www.talkcyprus.org

[Mete]

Some of you might have seen this already but this is a documentary by a Greek Cypriot journalist who outlined the Greek Cypriot government sponsored propaganda against Greek Cypriots who supported the Annan plan:

It's in Greek with English subtitles.

http://www.makarios.ws/cgibin/hweb?-A=1284&-V=perireousa

[depurple]

mete there was not any propaganda: All there was is the corrupt Clerides Greek Cypriot where promised $$$$$$$$$$$ if they voted YES and sold out the people of Kyrenia, Morphou and Famagusta:

BUT once NORMAL just people put everything into perspective which is:
A YES vote meant that I WILL NEVER go back to my legally owned ancestral land in Lapithos YOU had to be a complete idiots OR a corrupt bastard to vote YES!
The real LIE is that the Annan Plan united Cyprus when it really divided it permanently: AND when I tell people this they say SHIT we didn't know this!
BUT now most know that it was just another piece of dirty politics:

SO the real question is Simple?
Could I ever go back to Kyrenia in the Annan Plan Yes vote? Yes or NO?
IF not: What do you call this?
Uniting Cyprus or Dividing Cyprus?

I personally call this Uniting the corrupt fools in the Republic of Cyprus & Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus ONLY!
cheers

[100%cypriot]

great piece

[Mete]

depurple wrote:
mete there was not any propaganda:

The documentary was about the time period after the Annan plan and it outlines all the propaganda of Greek Cypriot media and Papadopoulos based on their assumptions and not realities. Did you watch it?

[depurple]

Mete I didn't watch it BUT I know for a fact that Clerides paid a lot of Greek Cypriot to say yes to the Annan plan: He even paid for tickets and expenses for many Greek Cypriot in Australia to come to Cyprus to vote YES!
I know a few that did:
They asked me and I said Great BUT I will vote NO and they said are you crazy they will shoot you IF you did that!
So what I want to know is how many Greek Cypriot where paid to vote YES?
And how many Greek Cypriot where paid to vote NO?
I will read the article on TPAP and let you know what conclusion I come up with!
cheers my friend!

[Bananiot]

Oh dear, it is more serious than I thought.

[Mete]

depurple wrote:
Mete I didn't watch it

This topic is about the mentioned documentary that outlines the campaign of misinformation carried by Greek Cypriot media and Papadopoulos against people who voted yes to the Annan plan after the Annan plan referandum. If you watched the documentary and have comments about the documentary, please post them here. Otherwise, keep your views for another great discussion in another topic.

[Saint Jimmy]

Soooo...

This is a thread about Makarios Drousiotis's documentary.
I've watched it five times, and with every time one thing got clearer. It all comes down to one question, and the answer to that question (that is, whatever answer each of us gives to that question), surprisingly, is a simple yes or no. The question is this:

is it possible for a PUBLIC document (the Nathans Associates report) to contain a list with the names of prominent Cypriots who have been bribed in order to campaign for a YES vote in the referendum?

The report in question was 'discovered' by the media on the friggin' internet (!), and it is, for any cool-headed person, harmless. But, it's also a huge document. No one bothered to read it, and of those who might have invested the time and effort to do so, few were able to understand what it actually says. I feel like I must clarify one thing, though: I don't believe that the Greek Cypriot media was guided into presenting those prominent people in the list as paid traitors. That was just the angle that explained what they couldn't understand - from having gone through the report in what little time they had before the story broke. This form of 'knowledgable ignorance' paved the way for the frenzy that ensued, and, of course, the Greek Cypriot political leadership that favored the NO vote wasn't going to do a damn thing about it - and it didn't.

So yes, there was propaganda, but no, it wasn't the politically-led elaborate scheme that Makarios Drousiotis implies it was (much in the same way that Michael Moore does in his own ill-constructed 'magnum opus' - Fahrenheit 9/11).

[erolz]

Saint Jimmy wrote: So yes, there was propaganda, but no, it wasn't the politically-led elaborate scheme that Makarios Drousiotis implies it was (much in the same way that Michael Moore does in his own ill-constructed 'magnum opus' - Fahrenheit 9/11).

I feel, somewhat inevitably, that you are letting the politicians off too lightly here. It was not a conspiracy plotted in secret room, such was not needed. There were enough aligned interests between politicians and media , through ownership and other connections, for there to be no need for a conspiracy. However it was not to my mind a case that the politicians 'did nothing to stop it' - the problem is they actively fed and encouraged the frenzy. TP's 'classic' line that proof of the allegations comes not from any hard material evidence but can be inferred from the 'ambient atmosphere' and 'behaviour' was far from 'doing nothing'. I am of the opinion that TP knew that there was no substance to the claims that the Americans and UN were bribing Greek Cypriot to vote for and promote the Annan plan and that he actively tried to convince the Greek Cypriot people that they were. That to me is clearly propaganda. The targets of this propaganda was not only Greek Cypriot supporters of the Annan plan but the USA and the UN itself.

[Mete]

erolz wrote:
I am of the opinion that TP knew that there was no substance to the claims that the Americans and UN were bribing Greek Cypriot to vote for and promote the Annan plan and that he actively tried to convince the Greek Cypriot people that they were.

I agree and what's more tragic is that even if someone proves that Papadopoulos was wrong 100%, the damage has already been done. To an average Greek Cypriot, who doesn't bother to read the first-hand sources, US and UN "bought" some Greek Cypriot intellectuals in order to secure a Yes vote for the plan. It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to clean the mud once it's thrown.

It's also unfortunate that we don't have more mature and responsible politicians on both sides of the island.

[cypezokyli]

the funny thing is that volkan apparently got jealous of our own nationalists, and attempted to do the same against akinci. :roll:

besides, that , drousiotis work, is ofcource selective (you can even call it propaganda if you want) , but the point is that he challanges the accusers (media AND politicians) to provide evidence for their accusations. thats the whole point of the documentary. all the rest is poetry.

[depurple]

Boys Who would of benefited the most From a YES vote?
The UN!
Why?
Because they would of solved the Cyprus problem even thought they stuffed it all UP:
All the UN had to do is implement the resolution against Turkey and made sure Turkey abide by them BUT being weak as shit the UN tried to cover it up with the Annan Plan:
The USA:
they would of solved Cyprus (They also where involved in its demise) and cleared the path for Turkey to get into the EU:
So you see WHY wouldn't they have paid all this money for the YES vote:
OF coarse they did:
Also WHERE the hell did Clerides and his bumchums get all the money to pay people from Australia and other countries to come to Cyprus to VOTE yes?
From the US and the UN: Where else!

And Turkey would of paid some dollars as well on the other side to persuade the Settlers and the others to vote YES when most settlers would of voted NO!
So Tpap wanted to expose all these traitors and palm greasers!
And why not?
All theses clowns would sell out their own mothers!
cheers
PS And they did in 1974!

[Saint Jimmy]

erolz wrote: it was not to my mind a case that the politicians 'did nothing to stop it' - the problem is they actively fed and encouraged the frenzy
Most Greek Cypriot politicians who tried to benefit from the media's angle on the story did not actively 'feed' the story with new elements - with notable exceptions in such personas as msrs. Pittokopitis, Koulias, Koutsou and Erotokritou. Mostly, they merely reproduced what had already been 'unearthed' - not, I repeat, that that is any less reprehensible and unethical.
'Encouraged' is an acceptable term. "[...] the Greek Cypriot political leadership that favored the NO vote wasn't going to do a damn thing about it - and it didn't [...]", is not to say that they are innocent of promoting propaganda, but it is to say that this whole madness was not their idea. Neither, of course, was any attempt at stopping it or any further search for evidence.

erolz wrote: I am of the opinion that TP knew that there was no substance to the claims that the Americans and UN were bribing Greek Cypriot to vote for and promote the Annan plan and that he actively tried to convince the Greek Cypriot people that they were
I think this might be a case of prejudice (no offence, I'm using 'prejudice' for lack of a better word).
TP, as everyone else in Cyprus, must initially have had no way of knowing whether these allegations were true or false. Later, when he made the claim that you mentioned, he must have known that there was no evidence to support the accusations, but not that the accusations were not, in fact, valid. Further, the claims per se may be interpreted as referring not to the bribe frenzy itself, but rather as a general political principle: 'these things are not done with signatures and receipts. Some things are inferred from the ambient atmosphere', inter alia. Fact. But not conclusive evidence. In effect, what he was saying was 'it's very hard to prove such things, but that doesn't mean that they are definitely not true'. Yes, he knew the media was going to interpret that as 'can't be proven, but definitely true', and he did nothing to avoid it. But you can't blame him for that.

[Mete]

cypezokyli wrote:
the funny thing is that volkan apparently got jealous of our own nationalists, and attempted to do the same against akinci.

Nationalists are nationalists everywhere. They need to create "enemies" in order to fuel their supporters and Volkan is not an exception.

Let me tell you a story. When borders were closed, I used to go and meet with my Greek Cypriot friends at Pyla. Nothing special just get together with friends to keep the peace flame alive. To my surprise, one day I was reading Volkan online and my name was portrayed as a Turkish Cypriot who met with AKEL representatives! Even though I don't know anyone from AKEL and I was never at Pyla for political reasons. Of course Volkan had the Turkish Cypriot police records of who crossed to Pyla and when they saw my name multiple times, they chose to fabricate something out of nothing.

That's why I always want to remind people that don't just listen what somebody else says. Read the first hand sources yourself because you can't trust someone else to tell you the absolute truth.

Saint Jimmy wrote:
Yes, he knew the media was going to interpret that as 'can't be proven, but definitely true', and he did nothing to avoid it. But you can't blame him for that.

Why can I not blame him for that? As a president, don't you think he should have been more responsible towards his citizens? He's not a guy at the coffee shop, drinking his coffee and saying whatever he feels like without evidence, you know? Maybe he feels like that due to his nature but the fact is he took up a position that requires him not to be like that. He can shape up the public opinion pretty easily in a small place like Cyprus and he should have been more responsible before getting carried away.

This is not too much to ask from a politician, is it? But who am I kidding? Bush almost destroyed a country (Iraq) with the lie of weapons of mass destruction. So maybe I'm expecting too much from politicians.

[Saint Jimmy]

Mete wrote: He can shape up the public opinion pretty easily in a small place like Cyprus and he should have been more responsible before getting carried away.
Yes, he can. And naturally, he shaped it in the way he thought best. Whether what he thought best was, in fact, best, is open to discussion, but the fact remains that what he said can be seen as a general way of intuitively assigning innocence or guilt, politically - however pretentious 'assigning innocence or guilt' may sound to you. And he is right in that.
Mete wrote: This is not too much to ask from a politician, is it? But who am I kidding?
Of course it is... :roll:
Public opinion is all they have. If they shape it, they win. If somebody else shapes it, they lose.
And you know, I don't believe the people are completely innocent of the disaster this whole thing has caused. I mean, yeah, information was readily available on the 8:00 o'clock news and the press and whatnot, but the fact that no one questioned it when the primary source of information was on the internet, conclusively proves complicity in my eyes.