The quotation was:
We are talking about how we are going to liberate it from the occupation.
If your country was invaded by lets say Russia to protect the Kurdish minority, would you accept a solution like the Annan plan for you country? (Kurds having a veto for every decision, Russia maintaining troops in Turkey and have the right to ntervene whenever they see fit, that the Kurdish state will be much bigger than their population (35% of Turkey) etc) Would you accept such things? I am sure you wouldn't. Therefore don't expect from us to accept such things, and don't tell us that this thing is supposedly balanced!
And HIS ANSWER
I think the Greek are wrong. You ask why?
Many a country in the history dominated Cyprus. Byzantium, Perses, some islamic countries, England, Egypt and so on...
In 1571 Turks invaded the island. Pressure put by the former dominant country stopped. And Uk get it in 1878. With that estates of Turks were taken over by British government. A policy of making Turks poor started so land owned by Turks diminished. When Turks left Cyprus and memigrated to UK and Turkey, Turks in the island became minority.
In 1st world war UK completely got the island by tearing up the aggreement done with Ottoman Empire. After 1950 Greek having a riot against British Government stated their plan to terminate Turks along with the British. And Cyprus Republic was founded in 1960 with the Greek, Turkish and British guarantors. Although the government of the state was almost in the hands of the greek they were greedy to get the whole government. And massacres began. And Turkey had to intervene against the inhuman events.
In history, Turks dominated Cyprus more than Greek. There is no evidence or claim that that there were any social, economic, religious pressure on Greek while the sovereignty of Turks.
AS for Annan Plan, veto , deploying troops, and intervening rights are not something new, they were the rights which Turkey had partially, but Turkey didn't evaluate or couldn't find a chance so the events continued to be massacre until 1974.
If we have a look at Turkey in the example, Today Turkey don't put pressure on Kurds but a fight against PKK (Terrorist movement of Kurds who want independence) But we can't see Kurds and PKK equal. In that situation, Russia could want to protect PKK not the Kurds. PKK is a terrorist movement which is recognized by all the states as a terrorist grup. Turkish Cypriots didn't fought against the Greek with an aim of ethnical cleanse. Turkish troops landed the island with only the aim of defence. When she had the chance of invading the whole island in a war aimed at attack , Turkey didn't use that right.
As a consequence, the example given above is completely wrong and has no relationship with the Cyprus Problem. Turkey still protects Kurds against PKK in Turkey. That is, there is no assimilation policy against kurds, if so, There wouldn't be Hadep or Dehap (Kurdish Parties), even presidents or Kurdish originated deputies . Also if they can prove that Turkey started an ethnical cleansing against Kurds, let them intervene, I don't think they will hesitate to do that when they have found proof.
In Cyprus there's no land wanted more than normal. As I stated above, Turks already emigrated to Turkey or UK leaving their own lands. It means Northern Cyprus where they live now was already the region where Turks were majority in the whole
history.
So this is what a Turks thinks about Cyprus problem, Is he right or wrong?
If you want to read the original text which he wrote you can go this page:
http://beyinfirtinasi.board.dk3.com/2/v ... c.php?t=85
