.

OK let's look at your sources then

Quote:
http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/define.htm

Firslty lets look at who they before we look at what they say. The ICT is

Quote: The International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) was established in 1996 at the academic Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya (IDC) in Israel.

Quote: ICT is a research institute and think tank dedicated to developing innovative public policy solutions to international terrorism. The Policy Institute applies an integrated, solutions-oriented approach built on a foundation of real world and practical experience.

Now lets look at their definition of terrorism.

Quote: Academics, politicians, security experts and journalists, all use a variety of definitions of terrorism. Some definitions focus on the terrorist organizations’ mode of operation.. Others emphasize the motivations and characteristics of terrorism, the modus operandi of individual terrorists, etc.

In their book Political Terrorism, Schmidt and Youngman cited 109 different definitions of terrorism, which they obtained in a survey of leading academics in the field. From these definitions, the authors isolated the following recurring elements, in order of their statistical appearance in the definitions[1]: Violence, force (appeared in 83.5% of the definitions); political (65%); fear, emphasis on terror (51%); threats (47%); psychological effects and anticipated reactions (41.5%); discrepancy between the targets and the victims (37.5%); intentional, planned, systematic, organized action (32%); methods of combat, strategy, tactics (30.5%).

So let's apply these common elements in order to EOKA

Violence, force (83.5%) - clearly yes

political (65%) - clearly yes

fear, emphasis on terror (51%) - imo yes. Grivas used fear and terror against the British (british civilians feared to go into certain areas of Cyprus and british non combatants like my mother who lived in Cyprus and worked for the British armys catering core feared to go into certain areas at certain times - including ledra street known at the time as 'murder mile'). Grivas also used fear and terror against Cypriots - esp any Greek Cypriot that opposed EOKA or enosis or were 'leftisit'. There were Greek Cypriot that would have and wanted to speak out against EOKA and enosis and Grivas but who did not do so for fear of the EOKA response. I can accept that it is arguable as to weather the emphasis of EOKA was on terror - but clearly fear and terror were integeral parts of how EOKA operated.

threats (47%) - yes . EOKA made and carried out threats against those that opposed it , both the British and Cypriots.

psychological effects and anticipated reactions (41.5%) - yes

discrepancy between the targets and the victims (37.5%) - it is not entirely clear to me what this criteria actually means ? I suspect that answer is yes in that the 'target' was British establishment and military in Cyprus yet many of EOKA's vicitims were not part of this target.

intentional, planned, systematic, organized action (32%) - clearly yes

So by the above criteria I think it is clear that EOKA was a terorist orgnaisation. I would also like to point out something raised on this site's section on defining terrorism that I think is pertinant and relevant and something which you yourself have done and do. Namely to present 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' as two mutualy exclusive possibilites. From the site you cite on this issue

Quote: Surprisingly, many in the Western world have accepted the mistaken assumption that terrorism and national liberation are two extremes in the scale of legitimate use of violence. The struggle for “national liberation” would appear to be the positive and justified end of this sequence, whereas terrorism is the negative and odious one. It is impossible, according to this approach, for any organization to be both a terrorist group and a movement for national liberation at the same time.

In failing to understand the difference between these two concepts, many have, in effect, been caught in a semantic trap laid by the terrorist organizations and their allies. They have attempted to contend with the clichés of national liberation by resorting to odd arguments, instead of stating that when a group or organization chooses terrorism as a means, the aim of their struggle cannot be used to justify their actions (see below).

This approach strengthens the attempt by terrorist organizations to present terrorism and the struggle for liberation as two contradictory concepts. It thus plays into the terrorists’ hands by supporting their claim that, since they are struggling to remove someone they consider a foreign occupier, they cannot be considered terrorists.
The claim that a freedom fighter cannot be involved in terrorism, murder and indiscriminate killing is, of course, groundless. A terrorist organization can also be a movement of national liberation, and the concepts of “terrorist” and “freedom fighter” are not mutually contradictory.

You I believe fall into this trap. EOKA was a terroist orgnaisation - for it used terror to pursue its political objectives. It was also for one part of the Cypriot people a liberation movement. This second reality does not wipe out the first.

So onto you next quote source - but I will do so in a new post.

[erolz]

Next source - basically a UN one and therefore a better source imo for such a discussion

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html

This site present 4 different proposed definitions of terrorism

Quote: 1. League of Nations Convention (1937):

"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".

I believe by this definition EOKA wasa terorist organisation. EOKA sucsessfuly created a climate of fear within Cyprus designed to dicourage and stop those that would have spoken out against it as its aims.

Quote: 2. UN Resolution language (1999):

"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;

2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)

This (second part) is probaly closest to my personal defintion. IE if you use violence fear intimidation and murder in the pursuit of poltical objectives you are a terrorist and the 'cause' you are fighting for - be it national liberation or ethnic liberation of one community and disenfrachisment of the other does not alter this fact.

Under this defintion to me EOKA was clearly a terrorist organisation. EOKA created a climate of fear. Ledra street was know to British civilans and military alike as 'murder mile'.

Quote: 3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):

Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

Again under this definition to me EOKA was a terroisy organisation. Shooting unarmed people in the back is a war crime in times of war. Kiling people because of their poltical beliefs and alligences is a war crime in times of war.

Quote: 4. Academic Consensus Definition:

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).


Again by thsi definition to me EOKA was clearly a terrorist organisation.

So onto (briefly) your 3rd source in my next post.

[erolz]

Final source

http://www.talkcyprus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=72890#72890

Basicaly I am not going to deal with this source at all for it is unclear to me who these people are. What is clear to me however is that they have a very specific agenda in realtion primarily to 'state terrorism' and it's relationship to 'normal terrorism' and thus I do not think it is a suitabe source for this 'simpler' and more direct discussion we are having here.

[erolz]

cypezokyli wrote:
perhaps we need to ask the question the other way around stavrisatz.


Thank you cypezokyli. I hope you are able to 'reach' stavrisatz as I have so clearly failed to do so so far.

zan wrote: I have no doubt in my mind that there were Honorable men that were members of EOKA but these men were in a terrorist organisation.

Exactly ! I have said exactly myself this on several occasions before like here for instance

http://www.talkcyprus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=61898

Quote: There was no doubt that EOKA contined honourable men that genuinely beliveved they were doing what was best for their community and made considerable personal sacrafices and showed great personal bravery.

or here

http://www.talkcyprus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58698

Quote: Undobtedly there were indivduals within EOKA who were noble men, fighting for what they believed was just and right and willing to make great personal sacrafice upto and including giving their own lives in the persuit of these (no matter how misguided) aims.

or here

http://www.talkcyprus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=72554

Quote: Let me say (once again) that I understand and know that not everyone within EOKA was 'evil'. That many were honorable and brave individuals that made great personal sacrifices in the pursuit of what they believed was right (as many within TMT did likewise)

Yet from this stavrizatz understands / perceives my 'point' as being 'Turks are better than Greeks'. Sigh :(

[Cyprus rules!]

Quote: so i have no problem in calling the eoka leadrship as nationalist, fascist and above all extremely stupid , but at the same time i disagree with a label describing the whole group. there were some honorable men in there.

I think I agree....

[Cyprus rules!]

Quote: Nevertheless, we wish to emphasize that the overwhelming majority of violations of the laws and customs of warfare have been and are still being committed by the regular, irregular, para-military and covert forces of states, not by national liberation fighters. The Western news media have purposely distorted and perverted this numerical relationship in order to perpetrate the cult of counter-terrorism for their governments' own militaristic and terrorist purposes.

This is what I mean when I talk about Hypocrisy....

[stavrizatz]

Before going on I will ask you Erol:
Do you believe that Turks are superior to Greeks?

If you don't believe that then i will deeply apologise.
You know I am relatively new in the forum and I know you from what you have been wtitting in the posts, and all I hear from you is:
-saying that EOKA A' and B'are terrorists (full stop)
-that Eonosis as a result of self determination is not fair because Greece will be just another colony.
-You wrote that it was not in the interest of Turkey to claim Cyprus for strategic purposes after 1960 but Turkey was satisfied with Cyprus being independent according to the 1960's constitution .
-For the events between 1963 to 1974 responsible is to Greek Cypriots for proposing the 13 ammendments and the reaction by the Turkish Cypriot community was logical.
-You mentioned Turks being killed/slaughtered during the bi-communal conflict.
-Akritas plan was a plan for Turkish Cypriot genocide and that most likely the 13 points were related to the plan, and that the Republic of Cyprus was most likely aware of the plan.
-You said that Makarios was not a true leader because he believed in Enosis even after 1974
-You said that the recognition of Republic of Cyprus is not legitimate because of the various criminal illegalities that the Greek Cypriot community commited since 1963.
...
On all of the above points all you are saying is not lies, it is your subjective view using language to undervalue and creat negative image of Greek Cypriots. Not once in my experience in the forum you mentioned something negative about Turkish Cypriots, Turkey and not once you expressed something positive things about Greek Cypriots and Greece.

My perception also has been affected by DeLaSoul who told me "don't pay to much attention to Erol because he is twisted" and Kifeas said that the onversation with you are nonsense.

All I have been trying to point out in this forum is that self-determination is a human right forbitten to Cyprus, the conflict between 1963-1974 was a bi-communal one as a result from Turkish Cypriots looking for partition and Greek Cypriots demanding Enosis and finally for at least senior members to use language more objective that will reflect more the reality.

The responses were that I am totally ignorant, basically that I am totally wrong (not partially). Thanks very much

[Kifeas]

Stavrizatz, If you want to find out what a waste of time arguing with Erol is, on all these issues, and what an opinionated, and one-sided perception he has, you could have asked him one simple question. You could have asked him if all the ranting he has been making about 1955 Eoka, namely to have been a terrorist organisation aiming to take Cyprus from one colonial power and put it under another, or to annex Cyprus to Greece; if he would have said them about the TMT as well. Ask him to tell you if he believes that the TMT was also a terrorist organisation, to the same extent that Eoka was, and that its aim was to put Cyprus (part of it) under the yoke of another foreign country, like Eoka’s aim was.

[stavrizatz]

[Cyprus rules!]

Hi, I was discussing EOKA with someone the other day, and said that actually at first it was the Communists that the British felt were the 'revolutionaries', or the 'threat' so to speak and that the communists decided to use more of a political route to gain self-determination, and that Makrios, at first also followed this route, but was convinced by Grivas to up the game, as politically the campaign was getting him now where. He said that actually the EOKA campaign was supposed to be, at first, a scare tactic to get the British to the negotiating table, you know a few bombs here and there, just acts of sabotage really (apparently Makarios too alot of convincing)...However, he felt that one of the reasons the campaign became, well more intense, was because the first British officer who was sent to control the 'revolt' was a hard liner, who well sort of 'turned it into a war'....if that makes sense...

I don't whether he's right, they may be some truth in some of the things he said...(He has researched the Cyprus problem..)....

I Don't know....I think in the whole context of the Cyprus problem, it's not fair to simply state that the EOKA campaign was purely and simply an act of complete terror...