Book essay: The bloody truth about Cyprus
by Henrik Ræder Clausen
Bloody Truth
Nicosia, March 2009. ISBN 9789963962204
The apparently endless stalemate on Cyprus is getting a thorough treatment in the publication by the organization “Freedom and Justice for Cyprus”. While the documentation of what went down through the 1960’s and 1970’s is shocking and brutal, the real coup of the book is that it goes back to the 1950’s, once and for all settling the question of who originally created the conflict in Cyprus: It wasn’t the ‘Turkish’ Cypriots. Nor was it Turkey. It was, documentably, Great Britain.The book has a cover as brutal as the title, an image of Cyprus with blood dripping from the north into the southern part. Based on this, one might expect it to contain a vitriolic anti-Turkish diatribe, but this isn’t really the case. In spite of some linguistic excesses, such as the phrase “The Turkish Propaganda Machine”, the book in general sticks to the documentation of events and developments on the ground, and thus becomes a valuable resource for understanding the current stalemate, as well as for assessing the merits of various proposed solutions.
As for who sowed the seeds of the current problems, the book is clear: It was not Turkey, nor Turkish Cypriots, it was Great Britain. Seeking a way to maintain the colonial rule established in 1923, Britain feared a united Cypriot opposition to their rule, and gradually worked to strengthen the Muslim/Turkish identity of the Muslim Cypriots. That included construction of new mosques in villages without any, initiating the use of the term “Turkish Cypriots”, and later requesting Turkey to reclaim rule of the island, an idea initially received with disinterest by the Turkish government.
However, a committee on the subject was formed in July 1955, and in 1956, professor Nihat Erim was appointed special advisory on the Cyprus issue. In November and December 1956, he released two reports endorsing an active Turkish engagement in Cyprus, aiming first at a division of the island into Greek and Turkish parts (termed “Taksin”), and to work long-term for a full Turkish takeover. This policy was adopted by the Turkish government, and has been followed by various Turkish governments — civilian or military — since then.
The book details chronology of various Greek and Turkish groups formed in the late 1950’s, including EOKA (Greek), VOLCAN (Turkish) and TMT (Turkish). Their chronology is particular important, for it is useful in weeding out honest statements from deceitful ones. This includes Turkish statements about the “Bloodthirsty Makarios”, the work by Rauf Denktash to turn TMT into an underground Turkish organization, the killing of Turkish voices other than those of TMT, and the efforts to make Turkish Cypriots segregate themselves from the Greek Cypriots. The tacit approval of the British in this marks a low point of harmful colonial divide-and-rule strategies.
Descriptions of events after 1962 are somewhat more sketchy. The proposed constitutional changes in 1963 play a central role, and the efforts by the TMT to segregate the Greek and Turkish are recorded in a very varied degree of detail. The Turkish bombardment of Tylleria in August 1964 is mentioned, but the heavy fighting in the preceding months are not. Advance references to the 2004 Annan Plan and similar chronological leaps are annoying, in spite of their relevance. The 1974 invasion is likewise accounted for in an unsystematic way, jumping rapidly from overall descriptions to individual tales of mass rapes and executions by the Turkish soldiers.
The real strength of this book is the wealth of original sources — British, Cypriot, Turkish — drawn in and quoted here. Many common fallacies and outright lies are dismantled, and for this reason it is easy to forgive the somewhat uneven narrative of the book. Harder to forgive is the lack of illustrations. Some maps providing an overview of violent incidents and the 1974 invasion would be welcome, as would some tables with statistics.
This book provides essential background information for the situation in Cyprus. It has its strength in quoting vital original documents in their proper context, showing a clear route from British colonial machinations to direct Turkish involvement, and provides an indispensable understanding of many key events. On the other hand, it is jumpy, both chronologically and emotionally, clearly one-sided, and skips chunks of history needed for a full account of the developments.
Review opinion: 4/6
If you have interest in the Cyprus conflict, adding this book to your collection is recommended, in particular because it provides crucial information regarding the role played by the British.
For those interested, more details out of “Bloody Truth”, and some closing comments:
In 1878, Cyprus was ceded from Ottoman to British rule, initially as a long-term lease agreement. The Cypriots, having been ruled by the Ottomans since 1571, welcomed the change, rejoicing in a European power coming back to Cyprus, setting the hopes for eventually establishing a modern, independent Cypriot state, much as countries in the Balkans during the 19th century had cast off centuries of brutal Ottoman rule and restored their independence.
Independence and self-determination were not in the cards for Cyprus, however. Even after World War I, when the Wilsonian Principles of self-determination of the peoples led to dismantling of empires and the re-establishment of multiple nation-states, Cyprus was not one of the states to return to independence. Rather, it became a British crown colony in 1925, after Turkey in the Treaty of Lausanne had relinquished all interests in the island.
Maintaining colonial rule was growing increasingly difficult, however, and not least in a country that considered itself part of the Western civilization, the Greek in particular. Great Britain set out to do what it had done so successfully elsewhere, to divide and rule. Strengthening the Islamic identity of the Muslims in Cyprus was deemed essential to this, and to do so, Britain initiated construction of mosques in many villages that had never had one.
Opening the door for Turkey
Then [BT: Page 208], on June 8th 1949 came a note in the minority newspaper “Halkni Sesi”: It reported that the British Governor R. E. Turnbull requested the term “Muslims of Cyprus” to be replaced with the currently used “Turkish Cypriots”. This seemingly insignificant change of terms in time brought about a change in perception, that the Muslims in Cyprus were Turks, and thus that Turkish interference on the island represented a legitimate concern for Turkish citizens.
But that was hard work. As Turkish foreign minister Ali Kuprulu said in 1950:
“For Turkey, there does not exist any Cyprus issue”.
Only in 1954, when Archbishop Makarios with the aid of Greece got Cyprus on the agenda of the United Nations, did help from the British press become sufficient that a Turkish demand to gain control of Cyprus could be raised at the United Nations. This is related in chilling detail on pages 208 through 213, and since the long-term consequences of these machinations are well known, it stands as a sinister example of how to cause severe long-term damage in international relations.
Taking the opportunity
For Turkey was not late in spotting an opportunity to increase regional influence and gain an advance strategic stronghold south of Turkey proper. In 1956, Turkish Prime minister Menderes set out to investigate the potential of getting a foothold in Cyprus. Professor Nihat Erim endorsed the idea, which has remained official Turkish policy since. The aim was to first provoke an ethnic division (Taksin) of Cyprus, then in the long term aim to take over the island entirely.
Turkey didn’t miss the opportunity offered to them by the British, having no particular interest in upholding international law in the process.
Taking up arms
On pages 214 through 231, we get quite a bit of detail about the increasing use (and misuse) of weapons and violence, in particular the formation of the Turkish orgs VOLKAN and TMT. Simultaneously, the armed movement EOKA was formed to dislodge the British colonial rule and replace it with a free and democratic Cypriot state. The story of this struggle is related elsewhere, but it clearly strengthened the British resolve to invite Turkish involvement in Cyprus, for it is much easier to rule over a divided people than a unified one. Thus Britain made Turkey partner in all formal proceedings, and turned a blind eye to Turkey’s creating a paramilitary organization TMT, 10,000 members strong, discreetly armed from Turkey and led by retired Turkish military staff.
Violent acts also took place elsewhere. On September 6th 1955, a minor bomb went off at the house where Kemal Atatürk was born, and on that pretext, along with pressure from the Turkish group “Cyprus is Turkish”, the Greek quarter of Istanbul (previously Constantinople) was severely damaged and looted, leading eventually to further ethnic cleansing of the Greek minority there.
The underground army TMT were to play a pivotal role in the following years. The predecessor, VOLKAN, had been partly British directed, but under the excellent leadership of Rauf Denktash, things slipped out of British control to the radical Turkish-supported circle around TMT. With this group systematically killing off Turkish-Cypriot dissent from their radical agenda, including labor union leaders, journalists and others of the opinion that peaceful coexistence between all Cypriots was a preferable option. Thus, TMT and Rauf Denktash managed to establish themselves as the only major voice of the Muslim / Turkish Cypriots. Not exactly democratic, but effective.
Winding up
After the semi-independence of 1960, the book becomes more spotty and could well have covered the events much more systematically. It does, however, bring out a valuable series of mythbusting, including the so-called “Bathtub murders” in 1963, the bombing of the Bayraktar mosque in Nicosia, the burning of a mosque in 1974, and other incidents staged to escalate Greek-Turkish animosity in ways similar to bombing the birthplace of Kemal Atatürk, then blaming the Greeks.
The pattern of Turks staging a (minor) event, or exploiting an unrelated crime for propaganda purposes, has been revealed bit by bit many years after they had the desired effect on the ground. Here, for instance, is a report from Today’s Zaman touching on several key events staged by Turkish parts in the conflict.
It is an unfortunate fact that whipping up emotion and confusing the minds of decision-makers can lead to a lot of mistakes in the heat of the moment, leading to the creation of more problems than the existed before, and in particular to situations on the ground that are difficult and/or embarrassing to solve correctly. This has been the case in Cyprus for decades on end.
However, bringing to light the details of past manipulations and mistakes is helpful in the long run, and Bloody Truth, in spites of its flaws, does a good job at delivering facts and details that really should have been out decades ago. It might have been a better book if it had put down a full stop at, say, 1964, leaving coverage of the 1974 Turkish invasion, the 1983 TRNC declaration and the 2004 Annan Plan for future books. But it is plenty readable and useful as it is, and has as its particular strength the extensive use of primary sources.
The path forward
No article about the conflict in Cyprus without outlining some principles about how to proceed, even though it is not directly the subject of Bloody Truth. The developments since the 1950’s has been marked by a never-ending failure to uphold international law, though usually under the pretence of doing so. “Never let a good crisis go to waste” has been applied repeatedly, all to frequently to crises created by deliberate manipulations. The Annan Plan marks a low point in that development, for as Alfred de Zayas wrote about it:
One year after the vote [the 2004 referendum], upon a calmer rereading of the Annan plan, the non-committed observer may wonder whether anyone could have reasonably expected the Cypriot population in non-occupied Cyprus to vote in favour of a plan that entailed abandoning positions held by the Security Council and the General Assembly since July 1974, and which seriously undermined fundamental principles of international law contained in numerous universal and regional documents.
On the state of international law in the context of Cyprus and Turkish aggression:
Can such grave violations of international law be retroactively legalized ? International law experts hold the view that such violations cannot be legalized. Alas, the situation of violation of international law norms by States — in total impunity — is not rare. However, this does not mean that international law has ceased to exist or that these particular norms have ceased to be applicable.
Further:
This Annan Plan is all the more distressing, because it manifests the application of double-standards at the highest level of the United Nations. Ethnic cleansing was condemned at Nuremberg. It is condemned today at The Hague by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. And yet Turkey is allowed to occupy militarily one third of the territory of another European country and to keep the fruits of the crime. Why this double-standard?
In order to uphold international law and the underlying principles of national sovereignty, a solution for Cyprus should be decided upon only by proper citizens of Cyprus — not Turkish soldiers or illegal settlers — and should adhere to principles laid down in international law, such as:
| 1. | Implementation of all relevant judgments and resolutions of international courts. | |
| 2. | Withdrawal of foreign military forces from Northern Cyprus; | |
| 3. | Withdrawal of illegal settlers in Northern Cyprus, in line with article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention; | |
| 4. | Recognition of the right of return of all displaced Cypriots; and | |
| 5. | Restitution or compensation to displaced Cypriots for confiscated or destroyed properties. |
This is no easy task, for much confidence has been placed in the United Nations, which has not lived up to it. But the underlying principles of international law are not that hard to understand, including not rewarding aggression or letting aggressors keep the fruits of their aggression, as well as the obvious principle of respecting private property. The latter has been made easier by recent court verdicts upholding the property rights of Cypriots who for over 30 years have been kept from using their rightful property by the Turkish occupation forces.
Cyprus has become a test case for honest upholding of international law. So far, it has resulted in many more failures than successes, which is eroding Cypriot confidence in international negotiations and deals to solve their problem. The reality on the ground is what matters to most. This includes the fact that passage to the occupied territory is now legal and easy, that the property rights of Cypriots is being upheld, and that even Turkish Cypriots are protesting the Turkish presence on their island. The hardest issue is the fate of the 200,000+ illegal Turkish settlers in the northern part of Cyprus. That, however, is a problem that the state of Turkey must resolve. For Cyprus belongs to the Cypriots, not to British, Turkey or illegally imported Turkish settlers.
A pdf file of “Bloody Truth” is available here.
34 comments:
I don't see it as linguistic excess to use the phrase “The Turkish Propaganda Machine”.
If youI read Turkish (or Arab) publications you realize quickly that all is propaganda, but the irony is that sometimes AP and al Reuters spit the dummy in that al Jizzeera is more accurate and truthful than these dhimmies.
A bizarre situation.
Great Britain's fault was not in (post-)Colonially meddling in Cyprus -- it was (if the book's claims are accurate) in meddling in the wrong way.
Western meddling in the Third World is a good thing -- as long as our meddling serves our interests. Unfortunately, too many times in the past (and continuing into our present), Western meddling in the Third World has too often involved enablement in various ways of Muslims in this or that region.
The British Empire similarly, at certain junctures, enabled the Muslims of India.
The policy of any Western power -- whether during Colonialism or during post-Colonialism up to our present -- always should have been and always should be now, with no exceptions, to try to cripple, disable and/or destroy the Muslims of any given region. This would be the policy of Realislamik, rarely followed, even in the politically INcorrect past.
While it sometimes is pragmatic, under Realislamik, to exploit internecine tensions within various Muslim groups and play them off against each other, that should never be expanded to favor any Muslims against any non-Muslims. Unfortunately, the British did that -- at times -- in India, and apparently in Cyprus (and apparently in other regions of the Middle East).
So it happened at the same time as Marxist infiltrators took over the Labour and Conservative Party. What a co-incidence. Now the north of England is destined to break away as an Islamic State. Presumably so that Britain can be easier controlled. By whom? International Socialists. All of the high command of the EU are "former" Communists.
Well, well. So it's Britains fault dating back to the 1920's. It's also Britains fault that they didn't hand over the 6 counties in Ireland to the new republic - also in the 20's - against the wishes of the majority.
What do we know about the Greek Cypriots in the 1920's and their views on the Muslim "Turkish" Cypriots?
If the history of Islam is anything to go by, then by now all of Cyprus would be Islamic with persecuted Christian Greeks fleeing to mainland Greece.
At least with the island divided the situation is under control.
sheik yermami -
I agree. No linguistic excess.
Ray Boyd -
You seem to raise an interesting point, though I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. Perhaps you wish to elaborate on the contention that I detect, i.e. British intervention actually served the purpose of protecting non-Muslims from Muslims?
That would be great news.
On the other hand, a strong trend of the described "divisionism" runs trough British colonial rule (and colonialism isn't "left" or "right" in itself. It definitely is anti free-market). What I find troubling about this trend, is that more often than not, the favoured party seems to be the Muslims. My guess is that Muslim leaders proved to be most useful when attempts were made to impose "indirect rule". The progressive Dutch colonialists, promoting "ethical colonialism" did much the same: enhance ethnic/religious differences, favour one class of subjects. Note that here's an undercurrent that feeds the multiculturalist mentality of our current political establishment, as well as the involvement of these leaders in the development aid industry.
A shortlist of British unsuccessful meddling, and de facto sponsoring of Islamic supremacy:
Sudan: divided between favoured Northern Muslims/Southern Sudanese Christian/Animist blacks
Nigeria: divided between favoured Northern Muslims/South (East/West) Nigerians. Preferred ethno-religious group: Fulani Muslims
Cyprus: divided between favoured Muslims/Greeks. Britain initially occupied Cyprus to serve as a base against a Russian attack on the Ottomans.
India: divided between Muslims/Hindus
British Palestine: divided between favoured Muslims/Jews
Consider these examples. If it were the general objective of the British Empire to protect non-Muslims against the Mohammedans, they have been veritable masters at concealing that goal, or so it seems.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
"British intervention actually served the purpose of protecting non-Muslims from Muslims?"
No, I did not say that nor imply it. It was Turkish intervention in 1974 that ultimately served to protect non-muslims by ensuring both sides were separated.
Muslims, it would seem are incapabable of living with non muslims without wanting to dominate. Total separation is the answer, preferably sending muslims to another planet.
On the whole I am pi**ed off with americans wanting to blame the British Empire for current world troubles. All countries in those days were ducking and diving, some with much worse results than the efforts of the British.
What do we know about the Greek Cypriots in the 1920's and their views on the Muslim "Turkish" Cypriots?
Not all that much, but they certainly weren't all that fundamentalistic, didn't make much of an issue of themselves. Many villages had no mosque, a 'deficiency' the British set out to correct in order to strengthen the Islamic identity of the minority. The alternative would have been a united population of Cypriots, with religion playing a lesser role.
If the history of Islam is anything to go by, then by now all of Cyprus would be Islamic with persecuted Christian Greeks fleeing to mainland Greece.
I think one needs to pay better attention to details here. Up until the late 1950's, civilized behaviour dominated, until the Turkish underground army TMT silenced (usually by gunshot) all moderate voices in the Turkish-minded minority on Cyprus.
Inviting - even pressing - Turks to interfere in the domestic matters of Cyprus was Bad. I don't care much who did it - even if it had been Portugese or Swahilians, it would have been equally Bad.
For the record, I am quite in favour of a lot of "Colonialistic meddling" that has taken place throughout history, my all-time favorite being that the British broke the back of the Mogul Empire in India :)
"On the whole I am pi**ed off with americans wanting to blame the British Empire for current world troubles."
I see what you mean. The "anti-colonial" mentality among the US political nomenclatura translates into the dogma of "liberation" (quite distinct from delivering freedom). This dogma oftentimes results in US interventions that end up supporting Islam, e.g. Afghanistan, Bosnia (war on the Serbs by Clinton, allowing Iran import of weapons to arm Muslims in Srebrenica), Kosovo, Libya.. One could also point to the untiring push by US officials for Turkish membership of the EU (itself a pro-Muslim institution).
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
It was Turkish intervention in 1974 that ultimately served to protect non-muslims by ensuring both sides were separated.
By stealing the best part of the island, raping and/or killing thousands in the process?
That's a kind of 'Protection' it's better to live without...
Generally speaking about Western Colonialism (and not delimiting it to the British), when the West was increasing in geopolitical power exponentially from the 17th century forward, with each passing century by astounding leaps and bounds compared with all non-Western cultures; and when during that same period Muslim societies were decaying and diminishing in power in unprecedented ways, it was only natural for Westerners to regard Muslims of this, that or the other non-Western region as being one more Native People along with the other Natives. Thus, to the extent that any Western Colonial enterprise was seen to find advantage in exploiting the Natives and, in this context, in pitting one against the other by constructing balances of power, they tended to use whichever Natives may have been better suited (in a case by case basis) for the purpose.
In this regard, a political calculus integrating ethical revulsion of Islam + pragmatic concern for potential dangers Muslims might pose against the West, simply never occurred to most Western Colonialists -- with only extremely rare exceptions by prescient individuals here and there (e.g., a Snouck Hurgronje contemplating a not too distant future when the Muslim obsession with global supremacism might rear its head again).
By the 18th century, and certainly the 19th, Muslims were seen as quaint Oriental relics hopelessly out of touch with progress and it would have been preposterous to think they could ever again pose a danger to the West. This attitude, while of course in retrospective hindsight helped pave the way for our unfortunate negligence by the time Muslims -- like industrious termites by the millions in myriad ways scripted by their culture and psychology re-building the societal and ideological hives of the Revival they always obsess about -- had taken advantage of a concatenation of opportunistic factors by the late 20th century to again begin to become deadly to the West, was nevertheless an unremarkably reasonable attitude, given the astonishingly spectacular rise to global superiority by the West in every field of human endeavor imaginable, in contrast to the stupefyingly pathetic and shabby retardation into which Muslims had fallen during that same period.
By the 19th century, Muslims may have continued to voice, write and agitate for their supremacist dreams, but such dreams were reasonably laughable at the time. The mistake the West made was in not taking those madmen seriously, in terms of just how deeply committed they continued to be to their profoundly visceral obsessive-compulsive disorder. A madman may seem harmless and disempowered materially speaking, but if he is fanatical enough in his obsession, he can take us by surprise.
"It was Turkish intervention in 1974 that ultimately served to protect non-muslims by ensuring both sides were separated."
That's absurd.
The only way to "protect non-Muslims" is not to continue to enable any kind of co-existing presence of Muslims -- but to round up and expel those Muslims, by force.
The famous quote about television being a "vast wasteland" did not originate with Edward R. Murrow (he was too smart for such demagogic rhetoric), but with an inveterate Leftist, Newton Minow, who was appointed as chairman of the FCC by Kennedy, and I notice among his other illustrious activities in his resume, was heavily involved through the 70s and 80s as Memberof the Board of PBS (talk about PC MC propaganda!) and was its Chairman in 1978-1980; as well as his participation in "Obama for Illinois" which was a major stepping stone (the Senate) for Obama's political rise. (It is pertinent to note that every politician, journalist, businessman, and artist who was old enough to remember and swoon over Kennedy swooned similarly for Obama in his catapult into the Presidency).
I.e., the "television is a vast wasteland" meme is a Leftist (and then PC MC) meme; indeed a typically arrogant denigration of the common man's supposedly common pleasures and appetites. (It is ironic to see conservatives display the same denigration of the common man -- by a reverse equation, as sheep being led by the nose by a Cabal of Leftist Elites; which tends to reflect the convergence of the Polar Left and the Polar Right along the circle of gnostic alienation.)
In fact, as television has grown over the past 50 years, it provides an astoundingly rich variety of stimulating thought and maieutic comedy & drama. Of course, part and parcel with the benefits of TV is a lot of junk; only Purists and Puritans expect benefits to be pure. And of course, PC MC has become strongly over-represented in various television fare as surrounding society has become PC MC; though a sufficient degree of counter-balance is present to leave my praise of its general character undevastated. In the one specific area of PC MC by which Islam is "respected", television and movies often irritate me when they do not infuriate me; but I keep a level head and realize it continues so far to be this way because the People continue to believe, unremarkably, in the TMOE meme. It wouldn't take all but five minutes for every producer of television, cable and movies to start giving the green light to anti-Islamic comedies, dramas and documentaries, if they thought it wouldn't hurt their money-making bottom line. And in a free democracy such as thrives throughout the West, that bottom line grows from a relatively free, decent and intelligent populace as it participates in and sustains capitalism.
All right, I apologize for this commercial break. You all can resume your programming about the dastardly global cabal who have already conquered the West through some massive feat of stealth and currently rule it as totalitarians. Really, I find it nearly impossible to tell the difference between your view and the views of Noam Chomsky and Hunter S. Thompson.
Hesperado: The famous quote about television being a "vast wasteland" did not originate with Edward R. Murrow…
And this has exactly what to do with "The Ravaging of Cyprus"?
Hesperado stated:
"It was Turkish intervention in 1974 that ultimately served to protect non-muslims by ensuring both sides were separated.
By stealing the best part of the island, raping and/or killing thousands in the process?
That's a kind of 'Protection' it's better to live without..."
The thought that Turkey was "protecing non-muslims" sounds like patent, islamofascist, Turkish propaganda. You don't INVADE and ethnically cleanse a populous to "protect" it. Although I'm certain the Turkish islamonazis would like the same rationale applied to their genocide/enslavement of upwards of 2.5 million Armenian and Assyrian Christians in the early 20th century.
Hesperado -
This is the quote of the day for me:
"I.e., the "television is a vast wasteland" meme is a Leftist (and then PC MC) meme; indeed a typically arrogant denigration of the common man's supposedly common pleasures and appetites. (It is ironic to see conservatives display the same denigration of the common man -- by a reverse equation, as sheep being led by the nose by a Cabal of Leftist Elites; which tends to reflect the convergence of the Polar Left and the Polar Right along the circle of gnostic alienation.)"
Right on the money, about the denigration of the common man, that is.
Thnx for that.
Only problem that remains: what if "the common man" decides that he actually is betrayed by all of those supposedly representing him, all across the political spectrum of false choices? Would paying attention to this phenomenon (e.g. Tea Party goers, disillusioned Europeans voting NO to the EU "constitution", to absolutely no avail) serve as just another illustration to your claim about conservative denigration?
Where then does your position lead, other than a de facto endorsement of the current progressivist political order in the West?
Sag.
Conhorlio, it was Ray Boyd who said that, not Hesperado...
Sagunto,
The common man throughout the West is not monolithic. It seems there are blocs reflecting more, some reflecting less adherence to PCMC. I see no evidence that that a majority are anti-Islam.
Again, those who produce and fund TV shows (and movies) gravitate toward, or avoid, issues depending on whether it will make money, not depending on their own ideology. They spend millions testing how to determine whether something will make money or will alienate viewers. If, for example, the majority of the common man in the UK were really anti-Islam, the popular show "Spooks" (all about MI-6 fighting domestic terrorism) would have tanked within the first season during which it outrageously softballed the Islam issue (that is, when it bothered to even feature it at all) -- let alone during all its subsequent 6 or 7 successful seasons during which it continued to treat Islamic terrorism as a problem of a Tiny Minority of Extremists (sometimes being pawns in a larger scheme of Western Elites -- have you guys been watching too much TV too...?), or more often, simply avoiding Islamic terrorism altogether in its plots (while portraying the dangers to society coming from Eastern European villains, former KGB, Globalist businessmen (right up GOV's alley perhaps), Chinese, the ever-convenient (though laughably outdated) IRA, "rogue" British soldiers, Anglophobic French Elites -- everything under the sun but Muslims. Particularly after the 2005 Tube bombings, when that show was in the middle of its popularity, the supposedly anti-Islam People of London should not only have "voted with its feet" (or fingers on the dial) by not watching it -- they also should have stormed BBC studios and had massive demonstrations of 50,000 demanding that it pull the plug on the show or else write shows about real Muslims.
And again, being anti-PC does not necessarily entail being anti-Islam. The Tea Party mustered nearly a million to gather in Washington, D.C. -- and where was Islam on its agenda? Nowhere to be found. So the Common People can get a million people to gather in D.C. about unrelated issues, but they still haven't been able anywhere in the West to gather more than 3,000 at best against Islam (and only one time).
My sense is that the anti-Islam common people of the West (and by the way, there is a lot of sociological diversity in the modern West, not simply a division of Elites and Commoners like the medieval division of Royals and Peasants) are a minority -- not a tiny one, but not one approaching 50% either. A relatively small one, still.
Henrik R Clausen
"Conhorlio, it was Ray Boyd who said that, not Hesperado..."
I was agreeing with Hesperado's statements on Ray Boyd's commentary.
I'm sorry if quotations didn't make that clear.
My experience w/Turkish Muslo-nazis has been universally negative WRT their Islamic lies about things like the Istanbul Pogrom of the 1950's, the Armenian Genocide and Cyprus.
@Henrik R Clausen:
"By stealing the best part of the island, raping and/or killing thousands in the process?"
I'm not advocating it, I am only stating the facts; whatever the Turks did they invaded the island and the de facto result was total separation - which is the only way in the end.
@Hesperado:
"That's absurd."
See comment above. Not absurd at all but what actually happened.
The trouble with you guys is that you are so into looking for a fight that you don't properly read or understand even short sentences.
What is absurd is your high handed pseudo intellectual responses to a very simple, easy to understand statement.
BTW we ARE supposed to be on the same side on this blog.
Hesperado and Sagunto, you would both do well to copy over your comments about modern television to the thread where they belong. Anything else is a disservice to GoV.
"Lean to the Left"
I, for one, will not continue to derail this thread with misplaced responses or further comments best left elsewhere.
Ray Boyd,
If you were simply describing what happened without adding your support for it in any way, then obviously "absurd" is not the word to use. If, however, you were intending to adduce that example as one prescriptive way to deal with the problem of Muslims, then the word does apply. Your posts on the subject certainly imply the prescriptive, and not merely the descriptive.
At any rate, Turks imposing a neo-vilayet system on a tiny polity has little relevance to the situation of millions of motile Muslims entering the bloodstream of Europe and the UK (and metastasizing as we speak), where Muslims are not merely huddled together in self-imposed ghettos, but are present throughout society in schools, universities, hospitals, police forces, government offices, etc; and would only be further inflamed by non-Muslim governments imposing segregation on them.
Better to go whole hog than half-assed with a Trojan Horse.
Ray, I think letting in the Turks on Cyprus made as much sense as handing over the Sudeterland to the Germans...
I don't see it as linguistic excess to use the phrase “The Turkish Propaganda Machine”.
I do - in a different way than you might expect. The problem here is not a matter of Truth, it's a matter of quoteability. I can't quote from the book a passage like that, for it's not common knowledge. That makes the book less useful, though by no means less truthful.
Hesperado -
"And again, being anti-PC does not necessarily entail being anti-Islam. The Tea Party mustered nearly a million to gather in Washington, D.C. -- and where was Islam on its agenda?"
You're right, but with all due respect, you either have a strange way of reading or interpreting what I wrote. I didn't link the Tea Party or the EU NO! voters to CJ-views, but to the other side of the coin: the welfare state enablers of Islam, making up the ranks of todays political representatives.
Take care,
Sag.
Henrik -
"Ray, I think letting in the Turks on Cyprus made as much sense as handing over the Sudeterland to the Germans..."
Second that..
Henrik:
"Ray, I think letting in the Turks on Cyprus made as much sense as handing over the Sudeterland to the Germans..."
WTF are you talking about????
The Turkish army INVADED . . . who let them in? Not Britain, Cyprus was independent.
Remember 35 years ago the Muslims in the world were not as they are today.
If the Turks and Greeks were not living in a divided Cyprus today then surely Cyprus would now be a battlefield . . . at each others throats. That's the point you fail to see. They are better off the way things are now.
WTF are you talking about????
I said exactly what I meant.
Specifically, Britain had both the legal standing (being a 'Guarantee Power' of the 1960 Constitution) and the physical means, as well as a legal obligation (1960 Constitution), to kick the Turks out of Cyprus.
They didn't. They permitted the Turks to proceed.
The Turkish insurgency should have been dealt with as just that in the early 1960's. But ethnic quotas in the police force and the administration, as well as the political correct reporting of 'Intercommunal strife' gave the Turks the standing to proceed and steal the best part of Cyprus.
It's a crime, not an advantage.
Any prophet asking you to accept a lesser disaster now in order to avoid a larger disaster later should be dismissed as unreliable.
Henrik:
"They permitted the Turks to proceed."
So the British were asked by the Turks if they could invade the mainly Turkish northern part of the island and the British said OK, go ahead. BULLS**T!!!
The invasion was sudden, without warning. I remember, I was on holiday (that's why I remember the year) in Spain and the invasion happened overnight.
It would have taken a major war to remove them. Why would Britain go to war over Cyprus - an independent country?
Your weazel words show your true colours - you want to blame Britain because you are anti British. Now tell me your nationality (or religion) and I can tell you what I think.
It would have taken a major war to remove them.
No. The invasion took place in two phases, codenamed "Attila 1" and "Attila 2". The first phase secured coastal cities and ports for the future expansion of the invasion. At that point the British navy could easily have blocaded the invaders and bombarded them to pieces.
Further, Britain had (and still has) two military bases on Cyprus. They could simply have driven straight from the bases to the Turkish beachheads and attacked them from land as well.
Why would Britain go to war over Cyprus - an independent country?
Because Britain had explicitly promised to do so. I quote from the British-brokered 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, Article II:
Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom, taking note of the undertakings of the Republic of Cyprus set out in Article I of the present Treaty, recognise and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, and also the state of affairs established by the Basic Articles of its Constitution.
Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom likewise undertake to prohibit, so far as concerns them, any activity aimed at promoting, directly or indirectly, either union of Cyprus with any other State or partition of the Island.
Britain failed to live up to this.
Henrik:
"At that point the British navy could easily have blocaded the invaders and bombarded them to pieces.
Further, Britain had (and still has) two military bases on Cyprus. They could simply have driven straight from the bases to the Turkish beachheads and attacked them from land as well."
So you know that the navy had enough ships in the area to stop a major invasion force?
And you know that the miltary bases were sufficiently manned to counter an invasion force of 30,000 troops?
I DON'T THINK SO!
Not according to this narrative re the first phase of the invasion:
By now we should all know the story of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. We should know that the Turks had been straining at the leash since Cyprus’ independence (1960) to invade the island and came close to doing so in 1963 and 1967, only to find themselves diplomatically isolated and conscious of their own military unpreparedness. In 1974, however – and having addressed their military shortcomings – they were not only granted the perfect excuse for an invasion – by the Athens junta's coup against President Makarios; but they were also given the support they had been previously lacking and that support, most notably, came from the USA, which not only approved the Turkish invasion but also encouraged it.
Thus on 20 July, the Turkish airforce began bombing Greek positions on Cyprus, hundreds of paratroops were dropped in the area between Nicosia and Kyrenia, where were well-armed Turkish Cypriot enclaves had been long-established, while off the Kyrenia coast 30 Turkish troop ships protected by destroyers disgorged 6,000 men as well as an array of tanks, trucks and armoured vehicles.
By the time, three days later, when a ceasefire had been agreed, Turkey had landed 30,000 troops on the island and captured Kyrenia, the corridor linking Kyrenia to Nicosia and the Turkish-Cypriot quarter of Nicosia.
Did you notice the US "encouragement" of the invasion.
Did you notice the US "encouragement" of the invasion.
I did, and don't try to tell me that this took place without consulting with the British. I wouldn't buy that.
The US rationale was probably that anti-American sentiment in Greece (remember who supported the junta regime?) would endanger the listening posts in North Cyprus in case of Enosis (union with Greece), and thus they chose to support Turkey.
Also, between the start of Attila I (July 23rd) and Attila II (August 14th), Britain had sufficient time to sail in and stop the 30,000 man invasion force in its tracks.
Britain failed to live up to its treaty obligations, straight in the face of Turkey violating theirs, as above.
Tournament of Shadows
Mr Cameron was expected to agree a new strategic partnership with Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan during his visit.
And Cherie Blair made a fortune (or tried - check bounced, it is said) dealing with property in North Cyprus, all while her husband Tony was busy advocating Turkish EU membership...
Post a Comment