The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Political equality

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Re: Political equality

Postby Maximus » Thu Feb 21, 2019 4:21 pm

You are too foolish lordo.

You dont stand for anything legitimate so you will fall for anything. Including spreading false narratives.

The 1960 constitution was signed by mak under duress. This was the only way the colonialists could get it to pass. His 13 point amendments were correct. Because your community were abusing disproportional illigitimate rights at the expense of the majority population.

If dentash was cypriot. Which he wasnt and if he wanted to avert a civil war and uf he wanted cyprus to prosper he would have accepted them willingly and wisely.

He didnt though because he was a turk in cahoots with turkey who had other designs for the island.
Maximus
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7521
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:23 pm

Re: Political equality

Postby Lordo » Thu Feb 21, 2019 5:54 pm

Maximus wrote:You are too foolish lordo.

You dont stand for anything legitimate so you will fall for anything. Including spreading false narratives.

The 1960 constitution was signed by mak under duress. This was the only way the colonialists could get it to pass. His 13 point amendments were correct. Because your community were abusing disproportional illigitimate rights at the expense of the majority population.

If dentash was cypriot. Which he wasnt and if he wanted to avert a civil war and uf he wanted cyprus to prosper he would have accepted them willingly and wisely.

He didnt though because he was a turk in cahoots with turkey who had other designs for the island.

when will you get it into your thick skull that big mak never wanted independence, he wanted enosis and you are talking utter bullshit. first of all dengtash was not there it was kucuk and it would have made no difference as mak wanted enosis at all costs and you and us paid the costs and nither got what we wanted
User avatar
Lordo
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 21582
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:13 pm
Location: From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. Walk on Swine walk on

Re: Political equality

Postby Sotos » Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:04 pm

Pyrpolizer wrote:


These are estimated numbers from people who wrote books saying they had 1500 dead and 2000 wounded.
This link however says they had 498 dead and 1200 wounded
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ ... _of_Cyprus
And this that the Turkish Military had only 309 dead.
https://cyprusscene.com/2013/11/13/cypr ... e-tragedy/
The CIA docs link that I had (doesn't work anymore) agrees with the last number.


The link I posted under the heading "Casualties and losses" for the Turkish side it says: "1,500-3,500 casualties" If that is more or less or who claims what is not relevant. What is relevant is that with an army we can cause casualties to the Turks, without an army we can't. The better our army is, the greater casualties to the enemy it can cause.

Sotos wrote:Those articles come from a minority of Yes men/women who are trying to mislead people. And yes, we can reject any new similar plan. What is to stop me from voting "no" like last time? Yes, there might be consequences, but not even close enough to the consequences of accepting such a disastrous solution. Anastasiades knows this, which is why there will be no referendum again for any such solution


What’s your evidence that they are trying to mislead people??
Do you have any study proving the opposite?


I answered the specific points the Lordo posted. Do you expect me to answer to every misleading argument ever made? If you want be specific and I will answer to your specific points.

And what makes you think it’s going to be similar to the Anan Plan? It has to be different or else it won’t be accepted. Plain simple. The Annan plan was disguised partition on the first place.
As things stand it seems it’s going to be much better than the Annan on the political and safety aspect and probably worse on the property and settlers issue.


We already know a lot of what such a possible plan will contain and it is not any better than the Annan plan. In what way is it much better on the political aspect? And nothing was agreed on the security aspect.

Talk for yourself in saying "yes, we can reject any new similar plan".
I imply to you that we won’t and we will be given full explanation as to why by those who will serve it to us. Unless of course you expect to ever receive a plan that will set the Tcs at minority status in a unitary state.
You as an individual may do as you wish, but don’t give me the heroic bullshit that we will say no again and at the same time bear the consequences.
I have no idea what Anastasiades knows what his people will do, but be sure he won’t miss the chance to pass us a new plan as described above.


When I say "yes, we can reject any new similar plan" I am not merely talking about my own choice, but about the fact that we can reject it. You can accept it, or you can reject it. There will be two options. If it was just one option "yes" then there wouldn't be any point to have a referendum. As long as there is a referendum the option to reject it will always be there.

wrote: It is called democracy and by specifying that "political equality" does not equal "numerical equality" the UN clarifies that, with some exceptions, standard democratic rules apply. In a democracy you don't always get what serves the interests of your own group, but what is best for the overall population. By this I don't mean any decision will violate the rights of TCs, but "rights" and "interests" are two completely different things.


It’s called democracy in a Federal state. Not democracy in a Unitary state. It’s obvious you can’t distinguish between the two.


I know very well how federations work and I have studied the systems in USA, Belgium and Switzerland. How about you? Where do you get your knowledge about how Federations work? From what the Turks tell you?

However you are still avoiding the question.
I repeat:
Explain to me in what way you think the political equality (as defined and clarified by the UN) could ever be applied in a way that would not empower the GC community to force the TC community to accept measures against their interests.


As for the exceptions that’s something you invented yourself .The UN is very clear that there won’t be ANY exceptions in saying:

… effective participation in ALL organs and decisions of the Federal Government to safeguard in ensuring that the Federal Government will not be empowered to adopt measures against the interests of ONE community.

Also your trying to distinguish their "rights" from their "interests" is another invention of yours.
The UN has never distinguished between the two, it has in fact been very clear on both.

a)the rights--> effective participation in ALL organs…
b) their interests---> in ensuring that the Federal Government will not be empowered to adopt measures against the interests of ONE community


It also says that political equality does not mean numerical equality. What is the point of this then? To have more GCs to warm up the chairs?
Also, it talks specifically about the constitution requiring the concurrence of both sides to be amended. If according to you everything requires the concurrence of both sides, then why single out the constitution?

As I said the definition is vague. If you choose to interpret it in the Turkish way it doesn't mean I have to do that also.
User avatar
Sotos
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 11357
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 2:50 am

Re: Political equality

Postby Maximus » Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:24 pm

Lordo wrote:
Maximus wrote:You are too foolish lordo.

You dont stand for anything legitimate so you will fall for anything. Including spreading false narratives.

The 1960 constitution was signed by mak under duress. This was the only way the colonialists could get it to pass. His 13 point amendments were correct. Because your community were abusing disproportional illigitimate rights at the expense of the majority population.

If dentash was cypriot. Which he wasnt and if he wanted to avert a civil war and uf he wanted cyprus to prosper he would have accepted them willingly and wisely.

He didnt though because he was a turk in cahoots with turkey who had other designs for the island.

when will you get it into your thick skull that big mak never wanted independence, he wanted enosis and you are talking utter bullshit. first of all dengtash was not there it was kucuk and it would have made no difference as mak wanted enosis at all costs and you and us paid the costs and nither got what we wanted


Your reply is not coherent.

The only way the colonialists could get what THEY wanted was to force Mak to sign the 1960 constitution under duress.

Which afforded the ethnic Ottoman minority illegitimate and disproportional rights in Cyprus. Wich were being abused at the majority's expense when really, they should have had none.

Mak then presented 13 points to amend the constitution to avert a civil war and make everything correct.

Mak would have saved the Ottoman minority, Denktash put you in the firing line for his own benefit. He admitted to creating false flags in a BBC documentary that is in the public domain. I am sure you know the one but you keep spreading false narratives like, somehow, they will become true.

What should have happened, then, was for the indigenous people of the time to self determine what would happen to Cyprus, their country. And, the Ottomans still in Cyprus under colonial British rule should have been repatriated to what become modern day Turkey. This is what happened in all states that the Ottomans formerly occupied before they received independence. NOT give you a false identity as Turkish Cypriot when you were formerly and ethnically Ottomans. You were and still are part of that civilization, - culturally, linguistically, religiously and politically..

We know why this didn't happen in Cyprus. Your community is only in Cyprus to fuck her over and to fuck over yourselves as well as Turkey in the process.

You dont see that though, even after 45 years of living a pitiful illegitimate existence in other peoples homes in an occupied area unable to make any progress. You still cling on because you have been indoctrinated and your heads are full of greed and your hearts full of hate.
Maximus
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7521
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:23 pm

Re: Political equality

Postby Pyrpolizer » Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:39 pm

Sotos wrote: I answered the specific points the Lordo posted. Do you expect me to answer to every misleading argument ever made? If you want be specific and I will answer to your specific points.


Like I said I expect you to provide me with studies that prove that a solution will not have benefits. Is there any? Or is it just exorcisms from various fools?

wrote: We already know a lot of what such a possible plan will contain and it is not any better than the Annan plan. In what way is it much better on the political aspect? And nothing was agreed on the security aspect.


Here we go again. WE-we, are you some copy of Paphitis? Talk for yourself. Why are you generalizing as if your own opinion is the general opinion. Btw are you a refugee?
Imo with emphasis on MY it looks better (on the governing system) in that almost everything has been agreed on that, and there won’t be any uncertainty and vagueness as per Annan Plan that was pointing to disguised partition. Sure the security aspect has not been agreed yet, but we already know what we will accept, and what any possible new plan will contain.

wrote: When I say "yes, we can reject any new similar plan" I am not merely talking about my own choice, but about the fact that we can reject it. You can accept it, or you can reject it. There will be two options. If it was just one option "yes" then there wouldn't be any point to have a referendum. As long as there is a referendum the option to reject it will always be there.


Of course the reason of having a referendum is to let individuals choose between the two options. However it’s also the means for loading the people with their own responsibilities.
Sure some people like you will vote OXI no matter what, however imo most will think twice.
Can you imagine what will happen if our own leader agrees and beleives it’s a good plan and the majority of us turn it down?

wrote:
I know very well how federations work and I have studied the systems in USA, Belgium and Switzerland. How about you? Where do you get your knowledge about how Federations work? From what the Turks tell you?


Just by assuming that the "Turks tell me" shows how naive you are.
For a start we never agreed to have the Federal structure of any existing Federal state. All we agreed is to have a BBF with political equality.
Academic studies are nice for educational purposes but useless to what has already been agreed in Cyprus.

wrote: It also says that political equality does not mean numerical equality. What is the point of this then? To have more GCs to warm up the chairs?
Also, it talks specifically about the constitution requiring the concurrence of both sides to be amended. If according to you everything requires the concurrence of both sides, then why single out the constitution?

As I said the definition is vague. If you choose to interpret it in the Turkish way it doesn't mean I have to do that also.


Of course it’s for warming up the chairs, what else do you think it is for? The GCs are more in numbers therefore they will pay to have more people warming up the chairs (doing some work )in the central government.

You are just repeating the same nonsense. It doesn’t talk specifically for the constitution, in fact the change in constitution is one of the cases /examples it provides, where the political equality should be reflected inter alia. Read carefully. The definition is NOT vague at all.

I interpret it the way I understand it, and stop been naive. I ‘ve seen many "heroes" like you accusing everybody for siding by the enemy just because they have no other way to hide their pseudo patriotism.

So far you are twisting here and there failing twice to:
Explain to me in what way you think the political equality (as defined and clarified by the UN) could ever be applied in a way that would not empower the GC community to force the TC community to accept measures against their interests.

Why don’t you just spell it clearly that you don’t accept it, and stop inventing excuses like e.g. that is vague and you can’t understand it.
User avatar
Pyrpolizer
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 12892
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:33 pm

Re: Political equality

Postby Sotos » Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:44 pm

Like I said I expect you to provide me with studies that prove that a solution will not have benefits. Is there any? Or is it just exorcisms from various fools?


Nobody said that solution has no benefits. What I said is that this specific solution has far more negatives than benefits. I don't need any sponsored "studies" to tell me what is good and what isn't. I have my own judgment.

Here we go again. WE-we, are you some copy of Paphitis? Talk for yourself. Why are you generalizing as if your own opinion is the general opinion.


Because the info is in the public domain and it is available to everybody. "We" doesn't necessarily include "you". Feel free to exclude yourself.

Btw are you a refugee?

No, are you?

Imo with emphasis on MY it looks better (on the governing system) in that almost everything has been agreed on that, and there won’t be any uncertainty and vagueness as per Annan Plan that was pointing to disguised partition.


What was the part in the Annan plan that was pointing to disguised partition which is now removed?

Sure the security aspect has not been agreed yet, but we already know what we will accept, and what any possible new plan will contain.


Not so sure about that. To get what we want in that aspect we will have to give up even more elsewhere.

Of course the reason of having a referendum is to let individuals choose between the two options. However it’s also the means for loading the people with their own responsibilities.
Sure some people like you will vote OXI no matter what, however imo most will think twice.
Can you imagine what will happen if our own leader agrees and beleives it’s a good plan and the majority of us turn it down?

This is why the president is hopefully not a fool to bring to a referendum something that the people will not accept. Because it will be rejected if it is not good enough, no matter what the president says.

Just by assuming that the "Turks tell me" shows how naive you are.
For a start we never agreed to have the Federal structure of any existing Federal state. All we agreed is to have a BBF with political equality.
Academic studies are nice for educational purposes but useless to what has already been agreed in Cyprus.


"BBF with political equality" is just a vague term. Federation on the other hand is something that exists in many countries and it has certain meaning.

Of course it’s for warming up the chairs, what else do you think it is for?


I disagree. Greater numbers mean greater power. This is how it works in democracies, including federations.

Why don’t you just spell it clearly that you don’t accept it


What you say I do not accept. And if the UN comes out and agrees with you and says that the greater number of GCs will be there just for warming up the chairs then I have no problem to say I reject this. Democracy is very important for me and I will not accept some system of pretend democracy.
User avatar
Sotos
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 11357
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 2:50 am

Re: Political equality

Postby B25 » Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:30 pm

Soto, give it up mate you can't win arguing with a Turk cock sucking turd. everytime he goes over for his cheap branded T shirts he gets his instructions and a blow job to keep him going feed us all this crap.

You can include me in your 'we'.

I give you what the GCs are about to receive dealing with these criminals, thus:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
B25
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6543
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:03 pm
Location: ** Classified **

Re: Political equality

Postby repulsewarrior » Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:07 am

...i remind the readers that in two hundred years, what is decided today constitutionally speaking, will only just be demonstrating its effectiveness in defining a State, then.

...furthermore, i suggest the population of Cyprus will not even closely resemble the demographics of it today.

"Being" Persons, as Cypriots, must include the notion that it is as Cypriots that Cypriots recognise each other despite who they are as Persons.

In the context of "Communities", and another level of Government having self representation as "Constituencies", (a BBF,) a better society, in Greek, or Turkish, it surely includes their recognition and respect for each other, and the other minorities within their own societies providing for their special needs, as majorities of Goodfaith, and Goodwill.

In such a context, "power in numbers", is and should be the "Cypriot" vote, (one man one vote), and the Cypriot State, because neither the Greek Community, or the Turkish Community, will be effective, efficient, or equitable, representation, for Cypriots.

While as Individuals, Cypriots are Cypriots with the same desires to defend Universal Principals, and their Freedom, as Persons they remain unable to recognise that "being" a Person (Liberty) is not as simple as that: "Greek" or "Turk".



...while we are all Individuals, as Human beings, how does one define someone "Gay", or someone "Handicapped", how does one define that difference between men and women; are they not (all) Persons?

(now consider if they are also, "Greek", or "Turk").
User avatar
repulsewarrior
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 14007
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:13 am
Location: homeless in Canada

Re: Political equality

Postby Lordo » Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:56 am

Maximus wrote:
Lordo wrote:
Maximus wrote:You are too foolish lordo.

You dont stand for anything legitimate so you will fall for anything. Including spreading false narratives.

The 1960 constitution was signed by mak under duress. This was the only way the colonialists could get it to pass. His 13 point amendments were correct. Because your community were abusing disproportional illigitimate rights at the expense of the majority population.

If dentash was cypriot. Which he wasnt and if he wanted to avert a civil war and uf he wanted cyprus to prosper he would have accepted them willingly and wisely.

He didnt though because he was a turk in cahoots with turkey who had other designs for the island.

when will you get it into your thick skull that big mak never wanted independence, he wanted enosis and you are talking utter bullshit. first of all dengtash was not there it was kucuk and it would have made no difference as mak wanted enosis at all costs and you and us paid the costs and nither got what we wanted


Your reply is not coherent.

The only way the colonialists could get what THEY wanted was to force Mak to sign the 1960 constitution under duress.

Which afforded the ethnic Ottoman minority illegitimate and disproportional rights in Cyprus. Wich were being abused at the majority's expense when really, they should have had none.

Mak then presented 13 points to amend the constitution to avert a civil war and make everything correct.

Mak would have saved the Ottoman minority, Denktash put you in the firing line for his own benefit. He admitted to creating false flags in a BBC documentary that is in the public domain. I am sure you know the one but you keep spreading false narratives like, somehow, they will become true.

What should have happened, then, was for the indigenous people of the time to self determine what would happen to Cyprus, their country. And, the Ottomans still in Cyprus under colonial British rule should have been repatriated to what become modern day Turkey. This is what happened in all states that the Ottomans formerly occupied before they received independence. NOT give you a false identity as Turkish Cypriot when you were formerly and ethnically Ottomans. You were and still are part of that civilization, - culturally, linguistically, religiously and politically..

We know why this didn't happen in Cyprus. Your community is only in Cyprus to fuck her over and to fuck over yourselves as well as Turkey in the process.

You dont see that though, even after 45 years of living a pitiful illegitimate existence in other peoples homes in an occupied area unable to make any progress. You still cling on because you have been indoctrinated and your heads are full of greed and your hearts full of hate.

you still dont get boy.
back in 1959, if big mak did not agree to the constitution the tcs would never have accpeted a minority status in their own country so the country would have split into two just like india and pakistan. there was no need for any duress, simple facts and choices. choices were what was agreed or two states. another fact is he never implemented the constitution as agreed so caliming that tcs vetoed it is bullshit and you know it.

which bit do you not understand or find incoherent.

now run along and feed yoyr sheep or feed them or something.
User avatar
Lordo
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 21582
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:13 pm
Location: From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. Walk on Swine walk on

Re: Political equality

Postby Sotos » Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:43 am

Lordo wrote:
Maximus wrote:
Lordo wrote:
Maximus wrote:You are too foolish lordo.

You dont stand for anything legitimate so you will fall for anything. Including spreading false narratives.

The 1960 constitution was signed by mak under duress. This was the only way the colonialists could get it to pass. His 13 point amendments were correct. Because your community were abusing disproportional illigitimate rights at the expense of the majority population.

If dentash was cypriot. Which he wasnt and if he wanted to avert a civil war and uf he wanted cyprus to prosper he would have accepted them willingly and wisely.

He didnt though because he was a turk in cahoots with turkey who had other designs for the island.

when will you get it into your thick skull that big mak never wanted independence, he wanted enosis and you are talking utter bullshit. first of all dengtash was not there it was kucuk and it would have made no difference as mak wanted enosis at all costs and you and us paid the costs and nither got what we wanted


Your reply is not coherent.

The only way the colonialists could get what THEY wanted was to force Mak to sign the 1960 constitution under duress.

Which afforded the ethnic Ottoman minority illegitimate and disproportional rights in Cyprus. Wich were being abused at the majority's expense when really, they should have had none.

Mak then presented 13 points to amend the constitution to avert a civil war and make everything correct.

Mak would have saved the Ottoman minority, Denktash put you in the firing line for his own benefit. He admitted to creating false flags in a BBC documentary that is in the public domain. I am sure you know the one but you keep spreading false narratives like, somehow, they will become true.

What should have happened, then, was for the indigenous people of the time to self determine what would happen to Cyprus, their country. And, the Ottomans still in Cyprus under colonial British rule should have been repatriated to what become modern day Turkey. This is what happened in all states that the Ottomans formerly occupied before they received independence. NOT give you a false identity as Turkish Cypriot when you were formerly and ethnically Ottomans. You were and still are part of that civilization, - culturally, linguistically, religiously and politically..

We know why this didn't happen in Cyprus. Your community is only in Cyprus to fuck her over and to fuck over yourselves as well as Turkey in the process.

You dont see that though, even after 45 years of living a pitiful illegitimate existence in other peoples homes in an occupied area unable to make any progress. You still cling on because you have been indoctrinated and your heads are full of greed and your hearts full of hate.

you still dont get boy.
back in 1959, if big mak did not agree to the constitution the tcs would never have accpeted a minority status in their own country so the country would have split into two just like india and pakistan. there was no need for any duress, simple facts and choices. choices were what was agreed or two states. another fact is he never implemented the constitution as agreed so caliming that tcs vetoed it is bullshit and you know it.

which bit do you not understand or find incoherent.

now run along and feed yoyr sheep or feed them or something.


Unlike India / Pakistan the TCs were not the majority in any part of Cyprus and to have two states it would entail ethnic cleansing. The threat of ethnic cleansing by foreigners against the native Cypriot population proves what Maximus said: that those "agreements" were signed under duress.
User avatar
Sotos
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 11357
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 2:50 am

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest