The most active English Speaking Expat forum for North Cyprus
http://77.68.27.117/
Not as wicked at GC's attempting to wipe whole TC communities pre-1974. Since when veritable peace has reigned. If it needs Varosha's isolation it's a small p[rice to pay. Most of the buildings and inhabitants were hotels, hoteliers, holiday makers and ancillary service staff..Barney wrote:Wicked just leaving the place to rot and keep thousands of Cypriots out of their homes, one questions the motives.
But it didn't need Varosha's isolation to prevent inter communal violence, the separation of the communities and the green line did that. Peace would still reign if the greeks were still in the town, it's a wicked waste of the island's resources and does nothing to bring a fair and long term solution to Cyprus.Groucho wrote:Not as wicked at GC's attempting to wipe whole TC communities pre-1974. Since when veritable peace has reigned. If it needs Varosha's isolation it's a small p[rice to pay. Most of the buildings and inhabitants were hotels, hoteliers, holiday makers and ancillary service staff..Barney wrote:Wicked just leaving the place to rot and keep thousands of Cypriots out of their homes, one questions the motives.
You hazard wrong I think, the port is much closer to the Turkish old walled city, Greek Varosha is further south, as I understand it the modern fenced off area is separate from the port. I can't see why the modern town would have any strategic value, Turkey just wants to punish the Greeks.Groucho wrote:I would hazard that Varosha is seen as a strategically and militarily important site for the securing of the port of Famagusta... therefore there is no mystery in the TRNC/Turkish reluctance in this regard pending a solution.
Short-range missile attacks could be mounted from a site such as Varosha... whilst providing line of sight and disguise. Of course these days armaments being what they are, this is not the consideration it was at the time of the intervention but it's no surprise that the decisions made in 1974 are still held to be relevant today - this is Cyprus!Barney wrote:You hazard wrong I think, the port is much closer to the Turkish old walled city, Greek Varosha is further south, as I understand it the modern fenced off area is separate from the port. I can't see why the modern town would have any strategic value, Turkey just wants to punish the Greeks.Groucho wrote:I would hazard that Varosha is seen as a strategically and militarily important site for the securing of the port of Famagusta... therefore there is no mystery in the TRNC/Turkish reluctance in this regard pending a solution.
Barney wrote:You hazard wrong I think, the port is much closer to the Turkish old walled city, Greek Varosha is further south, as I understand it the modern fenced off area is separate from the port. I can't see why the modern town would have any strategic value, Turkey just wants to punish the Greeks.Groucho wrote:I would hazard that Varosha is seen as a strategically and militarily important site for the securing of the port of Famagusta... therefore there is no mystery in the TRNC/Turkish reluctance in this regard pending a solution.
I know there was a lot of fighting between the two sides but i have never heard of genocide, I was told that hundreds were killed on both sides before 1974 but thousands as a result of the invasion.jacob wrote:Barney wrote:You hazard wrong I think, the port is much closer to the Turkish old walled city, Greek Varosha is further south, as I understand it the modern fenced off area is separate from the port. I can't see why the modern town would have any strategic value, Turkey just wants to punish the Greeks.Groucho wrote:I would hazard that Varosha is seen as a strategically and militarily important site for the securing of the port of Famagusta... therefore there is no mystery in the TRNC/Turkish reluctance in this regard pending a solution.
Well are you surprised that Turkey want to punish the Greeks, fgs, the Greek Cyps were committing acts of genocide, or do you think that is acceptable, just to add, I am no supporter of Turkey with Erdogan at the helm.
But they share Nicosia and are only a few yards apart there, so why not famagusta and Varosha.Groucho wrote:Short-range missile attacks could be mounted from a site such as Varosha... whilst providing line of sight and disguise. Of course these days armaments being what they are, this is not the consideration it was at the time of the intervention but it's no surprise that the decisions made in 1974 are still held to be relevant today - this is Cyprus!Barney wrote:You hazard wrong I think, the port is much closer to the Turkish old walled city, Greek Varosha is further south, as I understand it the modern fenced off area is separate from the port. I can't see why the modern town would have any strategic value, Turkey just wants to punish the Greeks.Groucho wrote:I would hazard that Varosha is seen as a strategically and militarily important site for the securing of the port of Famagusta... therefore there is no mystery in the TRNC/Turkish reluctance in this regard pending a solution.
Read this http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 13we45.htmBarney wrote:I know there was a lot of fighting between the two sides but i have never heard of genocide, I was told that hundreds were killed on both sides before 1974 but thousands as a result of the invasion.
Agreed, but the problem is that the minority want more of Cyprus than their numbers "deserve". They have so much of it that they have been able to "sell" off greek property cheaply to foreigners and give some away to mainland Turks. I think the Greeks would accept a legal partition but not at current territorial sharestomsteel wrote:Why cannot we learn from history, rather than just quote it? The indigenous people of Cyprus are Cypriots. Not Greeks or Turks, and there are Maronites here. Let the Cypriots decide their future. If the minority cannot accept what the majority want, have 2 separate states. It works, after a fashion, in Ireland.
tomsteel wrote:There should be no mention of 'Greek' regarding the Cypriot problem. Both sides have given away land they did not own. Both major airports in the RoC have been developed on land owned by Cypriots of the minority ethnicity without their permission.
I reckon its been tit for tat for years in Cyprus, 1963 was revenge for what happened in 1958.Groucho wrote:Read this http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 13we45.htmBarney wrote:I know there was a lot of fighting between the two sides but i have never heard of genocide, I was told that hundreds were killed on both sides before 1974 but thousands as a result of the invasion.
Understand that what you have been told is very probably a long way from the truth - which is no surprise.
Quote:-
Clerides continued: "If the Turkish Cypriots resist "unilateral amendments of the Constitution" where their rights would be abrogated, the forces of the Minister of Interior will use force to "put down the uprising". Lt General George Karayiannis (the mainland Greek Army Officer then in command of the Cyprus Army) told Ethnikos Kiryx, an Athens Daily, on 13 June 1965 that "President Makarios decided (a) to proceed to organise the Greek Cypriots for battle and arm them, and (b) to proceed with the revision of the Constitution, including the cancellation of the [Turkish Cypriot] Vice-President's Veto."
"When the Turkish Cypriots objected to the amendment of the constitution Makarios put his plan into effect, and the Greek Cypriot attack began in December 1963"—(Lt Gen Karayiannis)[117] The General is referring to the "Akritas" plan, which was the blueprint for the annihilation of the Turkish Cypriots and the annexation of the island to Greece.
No doubt it is but the author of the script is a former British diplomat and history expert and he gives references for what he says.kaiserphil wrote:The website you quote is propaganda.
He is a former British diplomat and history expert who was given a a Greek Government scholarship in 1994 and since has worked as lecturer in British history, literature and culture at the Ionian University. Yes he gives his sources but he also selects parts of these sources and gives his interpretation of what those mean, which of course he is entitled to do. However perspective matters. Just to give one example you presented this source as evidence that what happened in 63 was 'revenge' for what TC did in 58, implying that thus TC 'started it' in 58. Yet the same source could also be used to support an argument that GC had been provoking TC before this specific event in 58. So you picked out the section that suited your argument and quoted it (perfectly natural to do so) but one could easily take this section as well.Barney wrote: No doubt it is but the author of the script is a former British diplomat and history expert and he gives references for what he says.
Mallinson, like your self does not make much of this part of the source he uses and I suggest that is because he has a particular perspective, which is understandable given that he has and continues to work at a Greek university funded by the Greek government.Unlike previous Turkish riots it has none of the appearance of a spontaneous reaction to some act of violence by the Greeks.
No, I didn't say who started it, I don't know who did what to who before 1958, I said it looked like tit for tat. Mallison may be biased but this is what Americans in Nicosia said,erol wrote:He is a former British diplomat and history expert who was given a a Greek Government scholarship in 1994 and since has worked as lecturer in British history, literature and culture at the Ionian University. Yes he gives his sources but he also selects parts of these sources and gives his interpretation of what those mean, which of course he is entitled to do. However perspective matters. Just to give one example you presented this source as evidence that what happened in 63 was 'revenge' for what TC did in 58, implying that thus TC 'started it' in 58. Yet the same source could also be used to support an argument that GC had been provoking TC before this specific event in 58. So you picked out the section that suited your argument and quoted it (perfectly natural to do so) but one could easily take this section as well.Barney wrote: No doubt it is but the author of the script is a former British diplomat and history expert and he gives references for what he says.
Mallinson, like your self does not make much of this part of the source he uses and I suggest that is because he has a particular perspective, which is understandable given that he has and continues to work at a Greek university funded by the Greek government.Unlike previous Turkish riots it has none of the appearance of a spontaneous reaction to some act of violence by the Greeks.
There can be no doubt that Mallinson has a partial perspective on the events in Cyprus imo. My point was that anyone can find sources that support or refute such a partial perspective and indeed we all do but that does not mean they are anything other than that.Barney wrote:No, I didn't say who started it, I don't know who did what to who before 1958, I said it looked like tit for tat. Mallison may be biased