Rachel Salomon, a pseudo-state propagandist.

[Ptolemy]

Originally Posted by Spartan

BRAVO MEYALE!! Keep up the defense!

This lady is worse than many of the Skopjians! I wonder what kind of educational background she has that allows her to make such erroneous claims about a history she knows absolutely nothing about!

People like this need to be shown the TRUTH. And no they should never be ignored. To ignore them is to allow lies to spread and before one knows it the Greeks are the bad guys. This is exactly what happened when the World Powers did nothing to stop Hitler before WWII started. They talked about doing something but decided it was only a regional issue. What they seemed to overlook was that small regional issues SPREAD! Of course we all know what happened!? If they would have just stepped in earlier the whole war could have been avoided.

Orphic,

What is the address to her Blog? I would like to make some responses from my professional viewpoints(Archaeologists, Historian).

Dunno but probably based on the gibberish and turkish propaganda, this poor ignorant propagandist is spreading, something like http://i-hate-you-greeks-cyprus-is-t...-.blogspot.com

[Orphic_Hymn]

I just can get enough of this one, I can only hope that Risto will give us equal pleasure in the future...

OK, new trash titled "Orphic Hymn, just another propagandist! By Rachel Salomon"

R.Salomon claims

No one denies that there have been Greeks in Cyprus for quite some time. Nevertheless, the fact remains, as Mr. Hymn even admitted, that the island has never been owned by Greeks and others, namely Turkish Cypriots, also have a right to the island as well.

Don't even try to twist your words Rachel.. this IS NOT some pseudo-state representative office where we take such manipulation lightly, we speak with proof and always support what we've alleged. As the ancients used to say "scripta manen" (writing remains).. so has yours.. Let me remind you of your ignorant and simultaniously audacious claim:

R.Salomon's ignorance quoted 01-12-2007, 09:17 AM

In other words, thus far, we have Assyrian, Egyptian, Persian, Macedonian, and Romans ruling Cyprus. No Greeks. Contrary to what the Greeks claim, the Byzantines were a Roman people, not Greek. They were known in history as the Eastern Roman Empire. Ptolemy was Egyptian, not Greek. And Alexander the Great was Macedonian, not Greek.

I can honestly understand why you'd attempt to dissociate yourself from this vivid celebration of ignorance, I simply can't accept you twisting your previous statements, hence why I quote your every word.

You still suffer ot the "empire syndrom" and believe that a conquered land does not belong to its thousand year old population but to some newly imported conqueror.. Under a similar logic, I assume you'll next claim that we Hellenes have no rights on these lands that was once ruled by the Ottomans, Venetians..etc.

Do find something better to use in your future posts.

R.Salomon claims

Turks only started to be imported to Northern Cyprus after 1974.

Listen, while I enjoy educating all grads of the grand Uni. of Google, I simply find the continuous repetition of already established FACTS quite annoying. The population known as Turkish Cypriot IS the product of importation, so lets not repeat this again.

R.Salomon claims

The roots of the problem can be traced back to 1963, when the campaign of genocide against Turkish Cypriots began.

Here we go again.. present the exact number of casualties from this invisible 'genocide' you continuously claim. Use an objective source (not Gibbon's) that will contradict what is quoted from :
UNFICYP officer Richard A. Patrick, in his "Political Geography and the Cyprus Conflict, 1963-1971" in which he states that according to official sources : approximately 350 Turk-Cypriots were killed in this period while about 200 Greek-Cypriots and mainland Greeks were killed.

350 on one side 200 on the other indicates intercommunal violence and that is what we saw from 21 December 1963 to 10 August 1964..

R.Salomon claims

The only reason Turks have been imported from the mainland is to ease the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots.

"to ease the isolation".. are you for real ??

You want to tell us that in an isolated country totally depending on Turkey's handouts, we'd see the importation of mainland Turks in an attempt to ease this isolation by taking their jobs, funds..etc.

Honestly how stupid must someone be to believe this?
The mainland Turks were imported for one and only reason, to alter the demographics and literally replace those that fled towards the UK.

No matter what the reason was (but under no circumstance is it related to your perverse version of it), this is a clear breach of the Geneva Convention.(Art. 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention)

R.Salomon claims

I don’t blame this on Turkey. I blame this more on the embargo. If there was no embargo, perhaps these people would not be needed and you would see more Turkish Cypriots staying in their own country.

The isolation was imposed due to Turkey's illegal occupation of the island by force, after several UN demands that the occupation is lifted and the illegal troops removed, Turkey continues to literally spit on the International organization and thus its members.

The illegal occupation and unilateral formation of the pseudo-state WILL NOT be recognized and that is the end of it. But as I said, had you and the alleged supporters of the Turkish Cypriots actually cared and weren't simple bigots, you would have condemned the facist military rule years ago..

The support the Turkish Cypriots need is NOT represented through your manipulation of texts, events and quotes, nor by the rediculous petition you put up.. This CAN NOT be defined as 'support'.

R.Salomon claims

“On 8 November 1995 hundreds of schoolchildren were given permission by Greek Cypriot officials to be absent from school. They participated in a violent riot under the guidance of teachers, in which Greek Cypriots seized a UN observation post and hoisted a Greek flag in the buffer zone. It is worth noting that it is almost always the Greek flag, not the Greek Cyprus flag, which is used on these occasions.”

As usual our propagandist present nothing remotely close to an accurate description of the events.

Again in an attempt to inform the ignorant. On Nov. 3rd 1995, a 18 year old Hellenic Cypriot guard "Giorgos Karotsakis" was illegally arrested by the illegal Turkish forces that run the pseudo-state.

According to EU Parliament Resolution we read:

A. having regard to the abduction and arrest of the 18 year-old Cypriot Giorgos Karotsakis by the Turkish forces of occupation on 3 November 1995,

B. whereas the national guardsman was unarmed when he was arrested,

C. having regard to the refusal of the occupying regime to release him or to allow members of his family to visit him,

The European Parliament,

1. Condemns the illegal arrest and continuing detention of Giorgos Karotsakis;

2. Condemns once more the continuing illegal occupation by Turkish forces of territory belonging to the Republic of Cyprus;

3. Calls on the Turkish forces of occupation to release Giorgos Karotsakis immediately and unconditionally;

4. Reaffirms its position that all foreign troops must be withdrawn from the territory of the Republic of Cyprus;

5. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments of Cyprus and Turkey.

As for the events which you intentionally manipulated (as usual) I quote the "Center for International Development and Conflict Management"

9 November 1995:

Turks threw stones at students from Nicosian secondary and high schools who were staging demonstrations against the disappearance of a Greek Cypriot National Guardsman from a guard post on the confrontation line. The UN said the guard, Yeoryios Karotsakis, was being held by Turkish Cypriots. (BBC)

R.Salomon dares to claim

“On 11 August 1996, several thousand young people […] were encouraged to break into the UN buffer zone and confront the Turkish Cypriots on their border. They rampaged in the buffer zone, in defiance of the UN forces, setting fire to vegetation, brandishing knives, and throwing stones and Molotov cocktails.”

You've gone way overboard,.
Its comments like this one that describe a totally despicable individual not worthy of being titled human.. Why can't you simply debate the issue instead of continuously slandering not only an entire people but especially their dead ???


The event our propagandist has chosen to manipulate this time is the cowardly massacre of Tassos Isaak by GREY WOLF FACISTS and pseudo-state goons which are titled 'police'..

HERE is how the individual who's memory you dare desecrate for your stupid propaganda, death took place:











THESE ARE THE FACISTS WHICH YOU SUPPORT, BRUTAL THUGS THAT KILL INNOCENT THAT DEMONSTRATE AGAINST THEIR FACIST RULE!!!


As for the truth of the matter and to clarify WHO was armed with bats, knives..etc I quote the OFFICIAL UNFICYP report that states:

# At about 16:00 hours, [b]the Turkish Forces allowed the Turkish Cypriot demonstrators to enter the United Nations buffer zone armed with bats and iron bars[/B]. The Turkish Cyprot demonstrators, joined by the Turkish Cypriot Police, then proceeded to pursue the Greek Cypriots and mercilessly beat all those who they were able to catch. At the same time, there was shooting, including by Turkish Cypriot police, from behind the Turkish Forces cease-fire line towards the Greek Cypriot demonstrators.

# During this period, a Greek Cypriot demonstrator, Anastasios Isaak, was beaten to death by a number of Turkish Cypriot demonstrators, including three Turkish Cypriot policemen. By 18:00 hours the situation began to calm down. In addition to the one dead, it was reported that some 54 Greek Cypriots and 17 Turkish Cypriots were injured. 12 UNFICYP personnel suffered injuries.

# The UNFICYP investigation revealed conclusively that the killing of Anastasios Isaak had occurred some 50 metres from the scene shown on television in which three Greek Cypriots were being severely beaten by Turkish Cypriot demonstrators while helplessly entangled in barbed wire. Two UNFICYP Irish Civilian Police had done their best in trying to rescue Anastasios Isaak at considerable personal risk.

# The two United Nations Civilian Police had observed two Greek Cypriot demonstrators being set upon by two groups of Turkish Cypriot demonstrators who proceeded to beat them with brutal force. The two United Nations Police went to the assistance of one of the Greek Cypriots (Isaak), and were finally able to push aside the Turkish Cypriots, including three Turkish Cypriot policemen, who were still beating him, it was too late. The location of the killing inside the United Nations buffer zone was about 95 metres from the National Guard cease-fire line and about 32 metres from the Turkish Forces cease-fire line.

# A video broadcast on "Euronews" inter alia clearly shows the killing of Anastasios Isaak and the intervention of the two United Nations police. The autopsy, attended by UNFICYP, which was performed late afternoon of 13 August, revealed that Anastasios Isaak died of "multiple blunt trauma to the head". UNFICYP has completed the collection of the evidence at the scene of the crime and is in the process of completing its investigation in cooperation with Cypol.

R.Salomon claims

To say that these rights only apply to Greek Cypriots but not the Turkish Cypriots is absurd. The Greek Cypriots, as I have proven, are no angels. They can just as easily be accused of violations of this document, actually to a far greater extent, as I have demonstrated in my last article,

Who said that rights apply only to one group of people while it doesn't apply to any other?
As for your last article, all you've depicted is ignorance and incapability of comprehending the very basic Human Rights. As already indicated half of the articles you quote are non-applicable simply because the Turkish Cypriots denounced any relation to the Cypriot Republic the very moment that they requested that the communities are physically separated and the other half simply because you were unable to comprehend them or simply based them on your manipulated version of the events.

R.Salomon claims

I know that there is a difference between withdrawal and expulsion. However, the Turkish Cypriots did not withdraw. Despite what Mr. Hymn says, the truth is that they were expelled. Again, this goes contrary to reports from the British government that say quite the contrary.

No, you obviously do not comprehend the difference. Had you been able to comprehend it, you would have understood exactly why the UN's account is far more reliable than that of the so-called "The British - Northern Cyprus Parliamentary Group"..

Quoting them is similar to quoting Denktash, just another totally bias source and that is actually the reason you continue to use Stephens, because objective analysis like that of the UN or that seen in the Cyprus Conflict website simply does not suit your agenda.

You see a fine example of these propagandist's (I do mean the entire group mentioned above) intentional manipulation of texts is their nit-picked quote of the Galo Plaza report. While they selectively quote it (and YOU use it):

On 29th March 1965 (UN doc. S/6252) the UN Mediator for Cyprus, Dr. Galo Plaza, had said "It is obvious that the Cyprus problem cannot any longer be solved by trying to implement fully the (1960) Nicosia Treaties and the Constitution governed by the treaties. .... The events since December 1963 have created a situation which makes it psychologically and politically impossible to return to the previous situation."

The reality of the matter is totally different, of course in order to see this, you need to read the entire report and not selectively quote what suits you or in this case them..

The entire quote indicates a totally different issue:

129. Thirdly, I feel bound to refer to the question of the status of the Treaties and Constitution of 1960. For reasons on which I need not dwell, the Turkish-Cypriot leadership and also the Turkish Government have attached particular importance to this question and have insisted on the validity of the Treaties and the Constitution, declaring that it is the fault of the other side that their implementation has been prevented. On the other hand, the Greek-Cypriots and the Greek Government regard them as not being in effect because they are unworkable; and the Government of Cyprus, as I have recorded earlier, has gone so far as to declare formally that it considers the Treaty of Alliance to have been terminated, basing this position on the refusal of the Turkish Government to order its national contingent in Cyprus to return to its barracks. I do not myself feel called upon to make any judgement on these matters. At the same time, having taken it to be the clear intention of the Security Council that the "agreed settlement" of the Cyprus problem should be one agreed upon by the very parties which adhered to the Treaties of 1960, I think it logical to expect that the agreed settlement will not be one which merely restores the situation existing before 1963 and that, by agreeing to the settlement, the parties would necessarily agree also formally to abrogate or at least modify those Treaties. It is obvious that the Cyprus problem cannot any longer be solved by trying to implement fully the Nicosia Treaties and the Constitution governed by the Treaties. The succession of events, as well as the points of view held by the parties concerned, have left no doubt that the existence of the Treaties and the difficulties encountered in applying them constituted the origin of this crisis and have continued to influence its development. It is of no great importance to try to determine whether the Treaties were in fact incapable of being applied or whether their application was made impossible through the fault, deliberate or otherwise, of one or more of the parties concerned. It is enough to observe that the difficulties in implementing the Treaties began almost immediately after independence and became increasingly serious. The events which have taken place in Cyprus since December of 1963 have created a situation which makes it psychologically and politically impossible to return to the previous situation. Moreover, the very act of appointing a Mediator in order to help bring about "an agreed settlement of the problem confronting Cyprus" can be said to indicate the conviction of the Security Council that some new solution would have to be found in order to bring an end to the existing crisis.

When the article is provided in whole and not the selectively quoted version you chose, indicates that Turkey refused to return its national contingent to its barracks.. We know from various accounts among them those of the UNFICYP and Richard Gilbert that the Turkish forces with the assistance of the Turkish Cypriots were setting up road block in roads that were to remain open and continue to remained stationed there untill the invasion of 74'

But lets not centralize on this right now. The whole point, the true essence of the selectively presented quote is that by presenting it as such, the above mentioned group and R.Salomon intentionally manipulate it !!!

In order to fully understand this intentionally manipulated quote, we must look into his second note seen in Art. 128 in which he clarifies:

128 .................For the Turkish-Cypriot leadership, as also for the Turkish Government, the two communities are distinct legal entities recognized as such by the Constitution of 1960 and differing in status only in so far as the provisions of the Constitution establish such differences. From their standpoint there is no such thing as a "majority community" or a "minority community" in Cyprus.

It is fundamental to the Greek-Cypriots' argument, on the other hand, that the organization of the Republic should be based on the existence of a majority capable of governing and a minority entitled to the protection afforded by a normal democratic system. It is not of basic concern to their viewpoint that the present majority and the minority should happen to be identifiable by their ethnic origins. This difference of approach is obviously one that can only be resolved by a settlement of the Cyprus question as a whole, and not by any opinion which I could put forward. .............

Here we find why he suggested that modifications to the previously proven unworkable agreement had to be made. While the Hellenic Cypriots defined the Republic as one entity in which democracy prevails...

(let me just post the difinition of the word you seem incapable of comprehending democracy = government by the people; especially : rule of the majority)

The Turkish government and Turkish Cypriot representatives believe that the Republic should be defined as two separate communities based on racial distinction, communities that would each work in favor their own and by doing so, undermine the common interest. This was well proven in the 'tax law' disagreement in which the newly formed Republic was left without income (tax was its only form of income) due to Turkish Cypriot veto on the issue.

It is for this reason that he states: points of view held by the parties concerned .. and ... "was made impossible through the fault, deliberate or otherwise, of one or more of the parties concerned"..
(note the PLURAL FORM of the word "parties")

As I've told you time and time again, but you are simply unable or unwilling to understanding, "it does take two to tango"

R.Salomon claims

Thus, under such a situation, Dr. Plaza recognizes why the Turkish Cypriot side felt the need for partition. The very same report that Mr. Hymn uses also states:

This is yet another total LIE since Plaza never once indicates any intention of agreeing with the Turkish Cypriot thesis of partition it is actually the exact opposite. Its for this reason that Turkey had strongly objected to his report.
But what R.Salomon fails to understand is that the G.Plaza report was quoted to counter her rediculous claim of "Hellenic Cypriots not wanting co-operation" when in reality we see that it was the Turkish Cypriots that demanded partition for Turkey's geopolitical interests as clearly is stated in Art. 134 which she conveniently avoided to read or did, but simply couldn't comprehend it.

134. For their part, the Turkish-Cypriot leaders and the Government of Turkey do not dispute the restrictive nature of the conditions under which Cyprus acceded to independence. From their standpoint, however, these limitations were deliberate and essential: to secure for the Turkish-Cypriots their treatment not as a minority but as a community with distinct political rights, and to secure for Turkey the maintenance of an equilibrium in the eastern Mediterranean which, in the Turkish Government's view, would be specially seriously disturbed should Cyprus become Greek territory. These two basic purposes complement each other, and help to explain the solidarity of the attitude of the Turkish-Cypriots and the successive Turkish Governments towards the settlement of the problem. They contend that any acceptable alternative to the 1960 settlement must serve exactly the same purposes.

So from this partial quote of Art. 134 we see that the 1960 Constitution literally partitioned the island by forming two separate communities instead of one whole Rep. Two communities that would obviously collide and have as a result the current situation. A collision that would appear due to the continuous rejection of the majority's request and Turkey's interest NOT in the people's welfare but in maintaining their geopolitical interests.

This quote proves what R.Salomon and the rest of the pseudo-state propagandists dread to admit, Turkey's interests in the island were NEVER purely driven by alleged supression of the minority NOR upholding their rights. Turkey was strictly and solely interested in re-gaining the lost rights of the desolved Ottoman empire. Its for this reason that we've seen the murder of Kutlu Adali, banning of Turkish Cypriots from the Pan-Cypriot Trade Union, Talat's threats of closing the borders should Hellenic Cypriots continue their law suits.. generally actions against those that DID promote co-operation.. This is nothing more than the "empire syndrom" in its greatest manifestation.




WHY would R.Salomon once again intentionally avoided to address Art. 130 ?

130. It will be understood that my own view of the positions taken by the parties to the Cyprus dispute must necessarily be governed by certain criteria. Foremost among these are those which emerge explicitly or implicitly from the Security Council's resolution of 4 March 1964. Others are impose( by the actual circumstances of Cyprus, and I have felt bound to take these into account to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the resolution o the Security Council. According to these criteria, I have concluded that any settlement of the problem must take account of the following considerations:..................



.......................... -it must be in the interest of the well-being of the people of Cyprus as a whole, and to this effect it must be capable of satisfying the wishes of the majority of the population and at the same time of providing for the adequate protection of the legitimate rights of all of the people;

What didn't R.Salomon understand from the sentence in very simple English which states: it must be capable of satisfying the wishes of the majority of the population

Think twice and tell us exactly what were the wishes of the MAJORITY ???




WHY was R.Salomon incapable of comprehending Art. 137 which she quoted ?

137. I am certain in my own mind that the question of Enosis is the most divisive and potentially the most explosive aspect of the Cyprus problem. I have been assured by the Turkish-Cypriot leadership and by the successive Governments of Turkey that any attempt to bring it about against their will would provoke active and vigorous resistance. And I judge this to be true, short of a change in attitudes which only a long passage of time could bring about. I feel bound, therefore, to examine this question with the greatest care.

Why was she unable not only to comprehend the direct statement of Turkey's Government, a statement which clarified "vigorous resistance" (seen in several occasions, like when refueling the TMT with arms or the well known NAPALM BOMBING) and the clear reference to "change of minds" a statement which actually trashed her allegetions of one-sided attacks in 1963 and attempted extermination. It proves that the same mentality of "vigorous resistance" was harbored and implemented in 1963 if not even before that date (see 50's, formation of TMT).





While R.Salomon quotes art. 142, she neglects to present what art. 143 which is directly connected to the previous art., an art. that states:

143. It is far from me, in any event, to dispute the principle that the people of an independent country possess the right to determine their own future, including their relationship with any other State. This right follows naturally from the fact of sovereign independence. If Cyprus should become "fully in-dependent" by being freed from the 1960 treaty limitations, it would automatically acquire at the same time the right of self-determination; and if it were an independent State based on democratic principles, it would be entitled to insist that the right should be exercised by the people as a whole, acting directly by such means as a referendum or indirectly through their Government.

Obviously because, she, also infected by the "empire syndrom" prefers to see the majority of the Cypriot population under the very same manner the pseudo-state leaders do. A subdued population, who's life should be decided by the 'all mighty empire'..
As I've already told you Rachel, the middle ages are long gone. Stick to reality, to today.

R.Salomon claims

Given that the Galo Plaza report also stated the understanding for the Turkish Cypriot need for partition after every thing that had happened to them, I don’t see how Mr. Hymn can continue to use this document to criticize the Turkish Cypriots for wanting partition.

Firstly the G.Plaza report as noted, was used to counter your rediculous claims of Hellenic Cypriots not wanting to co-exist when in reality it proves that the Turkish Cypriots through Turkish (TMT) instigation vigorously resisted to the 13 points and demanded the physical separation of the island in order to protect Turkey's geopolitical interests in the region.

Secondly G.Plaza never understood the so-called 'need' for partition as you fallaciously claim, but he fully supported the protection of Human Rights which is a different story.
Actually when refering to the proposed partition, it is evident that it was inconceivable for him to even think of breaching Human Rights agreements and the very fundamental values of Democracy, since that was the only way to implement the partition.. by the use of force.
which he obviously did NOT agree with.

153. In the first place, the separation of the communities is utterly unacceptable to the majority community of Cyprus and on present indications could not be imposed except by force. The opposition to it is in part political: Greek-Cypriots see in the proposal a first step towards the partitioning of the island, although this is vigorously denied by the Turkish-Cypriot leadership as well as by the Turkish Government. But to my mind the objections raised also on economic, social and moral grounds are in themselves serious obstacles to the proposition.

It would seem to require a compulsory movement of the people concerned -- many thousands on both sides -- contrary to all the enlightened principles of the present time, including those set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Moreover, this would be a compulsory movement of a kind that would seem likely to impose severe hard ships on the families involved as it would be impossible for all of them, or perhaps even the majority of them, to obtain an exchange of land or occupation suited to their needs or experience; it would entail also an economic and social disruption which could be such as to render neither part of the country viable. Such a state of affairs would constitute a lasting if not permanent, cause of discontent and unrest.

While G.Plaza could have never known (while I'm sure he imagined it) today we know that the statement:

"although this is vigorously denied by the Turkish-Cypriot leadership as well as by the Turkish Government"

Was nothing more than a LIE!!!

[Orphic_Hymn]

Originally Posted by Ptolemy

Dunno but probably based on the gibberish and turkish propaganda, this poor ignorant propagandist is spreading, something like http://i-hate-you-greeks-cyprus-is-t...-.blogspot.com

While it would obviously suit her, she chose a different title. HERE

[Ptolemy]

'trnc supporters blog'?? followed by some racist Turkish youtube videos titled like "greek terror against muslims" and you expect anyone to take seriously this greek-hating moron????

If you are searching someone to aid your propagandistic hate campaign, please forward us your PayPal account number and I will send you two quarters, one quarter with which to buy a Clue, and a second with which to buy a Life!!!

[Euklid]

This is what happens when you follow such tutors.

Troll uncovered i would say....

[pankration]

Originally Posted by Orphic_Hymn

While it would obviously suit her, she chose a different title. HERE

Well, well my friend, it seems you've picked a fight. I went to this website and read it completely through, some parts twice. The way she manipulates facts is masterly and she is so brainwashed or fanatical about her cause she can't comprehend what the other side might be saying. To several of your questions she says things like "it seems" or "I thought" or "when I was a child my mother told me". When she addressed topics that were discussed by outside organizations she says things like "why not". She is a propagandist through and through and will never engage in a real scholarly discussion because the evidence that would support her does not exist.
Not that you care Orphic but this lackey for the Turks is not going to let you go that easy. Granted I doubt that you are finished with her. You're still my hero.

[Spartan]

"Granted I doubt that you are finished with her. You're still my hero."

I have to agree on both parts!

She appears to be a spouse or lover of a Illegal Turk who was transported to Northern Cyprus! There is no other reason for her words or her actions. Why else would a Jewish American woman side with Turkey on this issue?? There is not one single Jewish person in the world who would side with the Turks on an issue of genocide and removal of people from their homes, except of course when it comes to the Palestinian occupation.

Keep up the great work Orphic Hymn and We hope to see more of your responses tearing her a new one!

[Orphic_Hymn]

Thanks for the compliments but no heroism here, just doing what WE all do. Try to teach the ignorant objective and true history.

[Euklid]

Well done Orphic.

The part i enjoyed the most was Rachels emotional outburst.

"I am a Jew, a zionist Jew...i support all the people trying to get back their homeland...my work has been cross-checked by the TRNC diplomat. I dont make much money...i am a good guy, this is just an internship, the greek lobbie is weak"



What sort of people are out there?


OMG, and the funniest..."macedoniaontheweb is not mainstream therefore your reply doesnt count"



Great job.

[Orphic_Hymn]

And yet another sequel...
Titled: Orphic Hymn just does not get it!

R.Salomon claims

I shall once again reprint this quote from the Greek Cypriot author, Antonis Angastiniyotis, who wrote...........

............Also, according to the US government’s 2005 Country Report on Human Rights practices in Cyprus

By quoting what Antonis Angastiniyotis says that his aunt told him does not support your original statement!!! nor does his cousin of unknown education and social level's opinion, prove something to support your claim, which was:

R.Salomon originally quoted on 01-05-2007

These kinds of songs are taught to Greek Cypriot children to this day and they have a profound negative effect upon Greek Cypriot youth of today, as demonstrated by a recent violent attack upon Turkish Cypriot students in the English School in South Nicosia.

It simply proves that some people have certain beliefs about Turkish Cypriots. Noone can claim to represent an entire people. Just as judging the American Jews by your ignorance and intentional manipulation would be wrong, so is judging the entire Cypriot population based on the comments of his aunt and cousin. I honestly thought you understood that generalizations and characterizations of an entire people will not get you anywhere, well anywhere further than the racist label you've complained about.

You had compared these 'SONGS' and thus the Cypriot youth's education to the graffiti written on Ledra Street. Which is obviously an ill comparison at the very least.

Secondly, you quote the US State Department's report that does indeed speak of 'inflammatory' and 'degrading' language in textbooks.
The question is IF it actually supports your audacious and unsupported claims or if its refering to accounts similar to those found in the textbooks of Hellas?

Textbooks in which the reference to the historic account of the IMPAELMENT of Athanasios Diakos when he refused to convert or the account of Ioannis Daskalogiannis being SKINNED ALIVE by Ottomans in Crete.. WERE considered as such in some 'objective' Conferrences held by the Aristotelian Uni. of Thessaloniki.
I really don't see how on earth true events are deemed inflammatory but some do.

Censorship on history.. nice.

But its quite interesting (since the British school event re-appeared) that you have yet to make any statement that would condemn the Turkish Cypriot's attitude towards another's religious beliefs. Why do you insist on supporting what should be condemned ??

R.Salomon claims


First of all, I quoted from a credible source, the Jerusalem Center for Strategic Studies............

..........This is not an attack. It is just a mere fact that I just backed up with this academic source citation. The only reason why I even brought up this fact is because Argyrou said the following:

“When Salomon refers to the Ottomans giving the expelled Jews of Spain a home in the Ottoman empire she neglects to mention that this was at the expense of the Greeks of Thessalonica who were deported by the Turks so that the Jews could take their homes.”

I have never heard this in my entire life. As a child, I was taught that the Jews of Spain moved to Salonika because they were welcome with open arms by Sultan Bayezid II. Argyrou sounded to me like he was mocking the home that this Turkish Sultan gave to the Jews, namely my ancestors. I got offended. Naturally, I responded, for I found this comment to be very anti-Semitic.

The fact that you ignore the history of Hellas has been noted so this is no real suprize. But your not knowing this fact (after having stated your grandfather lived in Thessaloniki) is a bit of an issue.

"History of the Greek Revolution: compiled from official documents of the Greek government" By John Lee Comstock p.42

..........The town became a desert, for not only the gold, silver and all riches of the place fell into the hands of the Turks, but the inhabitants were all removed while the churches, with one exception were turned into mosques.

Byzantium and Venice: A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations By Donald MacGillivray Nicol p.371


The capture and sack of Thessalonica is vividly described by an eye-witness, John Anagnostes. It is a terrible tale. He rekoned that about 7000 citizens, one-fifth of the population were carried off to slavery. The law of Islam allowed for three days and nights of pillage for cities that resisted conquest. Thessalonica received the full force of that law.

But under no condition was his (A.Argyrou) comment degratory towards Jews. It was directly connected to countering your audacious attempted beautification of the Ottoman empire and its treatment towards the subdued populations especially towards Christians under its yoke.

Anyway, the closing comment of this quote is highly interesting.

Naturally, I responded, for I found this comment to be very anti-Semitic.

I won't even get into how degratory and insulting the term "anti-Semitic" is, but its higly interesting that while R.Salomon imagined an attack against her religion and people, she claims "Naturally, I responded".

Highly interesting, because when we respond to the intentionally manipulated quotes, texts and events, when we react to her provocations and slander of an entire people and country, we are deemed individuals that "really need to get a life", but for her to slander not an individual but an entire people is considered "natural"..

R.Salomon claims

Michael Stephens report called “The Cyprus Question,” published by the British Northern Cyprus Parliamentary Group, quoted the Guardian, which reported on December 31, 1963, that “it is nonsense to claim, as the Greek Cypriots do, that all causalities were caused by fighting between armed men of both sides. On Christmas Eve many Turkish Cypriot people were brutally attacked and murdered in their suburban homes, including the wife and children of the Turkish Cypriot head of army medical services----allegedly by a group of forty men, many in army boots and greatcoats.” This is a direct quote. It can be found on page 15 of the report. This was the quote that I published in Israel Insider in my second article. It has absolutely nothing to do with the coup. As you can tell by the date, it was a good eleven years before the coup.

Actually this was the quote you dared to use to support your audacious claim of Turkish Cypriot (AND NOT TURKISH) civil seravants being thrown out of their positions and EOKA phisically preventing F.Kucuk from entering his office.

You can see your original claims HERE

As admited in your blog, the question mislead you because I mentioned the wrong newspaper, I meant the "Washington Star" in which we allegedly find this quote:

"Bodies littered the streets and there were mass burials. People who were told by Makarios to lay down their guns were shot by the National Guard."

A quote which you have intentionally manipulated not once but twice. Once in your "The truth about Cyprus" and a second time in your "The truth about Cyprus" is the truth!" in which you FALLACIOUSLY claimed that the above quote was related to Turkish Cypriot deaths. Only to now (yesterday) claim that:

I know that this particular quote was related to Greek violence against Greek Cypriots. My whole point in displaying this quote was to show that Turkish Cypriots were not the only victims of the Greek coup in 1974

Admitting that you manipulated it, or simply stating you misunderstood it, would have been far more honest than what you've presented with this explanation.


But despite this little misunderstanding, it was only yesterday, when you AGAIN intentionally manipulated yet another alleged accurate account. This time you actually did manipulate the Guardian quote :

R.Salomon January 17, 2007 10:52 AM

According to the British Parliament, "These dreadful events were not the responsibility of the Greek colonels of 1974, or an unrepresentative handful of Greek Cypriot extremists. The persecution of the Turkish Cypriots was an act of policy on the part of the Greek Cypriot political and religious leadership."

Orphic, you simply can not roll back the clock and pretend that these events did not happen between 1963-1974. You have not been able to rebuff most of the quotes that I have provided. You have been able to distort the Akritas Plan so that it is does not look as bad and rewrite some of the quotes of Makarios, but many of my sources you have been simply unable to counter except to call them biased.

Of course your interpretation of what has been refuted and what has not is a totally different issue and had you actually paid any attention to what has been posted you would have known that. But expecting that from an individual that doesn't understand the very texts she quotes, is too much to ask for.

But its interesting that you attempted to relate this quote which is in relaty refering to 1963-34 to the entire decade. Its also interesting that while Stephens mentions the Turkish Cypriot missind/dead, conveniently avoids to mention the extent of damage to the Hellenic Cypriot homes and the number of Hellenic Cypriot missing/dead that according to official reports are approx. 200. A number which clearly indicates that the above missing/deaths are indeed the result of intercommunal violence.

R.Salomon quotes M.Stephens

On 7th October 1995 a Turkish Cypriot farmer, Erkan Egmez, was snatched from his fields, and tortured by Greek Cypriot police. On 5 March 1996 the US State Depart report on human rights in Cyprus said: Egmez, appears to have been severely beaten in the period during and immediately after his arrest and eventually required ten days of hospitalization. According to some eye-witnesses hooded police officials continued beating him even as he was being admitted to hospital.

R.Salomon quotes M.Stephens in an attempt to justify her disgracefull interpretation of the events that lead to the death of Tasos Isaak in Aug. of 96'.

Of course M.Stephens wouldn't present the truth of the events but I honestly didn't expect such manipulation!!
While he claims that Erkan Egmez was nothing more than an innocent farmer that the vile Cypriot goverment snatched and tortured in an attempt to influence the ignorant, we know the truth.

According to the US State Department's report on Human Rights Human Rights Practices of 2000, we read:

On December 21, the ECHR found the Cypriot Government guilty of police abuse during the 1995 arrest for drug smuggling of Turkish Cypriot Erkan Egmez and ordered the Government to pay Egmez $16,000 (10,400 pounds sterling) in compensation.

True the individual in question was abused by the police. BUT I and every rational individual condemn the drug loards, all those that attempt to infest the youth of the world with this disease. A beating is the least that I'd propose for him and all those that are implicated in this 'industry'.
M.Stephens seems to have a totally different opinion.

R.Salomon quotes M.Stephens

On 8th November 1995 hundreds of schoolchildren were given permission by Greek Cypriot officials to be absent from school. They participated in a violent riot under the guidance of teachers..................

As noted above, not only does M.Stephens disclose the fact that these children were demonstrating against the illegal arrest and detention of "Giorgos Karotsakis". An arrest and detension deemed as illegal by the UN.
But he also goes as far as manipulating the events of the peacefull demonstration. As again quoted above the "Center for International Development and Conflict Management" proves that the individuals throwing the rocks were in reality Turks.

R.Salomon quotes M.Stephens

On 3rd June 1996 at 6:30am a Greek Cypriot National Guardsman in uniform was shot when he violated the buffer zone and refused to stop when challenged by Turkish Cypriot sentries.

M.Stephens resorts to further manipulation of events. According to the June 7th 1996 "REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL ON THE UNITED NATIONS OPERATION IN CYPRUS"

11. In resolution 1032 (1995), the Security Council again expressed concern at the failure of both sides to heed its call to prohibit live ammunition or weapons other than those which are hand-held along their respective cease-fire lines and the firing of weapons within hearing of the buffer zone. On the contrary, incidents of shooting near the cease-fire lines have increased during the reporting period. Such incidents have the potential of raising tension, with possibly serious consequences. Three incidents are of particular concern. On 8 May 1996, two tracer rounds were fired by Turkish forces towards an UNFICYP helicopter on a previously announced routine flight inside the buffer zone. On 10 May 1996, two shots were fired by Turkish forces in the vicinity of a UNFICYP patrol in the buffer zone.



12. The third incident took place on 3 June 1996.

An unarmed National Guard soldier was shot and killed inside the United Nations buffer zone in central Nicosia.

The investigation has revealed that the lethal round was fired by a Turkish Cypriot soldier whom UNFICYP had observed entering the buffer zone with his rifle strung across his back. Shortly thereafter a single shot was heard and the Turkish Cypriot soldier was seen running back in a crouched position to the Turkish cease-fire line holding his rifle in his right hand.

UNFICYP soldiers were prevented from reaching the National Guard soldier by Turkish Cypriot soldiers who fired shots in the direction of the UNFICYP soldiers each time the latter tried to move forward.

UNFICYP strongly protested to the Commander of the Turkish forces in Cyprus the unauthorized entry of an armed Turkish Cypriot soldier into the buffer zone, the shooting incident and the hostile action, including live fire against UNFICYP. UNFICYP is pursuing with the Turkish forces in Cyprus and with the Turkish Cypriot authorities the question of appropriate action and has requested that UNFICYP police investigating the killing be able to interview the Turkish Cypriot soldier involved in the incident. The military authorities on both sides have been urged once again to respect the United Nations buffer zone and ensure its integrity.

Not only did the Turkish forcesSHOOT TO KILL an UNARMED Hellenic Cypriot guardsman that entered the buffer zone, but they SHOT AT the UNFICYP to prevent them from giving him any form of medical assistance and probably saving his life..
This was INTENTIONAL and the pseudo-state should have brought MURDER charges against these individuals.

Unfortunately objectivity is something that individuals that lack humanity know very little about.

R.Salomon quotes M.Stephens

On 11th August 1996 several thousand young people, many on motorcycles who were organized to ride from Berlin, were encouraged to break into the UN buffer zone and confront the Turkish Cypriots on their border.

M.Stephens claims that the events were encouraged when we know that this is NOT the case, I quote the CNN's report of August 11, 1996

At the insistence of Greek Cypriot President Glafcos Clerides, rally organizers had ordered some 7,000 bikers to cancel plans to cross the Green Line.

and the official UNFICYP report also posted above (see previous responce)