Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz]

My questions are clear Erol and you still avoid to answer to the point.I even highlighted them for you with bold letters in my previous message.
If still you cannot understand them then I am no longer interested to waste my time.

The highlighted question I can see in the above post was

how you imagine this equality

so to try again to answer your question

in terms of 'government system to be applied'

Some areas should require straight majorites of cypriots or their elected representatives and some should require seperate majorites from each community.

in terms of percentage of land to be ruled

I personaly would be prepared to accept geographical seperate areas or totaly integreated basis, provided I believed GC accepted the TC peoples right to self deterimation as a principal.

in terms of power sharing

As above for some areas I would be willing to accept straight majorites and others I would want there to be a requirment for seperate majorites of each community.

in terms of human rights

I would want a framework that accepted human rights but that also recognised that these at times can not be absoloute but need to be limited and subject to compromise on both sides. If for example seperate geographical areas are to be agreed then some limit to free rights for anyone to live anywhere will have to be accepted.

in terms of well as how the other 82% of "a people" would not damage its own rights arising from its self determination in that same direction.

There needs to be, in my view, an acceptance that one groups rights can and do clash with another groups. This will require compromise when this is the case. Neither sides right should have precedence over the others.

[/quote]

[Piratis]

So what erolz is telling us, is to accept his outrageous and false claim that TCs are "peoples" so then they will have a legal basis on which they will be more able to limit our 100% legal rights.

Some areas should require straight majorities of cypriots or their elected representatives and some should require seperate majorites from each community.

Could you be even more vague? What "some areas"??. I and almost everybody agrees that "some areas" can use separate majorities. In other posts I specifically said which areas should be those. Can you be a bit more specific too?

[erolz]

So what erolz is telling us, is to accept his outrageous and false claim that TCs are "peoples" so then they will have a legal basis on which they will be more able to limit our 100% legal rights.

What I am telling you is that until you accept what is real, what has been recognised before, what was recognised in the 1960 consitution, what was recognised in the Annan plan, what is just, what is consistent with the spirit of the UN declared right to self determination you will continue to represent in my eyes just another GC with extremist GC nationalist views that have cause the state of Cyprus today (with a little help form a much smaller number of TC extremist nationalists).
My claim is 'outrageous and false' - yet your claim is that there is only a single united undivided and unidivdable people in Cyprus - that is so obviously and self evidently not true that it makes your vehmenent insistance that it is true make you appear as little more than a charicature of GC extreemist nationalism.
Once again I feel compelled to point out you the FACT that if the world had accepted your position in 1960 there would be no RoC today. Cyprus would be a colony of Greece. The view was extremist then and not accepted by anybody but Greece and GC. It is still extremist today. You owe the fact that there is a RoC today to the fact that your view was denied in 1960.

Could you be even more vague? What "some areas"??. I and almost everybody agrees that "some areas" can use separate majorities. In other posts I specifically said which areas should be those. Can you be a bit more specific too?

I could be more specific and would be willing to be more specific if you could admit that the _reason_ we have a need for such seperate majorites on some issues is the equality of the two peoples in Cyprus. Whilst you maintain that we have no RIGHT to these things and that they are just 'gifts' from the GC to TC given becuase he GC have been focred to give them then they are not worth the paper they are written on (as history has shown) - and thus what is the point in going into the detail?

It would highly plausible to me that the reason you offer them now as 'gifts' - whilst insisting absoloutely that we have no RIGHT to them - is to get back what you lost by force and secure yourself from possible future force. Once this has been done you will then be free to execute the 'next stage' of the plan - which would be consistent with your view that TC have no RIGHT to these things and seek to remove them and thus achieve what you have always wanted. A cyprus totaly controlled and dominated by GC. This is an AKRITAS plan for 2000. Have you written it down as such yet?

Beware Greeks bearing gifts!

[Piratis]

Anyways, as I said before it is all about balance of power.
The next steps we should try if we want to achieve something:
1)Block Turkey out of the EU
2)This will bring economic destruction to Turkey
3)Which is very possible to bring fanatic islamists into power or even a civil war within Turkey.
4)Which will make the US realize that they can not put too much trust on Turkey. (the US doesn't have friends. Hussein of Iraq was also their 'friend' once.)

And then, in the next major war (like WW3 for example) Turkey will again be among the losers. Thats the time when Cyprus will be reunified again.

This is just one scenario of course, but the sure thing is that we have more to gain if we push Turkey out of the EU camp and towrds the "losers" camp. I am not saying that we have a lot of chances to achieve it, but we do have a chance, and we should pursue it.

Everything else, like discussing with Erol and stuff, its just a waste of time. Those people are our enemies and they don't miss a chance to prove it. We should treat them accordingly and show them that choosing to be our enemies was the biggest mistake they ever made for themselves and their future generations.

I am sorry if this sounds harsh, but when we ask for democracy and human rights and you find 100 excuses why we should not have these things like every other EU citizen you give us no choice.

[erolz]

What a world you live in!

A world of power, war, economic destrution, ww3 and where those that disagree with you are your enemies and that they and thier future generations will 'rue the day' they ever dared to disagree with you.

I pity you.

[erolz]

Anyways, as I said before it is all about balance of power.
The next steps we should try if we want to achieve something:

and there I was thinking that the way forward was to try and build better confidence, trust, mutual respect and undertstanding between the two communites!

[Piratis]

What a world you live in!

A world of power, war, economic destrution, ww3 and where those that disagree with you are your enemies and that they and thier future generations will 'rue the day' they ever dared to disagree with you.

I pity you.

You pitty me?
You are the ones who stole our land with a war, isn't it? You are the ones who use your power to keep this land ignoring all UN resolutions.
You even admited that your own Aunt now occupies land that was forcefully stolen from us.
You should pity yourself.

[erolz]

You even admited that your own Aunt now occupies land that was forcefully stolen from us.

and that land could be returned. Can her innocent husband who was murdered by GC extremists in the name of a GC right to dominate and control all of Cyrpus ever be returned?

[Piratis]

We had 6.000 dead (+1500 missing), and 200.000 refugees from the invasion, so don't even try to make such comparisons. (not to mention the ones killed during the Ottomans).

[MicAtCyp]

Why make these assertions without evidence?

First evidence: Using the compensation Evkaf got from the British on a global exchange of disputed territories to buy land massiveley at the North of Nicosia upto Kionelli. (Formation of first biggest enclave ever)
Second evidence. The creation of the TMT and the goal for Taksim.
Third evidence: Provocative actions to spark bloddshed, e. g the bombing at Bayraktar
Fourth evidence. Killing of TC people who dared co - operate with the GCs
Fifth evidence: Extension of the enclave policy all over Cyprus
Sixth Evidence:Smagling guns in Cyprus, staffing each TC village with a General from Turkey.

That was his general Policy in the 60s. From 1970 - 74 he changed to more reasonable attitude towards some degree of autonomy. And from 1974 onwards it has always been the recognition of a separate state.
Was simply sitting at negotiations to cranch the time until the international reaction against Turkey would ease. Then he renamed the occupied areas from Fed State to pseudo - state.

Does this 'prove' a single objective of a seperate state on the part of Denktash for his whole life?

Since you like playing with words Erol, no it does not prove that was his objective all his life. I guess his objective when he was 15 was to chase chicks.
But It does prove a single objective in his political career and especially after 1974 i.e the estabilising, strengthening, and eventual recognition of a separate pseudostate! Everybody knew the Anan Plan was offering Turkey and the TCs 90% of what they wanted.But for Denktash any solution that will not regognise a separate state was unacceptable. You know why? Ask the TCs to tell you why.
He even said it a hundred times."we must be patient, just wait and one day the world will recognise us, don't lose your courage etc etc"

Finally thank you Erol for answering my question about the equality even if I had to repeat it for 3 consequtive posts.Although your reply was as usual hidden inside many clouds I managed to see through it.Thank you once again, it will finally rescue all the readers here from another book type post.

Like Piratis said:

So what erolz is telling us, is to accept his outrageous and false claim that TCs are "peoples" so then they will have a legal basis on which they will be more able to limit our 100% legal rights.

Exactly, that was the whole point. A distrorted meaning of equality 50-50 on this, 50-50 on that, especially if that concerns "a take or benefit" and a 18-82% on all those that concern "give or share the obligation".Very clever indeed!

Just a final question Erol.In this "equality" arising from the presumable principle of "a people" how much do you think the rights of the 82% of "a people" would become, and how much the rights of the 18% of "a people".To avoid accusing you again of vague or cloudy answers notice I am expectibng numbers.