The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Positions of the Parties on Key Issues: What is better for u

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Postby erolz » Mon Aug 23, 2004 6:39 pm

No you have not answerd my question at all - you have avoided it.

Even if you accept that that colonisation was 'illegal' in 1955 when it declared itself to the world (which is was not - except by your own decleration of what is legal or not) does that then justify the illegal actions of EOKA?. You refuse to answer this question because to do so clealry shows your inconsistancy and hypocrasy in your 'lectures' to me on the events of 74.

according to you

GC in 55 were right and had a right to decide what was legal or not (ie British colonial presense was illegal)
GC had a right to use force, violence, killings (the ultimate denial of others human rights) to persue a GC right to self determination (not a cypriot right to self determination - EOKA was a purely GC orgnaisation persuing purely GC objectives)
GC / EOKA illegal acts were justifed.

Go and examine your own hypocrasies before lecturing others on theirs.

Piratis wrote:
Anyway, I am not telling you this to agree. We will never agree because your aim is the partition of our island. Discussing anything with you is really a waste of time.


and I may just as well respond with - we will never agree because your aim is the right for the GC people to have total control and domination over all of Cyprus and all its peoples.
erolz
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Girne / Kyrenia

Postby Piratis » Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:13 pm

Even if you accept that that colonisation was 'illegal' in 1955 when it declared itself to the world (which is was not - except by your own decleration of what is legal or not)


My own declaration???? Thats the UN official declaration, and it even lists Cyprus explicitly, what else do you want???

does that then justify the illegal actions of EOKA?


The actions of EOKA were not illegal since the only ones who can decide about the laws of Cyprus are Cypriots and not foreigners.
Since colonization is wrong (stated by the UN and not me), what we fought for was a just cause.

GC in 55 were right and had a right to decide what was legal or not (ie British colonial presense was illegal)
GC had a right to use force, violence, killings (the ultimate denial of others human rights) to persue a GC right to self determination (not a cypriot right to self determination - EOKA was a purely GC orgnaisation persuing purely GC objectives)
GC / EOKA illegal acts were justifed.

Cypriots had the right of self determination and EOKA was supported by the majority of Cypriots. Thats the fact. I have a calculator here and I will lent it to you if you are not very good in maths.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby erolz » Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:35 pm

Piratis wrote: My own declaration???? Thats the UN official declaration, and it even lists Cyprus explicitly, what else do you want???


You see no discrepancy in the fact that EOKA predates this UN declaration by 5 years! Or is your position 'we know the 'law' will declare colonisation illegal in 5 years'

Piratis wrote: The actions of EOKA were not illegal since the only ones who can decide about the laws of Cyprus are Cypriots and not foreigners.
Since colonization is wrong (stated by the UN and not me), what we fought for was a just cause.


LOL - you really are a nutter arn't you? There was a cypriot law that stated it is legal to shoot a pregant woman in the back if she is British? Or to shoot a GC if they do not support EOKAs aims? The UN made the stament you point out 5 years AFTER EOKA annoucned it existance to the world and started killing and bombing. Still obviously anything is legal and justified and allowed in the noble cause of GC dominance of Cyprus in your world.

Piratis wrote:Cypriots had the right of self determination and EOKA was supported by the majority of Cypriots. Thats the fact. I have a calculator here and I will lent it to you if you are not very good in maths.


You may well have a numericaly calculator unfortunately what you actually need is a moral calculator for it is your moral calculations that do not add up.

Oh the irony that your beloved state of the RoC only exists today beacuse your type of extermist views were denied and overruled in the 60's by others.
erolz
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Girne / Kyrenia

Postby Piratis » Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:50 pm

You see no discrepancy in the fact that EOKA predates this UN declaration by 5 years! Or is your position 'we know the 'law' will declare colonisation illegal in 5 years'


You missed this:

The aspirations of the peoples of the Territories to achieve self-determination, and the international community's perception that United Nations Charter principles were being too slowly applied, led to the United Nations General Assembly's proclamation on 14 December 1960 of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples - resolution 1514 (XV).

So the resolution came in 1960, but the United Nations Charter principles were there long before that.

you really are a nutter arn't you? There was a cypriot law that stated it is legal to shoot a pregant woman in the back if she is British? Or to shoot a GC if they do not support EOKAs aims? The UN made the stament you point out 5 years AFTER EOKA annoucned it existance to the world and started killing and bombing. Still obviously anything is legal and justified and allowed in the noble cause of GC dominance of Cyprus in your world.


here we go again. If I was not bored I would reply to you just by quoting myself, because I gave the answer already. I said this in the page before this one!

Colonization is illegal according to the UN, so there is nothing wrong with removing this illegal thing.If some other crimes have been committed that are not relevant to this cause I condemn them


You may well have a numericaly calculator unfortunately what you actually need is a moral calculator for it is your moral calculations that do not add up.

Oh the irony that your beloved state of the RoC only exists today beacuse your type of extermist views were denied and overruled in the 60's by others.


You are the one who says that human rights should be compromised and not me.
All I am asking is democracy, freedom, and human rights. If thats immoral for you then your morals have a problem and not mine.

Which of my views are extreme? That I want human rights and democracy? Or that I want the Turkish occupation of my country to end?
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby erolz » Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:04 pm

Piratis wrote: So the resolution came in 1960, but the United Nations Charter principles were there long before that.


but the 'law' can into force five years after you justify the GC illegal acts using this 'law' as an excuse. So in your mind one illegal act can (and in this case does) justify anothe illegal act. Not very consitent with your ealier 'lectures' then!

Piratis wrote:You are the one who says that human rights should be compromised and not me.


Not just me. All sensible recognise this reality

Piratis wrote:All I am asking is democracy, freedom, and human rights. If thats immoral for you then your morals have a problem and not mine.


What you are demanding is a RIGHT of a GC people to rule and dominate a TC people in Cyprus. Not an inch of compromise on this concept is acceptable to you. You deny TC human rights by denying they are a people. You want a democracy where your people are always in the majority and can dominate and enslave another people. Thats not democracy thats tyranny.

Piratis wrote:Which of my views are extreme? That I want human rights and democracy? Or that I want the Turkish occupation of my country to end?


Too many to list but the main one is your absoloute existance that TC in cyprus are not a people - ironic given that if the world had accepted this extreem view the RoC would not exist.
erolz
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Girne / Kyrenia

Postby Piratis » Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:57 pm

but the 'law' can into force five years after you justify the GC illegal acts using this 'law' as an excuse. So in your mind one illegal act can (and in this case does) justify anothe illegal act. Not very consitent with your ealier 'lectures' then!


All the principles where there in the UN Charters. In 1960 it was just another confirmation.

What you are demanding is a RIGHT of a GC people to rule and dominate a TC people in Cyprus. Not an inch of compromise on this concept is acceptable to you. You deny TC human rights by denying they are a people. You want a democracy where your people are always in the majority and can dominate and enslave another people. Thats not democracy thats tyranny.


Bullshit. You either don't read what I write, or you are an idiot, or you think that you can pass propaganda through these forums. You keep repeating the same things, when I already answered them in the most clear way.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby erolz » Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:05 pm

Piratis wrote: Bullshit.


What is bullshit is your claim that British Cyprus was an 'illegal state' under international law and that therefore EOKA illegal acts - its murder and terrorism - were justified and legal. What is BS is your insitance that I agree that one crime does not justify another (which I do agree) coupled with your insistance that GC/EOKA crimes were justifed by the 'crime' of British colonisation.
erolz
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Girne / Kyrenia

Postby Piratis » Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:21 pm

Our points are there. To me is clear that colonization according to the UN is illegal.
And again, I repeat for the 100th time, that if any crimes were committed by EOKA members they are condemned. (e.g. if Innocent people were killed).

But there is nothing immoral about fighting against colonialism.

Check here to see about some others fight against colonialism long long time ago (before even UN existed):
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.c ... dependence

Notice the section about "Loyalists", there are always people that disagree. Cyprus is not different.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby MicAtCyp » Mon Aug 23, 2004 11:23 pm

Erol wrote: The Annan plan is an offical UN document that clearly defines TC in cyprus as a seperate and equal state (peoples).


LOL!! With your logic the GCs in the TC Federal State are TC "a people"!! Furthermoreb with our clear OXI the Anan Plan became a "non paper" like many other "non papers" of the UN are now in the dustbin.

Erol wrote: I do not understand what you are saying here?


What I am saying is that the TC constituent state does not define TC as "a people" because it will consist of a majority of TCs and a minority of GCs.The "a people" in that case is a mixture of both communities

peace wrote: The discussion was about if there is a single UN document that accepts the prpincipal that TC are an equal people within Cyprus. For me the Annan plan is such a document.


Like I said above the Anan Plan was NOT accepting that principle.
In addition to that notice there were in the past UN documents/proposals for two separate states in South Africa. They were not accepted and went to the dustbin.To avoid confusion as to whether those were the official positions of the UN they were called "non papers". A UN document becomes official UN position only when it passes through voting.The Anan plan like its name says was an Anana document a non document and its just ridiculous to even refer to it, as the official UN position on the Cyprus issue. (It even contradicts to almost all UN resolutions for Cyprus)

But anyway you always have the right to find a UN document that passed through voting at the UN, to prove Piratis your original position. Or else you may insist on documents in the dustbin.

Erol wrote: If before 1960 the British had given Cypriots a vote and insisted their right to self determination was then met as part of a single British people - would that have been acceptable to you?


Yes if Cyprus would be treated "as part of a single British people".That is to say the same way as Manchester, and get proportionately the same development funds, and pay proportionately the same taxes.

Erol wrote: I am sorry but I find this impossible to beleieve. That GC and GC demands for self determination would have been satisfied with such an approach.


Erol you are always forgetting the basis of your original points. The basis was that the vote of the TCs would never be effective against another big majority.I disregarded the 1960 date you mentioned because your example was not really very appropriate.Here we talk about re unification of Cyprus.In 1960 the subject was not to unify Cyprus with UK.
Then forgetting what the basis of your argument was i.e the zeroying of the voting power over a vast majority, you come back with "a hard to beleive" statement on on the already "hard to beleive" hypothetical scenario of yours, on an already irrelavant part of that scenario....

Erol wrote: You believe no solution is possible unless the TC people agree to subjectage themselves to a GC majority


I beleive that no solution is possible unless the TCs get off their minds that equality means that the 82% GC majority has to take their permission even to sneeze. Equality means each citizen is equal with another citizen (equal individual rights) and on a group basis the 18% has 18% and the 82% 82% Political rights. Any possible decisions of the majority that could possibly tend to harm the minority should be written down in the constitution, so the minority would have nothing to be afraid of. Or better their should be a clause in the constitution that no law or Political decision could benefit the majority on the expense of the minority.
The same principle must apply to a Federal Solution through the Central State. The FedStates should only deal with matters of just community concerns like education, culture and safety, and application of the Primary Central State law.Thats the meaning of "bi-communal Federation".
User avatar
MicAtCyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:10 am

Postby erolz » Tue Aug 24, 2004 1:46 am

MicAtCyp wrote: What I am saying is that the TC constituent state does not define TC as "a people" because it will consist of a majority of TCs and a minority of GCs.The "a people" in that case is a mixture of both communities

Like I said above the Anan Plan was NOT accepting that principle.


Well thats your view but where it says (said) in the main articles of the Annan Plan

Acknowledging each other’s distinct identity and integrity and that
our relationship is not one of majority and minority but of political
equality where neither side may claim authority or jurisdiction over
the other


I take that as accepting the concept and principal of equality between the two communites (consitent with recognising a right of both to self determination seperately). I really am not sure how else I could take such an article.

MicAtCyp wrote: In addition to that notice there were in the past UN documents/proposals for two separate states in South Africa. They were not accepted and went to the dustbin.To avoid confusion as to whether those were the official positions of the UN they were called "non papers". A UN document becomes official UN position only when it passes through voting.The Anan plan like its name says was an Anana document a non document and its just ridiculous to even refer to it, as the official UN position on the Cyprus issue. (It even contradicts to almost all UN resolutions for Cyprus)


If you want to argue that the Annan plan does not represent an offical UN position on Cyprus then OK. I will even aknowledge the basis for you position. However It was cleary A position on Cyprus - at least up to the rejection of it by GC. It was drawn up under the authority of and named after Kofi Annan. He was (and still is) the Secretary General of the UN.

MicAtCyp wrote:I beleive that no solution is possible unless the TCs get off their minds that equality means that the 82% GC majority has to take their permission even to sneeze.


Well thats not a problem, at least as far as I am concerned, because that is NOT what I mean by recognising the principal of political equality of the two peoples in Cyprus -as a right of each community and not as a gift fromone to the other. You have my permission and blessing to sneeze, as indivduals and collectively as a people whenever you feel like doing so :)

MicAtCyp wrote:Equality means each citizen is equal with another citizen (equal individual rights) and


again no problem here with indivdual equality

MicAtCyp wrote:on a group basis the 18% has 18% and the 82% 82% Political rights.


here we start to run into problems

MicAtCyp wrote:Any possible decisions of the majority that could possibly tend to harm the minority should be written down in the constitution, so the minority would have nothing to be afraid of. Or better their should be a clause in the constitution that no law or Political decision could benefit the majority on the expense of the minority.
The same principle must apply to a Federal Solution through the Central State. The FedStates should only deal with matters of just community concerns like education, culture and safety, and application of the Primary Central State law.Thats the meaning of "bi-communal Federation".


If you agree that TC have a RIGHT to these 'protections / privelages /equality on certain issues' (call them what you will) and they are not a 'gift' given to the TC by GC then I think our postions are not as far apart as they would seem to be. If you insist that TC as a collective group have no RIGHT to these 'special conditions' (that inhernetly place a limit on total and absolute GC right to self determination btw) and that they are offered merely on the basis of GC 'largess and benevolence' then I fear we are as far apart as we seem to be.

When I imagine you insist we have no RIGHT to these things I have major concerns, for without (genuine) accpetance that we have (as a community) such a right any such 'special conditions' have little value to me. Without (genuine) accpetance of a RIGHT to these things they merely temporary concessions that could easily be offered to achieve a specific aim or aims and removed once that aim is achieved. Is such a concern understandable to you?
erolz
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Girne / Kyrenia

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests