The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


new bit of information

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Re: new bit of information

Postby Lordo » Tue Sep 01, 2015 9:39 am

enosis was excluded in 1960, it was excluded in 1972 and it will be excluded now. get a furquine grip. you want enosis come out in the open and say it. we shall all be happier afterwards when we go our own ways like. but i fear you is heading for disappointment gcs will not vote for enosis. not now not ever.
User avatar
Lordo
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 11518
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:13 pm
Location: softalar, banana republic

Re: new bit of information

Postby Maximus » Tue Sep 01, 2015 11:02 am

Look what resisting enosis got you.
People of both sides being killed, which you started.
A bunch of stolen properties, which makes your community thieves.
A currency that is worth as much as toilet paper that loses value without fail as time goes by.
International trade embargoes.
No one recognising you.
Living like pariahs in an illegitimate state shunned by the international community.
Living like pirates.
Shame and a disgraced reputation in every ones eyes except yours.

Look what the GC’s have done for you.
Free medical care
Freedom of movement across the whole of Europe.
Freedom to live and work anywhere in Europe.

Look at what the TC’s have given/demand from the GC’s.
Siding with colonials.
Piracy.
Apartheid.
Theft.
Destruction of historic and cultural heritage.
Segregation and racism.
Suppression of democracy, identity and basic freedoms.
Disproportionate shares like the GC’s have to work to serve you.
Oppression.
Invasion.
Occupation.
Ethnic cleansing.
Turkification of Cyprus.

These are the deeds and results behind your BS words, whether your community is negotiating towards a solution or separation. Its all the same BS.
Maximus
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4274
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:23 pm

Re: new bit of information

Postby Lordo » Tue Sep 01, 2015 11:14 am

we saved your ass boy. look at what it would have got us if we accepted it. if you wish to be a sheepriot, by all means go along with the rest dear boy. no furque off back to the snake hole you appeared from.

gc gave us nothing we was not entitled to you stupid and now they even stopped that. some racist policy you boys are implementing.
User avatar
Lordo
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 11518
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:13 pm
Location: softalar, banana republic

Re: new bit of information

Postby Maximus » Tue Sep 01, 2015 11:18 am

Shame on you,
Maximus
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4274
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:23 pm

Re: new bit of information

Postby Lordo » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:17 pm

facts are facts stupid boy. we are roc citizens and entitled to anything a gc is entitled to. basic human rights. but then again you are as civilised as my poodle. just learnt how not to crap all over the carpet and all that.
User avatar
Lordo
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 11518
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:13 pm
Location: softalar, banana republic

Re: new bit of information

Postby Jerry » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:42 pm

erolz66 wrote:
Jerry wrote:Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what "TC communal wishes" would have been.


Not really because such is just not what I am talking about or why I am talking about it.


If the TC communal wishes were the same as GC ones there would be no problem, if their communal wishes did not exist there would be no problem. It's very relevant to what I am talking about but you are free to ignore it of course.


Jerry wrote:I don't consider the size of the Turkish Cypriot minority to be sufficient to deny the majority their wishes.


No what you deny is that for a majority wish to be valid, for it to be more than just an 'empty name' is has to the majority OF something larger. That is what you deny. The 'commonality' that could have bound us together, despite our differences, such that a majority will could be valid, you chose to seek to not exist - namely that of all of us being Cypriots, by citizenship and nationality, despite our differences. That is WHY enosis rather than independence changed everything, another thing you deny. I know you will claim that the 'commonality' that bound us all together was we all physically lived on the island of Cyprus, for after the choice to pursue enosis and not independence, that was all that remained. However just all being people who live on a single 'land mass' is so obviously not sufficient to be the means by which a 'group' within which a valid majority can be said to exist. If it were then according to this an 'Iberian majority' of Spaniards alone could simply 'majority vote' that Portugal should no longer exist as a nation state but should be part of Iberia (Greater Spain). Clearly this notion is absurd, yet it is the conclusion to the argument that TC and GC all lived on the land mass called Cyprus and that alone is sufficient to justify the 'commonality' necessary for a majority accross all those who live on the land mass Cyprus to be valid. The reason why Portugal exists as a separate nation state as Spain is BECAUSE there is a commonality across the Portuguese that is separate and different from that commonality that exits across the Spanish.

Ridiculous analogy, Portugal and Spain are separate defined areas and have been for centuries, besides the Iberian peninsular itself is attached to something much larger.


THIS is what you deny. Not only do you deny that there has to be some greater commonality that would bind TC and GC together, such that a will that is purely GC could be validly said to be the 'majority will' of that larger group, you act and behave as if the very concept is absurd and unheard of. Yet the reality is this very concept has been has been acknowledged and discussed and understood by a succession of the worlds greatest thinkers on such matters from Plato through to John Adams (tyranny of the majority) via countless others besides before John Adams and since.

The concept can be shown plainly and clearly by a simple example. Now I know you will no doubt scream and shout and find one thousands reason why this example is not the same as Cyprus but the point of it is not that it is identical to Cyprus, the point of it is that it highlights and exposes the core principal that I am taking about, that Plato talk about, that John Adams talk about and countless others have.

10 friends who enjoy reading books decide to form a book club where each week or month they choose a single book, all read it and then meet up discuss the book. They decide to democratically vote on what the book will be, one person one vote. However after the first few weeks or months or year it actually becomes clear that the female members of the group always want to choose a certain type of book and the males members a different type, BECAUSE of their gender differences and not despite and regardless of them. It turns out that 6 of the book club members are women and 4 are men. So after months of being forced to read books that they did not have an interest in , the men suggest that actually given the reality that how books are selected is because of the members gender and not despite it , that a fairer method would be for the women to choose a book one month and the men the next, or they suggest that at least that out of 10 such choices the women should choose 6 times and the men 4 times. To which a shrill woman stands up and proclaims that is undemocratic and that democracy demands that choice has to be and can only be one member one vote and that the attempt by men to try and thwart the majority democratic will of the group is just a continuation of the age old oppression of women by men that has been going on for time in memorial. At which point the book club disbands forever.

Better and more accurate if your comparison had been 8 women and 2 men. Applied to Cyprus the two men would have insisted that they chose HALF the books and which bookshop (owned by their uncle) they should buy from, is that fair?


As I say the point of the above is not that it is an exact comparison with Cyprus. The point is that it highlights that 'one person one vote' is NOT only not the SOLE possible means of achieving democracy, it can actually be under certain conditions the opposite of the principles and objective of democracy. As I say this is something that has been understood and highlighted by some of the worlds greatest thinkers on such matters from Plato onwards. THIS then IS what you deny, what you have always denied and I sincerely believe that the REASON you deny it (and even make out the very concept is absurd) is not because you are intellectually unable to understand the concept but SOLELY because doing so gives you what you wanted without having to worry about those 'annoying turks'.

For me this is core. This has always been core. This is what is left when you strip away all the hatred, all the blame game, all the history, all the demands. If you REALLY believe this then indeed there can be no solution based on compromise and mutual concession between GC and TC as CYPRIOTS together, not one that has a realistic chance of lasting, that will not be at risk of being reneged against in the future on the basis it was an is 'unjust' and unfairly forced on the GC community. If you really believe this then the ONLY realistic options are , total capitulation of the TC community entirely - something that I even as the most 'progressive' TC (willing to give up everything else for acceptance of this one thing - bi zonality, bi communality, any special privileges or representation etc etc) can not and will not accept. So then all we are left with is either agreed partition or continuation of the current de facto partition until such time as you come and take what you want by force, or think you can. THIS denial literally leaves me no where else to go , just as it did in effect for the TC community in the 50s and 60's. This to me is a most depressing conclusion but it is the one that logic and reason drives me too all the same.

I doubt your idealistic theories were uppermost in the minds of most GCs, they were aware of Turkey's ambition to take back the island. Having suffered 300 years of Turkish administration why would you expect them to be generous to the minority left on Cyprus.


Jerry wrote:The differences are diluted by the fact that many from both communities share the same DNA.


DNA is irrelevant. It is what we CHOOSE to be and do not what our DNA makes us. DNA did not make GC choose to want enosis or TC to not want it. DNA did not make and drive Cypriot to kill Cypriot. Nor does DNA define a 'commonality' from within which a purely GC 'majority' will can be said to have been a valid democratic choice of that larger whole rather than an 'empty name'.

I disagree, both sides share common personality characteristics, if you ignore the racial prefix they are the same, or at least very similar, people

Jerry wrote:The other minorities in Cyprus did not, as far as I know, ask for or expect special "communal wishes" to be taken into account ...


Even if you ignore the size of those other communities in Cyprus in absolute terms, which I have already said is material in practical terms and even if you ignore the reality that what enosis meant to them as communities in Cyprus just was not the same as what it meant to the TC community (for if it had of been they would almost certainlyhave sided with the TC community), even then you still have the reality that with those communities there WAS still a 'commonality' between them and the GC community that was not destroyed totally by the desire for Cyprus to not exist as a nation and a state. Commonalities of language. Commonalties of religion. Commonalties that did not exist in the case of the TC community.

Jerry wrote:neither did the ethnic Turks on Rhodes and Kos. The latter having "survived" living under Greek administration for more than half a century ...


Firstly I am not saying and have never claimed that if enosis had of been achieved in Cyprus at the end of British rule without any regard being given for the TC communities wishes, then the TC community would have ceased to exist within a half century. I actually have more faith and belief in the strength and resilience of the TC community and their culture and I think the assertion that they would have been 'wiped out' or subject to 'genocide' is part of OUR narrative, and as someone who wants you to strive to break out of YOUR narrative, so we can build a better future, I try my best to practice what I preach. What I DO say about 'if enosis had of been achieved' then is that you would not be able to sensible claim it resulted in a 'free and democratic Cyprus'. Not for any Cypriots who would be (willingly or not) subject to rule from and by people who were NOT Cypriot and especially not for TC who almost certainly would not have even been allowed UNDER LAW to call themselves Turkish Cypriots.
I do not know the history of Rhodes or Kos as well as I know that of Cyprus but we have already discussed that there is having the rights 'in theory' and having the ability to defend and protect those rights in practice. I do not know but I strongly suspect that in the case of Rhodes and Kos and the difference between what happened there and Cyprus is down to this.

Jerry wrote:Turkey's military might emboldened the minority into wanting more of Cyprus (in every sense of the word) than it deserves or is entitled to.


I do not want more of Cyprus than I deserve and (should be) entitled too. I want ALL of Cyprus because as a CYPRIOT, that is what I deserve and am entitled too, just as you are as a CYPRIOT. For you division of Cyprus may represent a loss of one third of Cyprus but for me it represents a loss of TWO thirds of it. Wanting ALL of Cyprus as a GREEK (and FOR Greece) however was and remains for me a problem.


YOU may not want more of Cyprus than you deserve but the likes of Denktash certainly did as did the minority who rejoiced in the sharing of "Greek Loot" after 1974.
Jerry
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: UK

Re: new bit of information

Postby Lordo » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:58 pm

and there was no looting of terggish property in the south. how much is roc charging rent for tc properties again. 1 euro per year. and that is not looting. assholes
User avatar
Lordo
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 11518
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:13 pm
Location: softalar, banana republic

Re: new bit of information

Postby kurupetos » Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:08 pm

Lordo wrote:and there was no looting of terggish property in the south. how much is roc charging rent for tc properties again. 1 euro per year. and that is not looting. assholes

Rent? How much are TCs paying for GC properties in the 'trnc'? :roll: F*ck off! :twisted:
User avatar
kurupetos
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 17896
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: Cyprus

Re: new bit of information

Postby Lordo » Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:35 pm

you seem to not quite fathom that the south is recognised government and has taken control of tc properties and is renting them on their behalf. but dont worry, 41 years of rent will not be more than a million euros. i have checked. it will ot be far off though. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
anyway things are moving on nicely. it seems new name and a new flag is a comin.


http://www.kpdailynews.com/index.php/cat/35/news/5724/PageName/CYPRUS_LOCAL_NEWS



renga news over and out
User avatar
Lordo
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 11518
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:13 pm
Location: softalar, banana republic

Re: new bit of information

Postby erolz66 » Tue Sep 01, 2015 3:47 pm

Jerry wrote:If the TC communal wishes were the same as GC ones there would be no problem, if their communal wishes did not exist there would be no problem. It's very relevant to what I am talking about but you are free to ignore it of course.


Can there really be any doubt the overwhelming majority of GC wanted enosis and the overwhelming majority of TC did not in this period ? As too exactly what the TC community did want (rather than did not want), what the leadership wanted, what all TC wanted, what some TC wanted - this is just a rabbit hole that I just do not wish to descend into, for such things can never been known even objectively with the kind of certainty that we can know and say GC wanted enosis and TC did not (at that time).

Jerry wrote: Ridiculous analogy, Portugal and Spain are separate defined areas and have been for centuries, besides the Iberian peninsular itself is attached to something much larger.


Exactly my point. The wider 'commonality' that is required for a majority within the wider group to be able to be said to be a legitimate democratic wish of that whole wider group, can not be that of 'they all just inhabit a given geographical land mass'. In the case of Cyprus at the end of British rule, GC and TC did not have a commonality of 'language' or 'religion'. The choice by the GC community to pursue Enosis rather than independence removed the potential commonality of us being Cypriot citizens regardless of other differences, so what possible commonality was there left that could have made the 'democratic' choice of GC anything other than an 'empty name' ? That was and is my point.

Jerry wrote:Better and more accurate if your comparison had been 8 women and 2 men. Applied to Cyprus the two men would have insisted that they chose HALF the books and which bookshop (owned by their uncle) they should buy from, is that fair?


The story was to highlight a point, a principal. A principal that 'one person one vote' is NOT always the sole and only way that the ideals of democracy can be achieved and in some cases can even be seen as the opposite of such. If you can accept that principal but want to talk about 'degree' either in the story or the case of Cyprus I am more than happy to do so. However when you tell me that democracy requires and demands always and only one person one vote under any circumstances or conditions, which is what it feels like you are still telling me now and today, then what else it there to be said ? Where can we possibly go from there if that is what you are telling me ? If you can accept the principal then you will find me as an individual more than willing to be reasonable over degree - in the story example I would settle for men choosing 2 times out of 10 and you buy your book any where you like. In the face of democracy requires and demands that men can never have their choice ever, what option is for me except to walk away ?

Jerry wrote:I doubt your idealistic theories were uppermost in the minds of most GCs, they were aware of Turkey's ambition to take back the island. Having suffered 300 years of Turkish administration why would you expect them to be generous to the minority left on Cyprus.


Well we appear to be going back to the start again. For me the need for GC community to have to consider the wishes of the TC community at the end of British rule in the face of their desire for enosis was and is not something that was and is a 'gift' of 'generosity' but actually an obligation founded in a right of the TC community for such consideration to be given. Just to be clear that for me this would not have been true imo if you had chosen to want and pursue independence of Cyprus - that WOULD have been for me a valid expression of the democratic will of 'Cypriots' , even if you had 95% supported it and 95% of TC had wanted something different, because it would not have sought to destroy the one thing in which such a majority could have been said to have been valid IN.
In terms of the practically of Cyprus and Cypriots having to live and deal with a reality that the island is 50km off the coast of Turkey and is and will always be of strategic concern to Turkey, I think then as now, strong arguments can be made that the best way of dealing with that is actually through the TC community and its valid and willing integration and participation within a Cypriot state.

Jerry wrote:I disagree, both sides share common personality characteristics, if you ignore the racial prefix they are the same, or at least very similar, people


That we are genetically closer to each other than either is to their respective motherlands, is for me indisputable scientific fact. That we share many 'cultural' traits other than just language and religion that are typically 'Cypriot' rather than Greek of Turkish is also for me undeniable. However the point is we CHOSE to define ourselves by our differences despite and regardless of these evident truths. Enosis was just such a choice as were the calls for 'partition' from TC. We still do it here far too much and too often, myself included, and if we are to find a better future than the past we have achieved to date we have to stop doing so.

Jerry wrote:YOU may not want more of Cyprus than you deserve but the likes of Denktash certainly did as did the minority who rejoiced in the sharing of "Greek Loot" after 1974.


Well thank you for at least saying "the minority who rejoiced in the sharing of "Greek Loot" after 1974".

To be frank Jerry I STILL do not know if you can accept, in theory and principle at least, that there could / can be conditions when a numerical minority of TC could legitimately resist the will of a numerically larger GC desire, that is founded in a right to do so, or if you believe that there were, are and never will be any conditions in which a TC numerically minority could do so based on a right to do so and such resistance would always be a 'perversion' of what democracy means and requires ? The truth is that I am on the most 'liberal' and I believe 'reasonable' end of the spectrum of TC opinions on the 'Cyprus' problem, yet even I , if faced with an assertion that a TC minority can never under any conditions ever be considered to be able to legitimately resist the will of a numerically larger GC will, I just have 'no where to go' . That is the point of what I have been saying in this thread to date.

I will finish with once more returning to the story of my Aunt that I have previously talked about in this thread. Not in direct response to what you have written above. Not in an attempt to play up my sides pain and suffering and diminish yours. Not as an argument that seeks to claim what happened in 74 was just or right. Not because it is THE and only truth. I do so in the hope that it does help 'you' appreciate a different perspective and that by doing so that in turn then help 'us' to do likewise.

My Aunt suffered much. My Aunt lost much. She lost her husband, she lost her home, more than once. She did literally live in fear for years. She did also as a result of 74 receive 'Greek Loot', a house that she has lived in and continues to live in since she was 'given' it. She did 'rejoice' at the arrival of Turkish troops in 74 as for her it did represent the end of a living night mare and she did so despite the pain and suffering that it had on so many GC. However can you really doubt the truth of the claim that she would give back the house she now lives in in a heart beat if such could give her back her husband ? That she would give 5 or 10 such houses if doing so could give her back her husband ? My Aunt is not a 'bad person'. She is not the 'enemy'.
erolz66
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:31 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests