cypezokyli wrote:
to be honest i dont think you can respond.
if you were in a position to do that you would have, as you did 4000 times before
You are right cypezo, Viewpoint cannot respond! Neither anyone of the rest of TCs in this forum! Notice how the 2-3 of them that tried to react, have avoided to touch the essence and instead they resorted to the usual nonsense, and some of them have even resorted to the usual foolishly cynical rhetoric (mrfromng, iceman, etc!) They cannot respond, simply because the unveiling I have made on their side was total, complete and overwhelming!
You see, if I was someone conducting VP’s rhetoric, the least I would have done after such an unveiling, would have been to express my shame and apologise on behalf of my community for those in my side that maintain the despicable ideas and ambitions they do, and whom with their actions have contributed for the wasting of such a good opportunity to solve the Cyprus issue, 3 years ago! If they were honest and well intended, they would have simply said what some TCs I know have already done. They would have expressed their disappointment and understanding of how rightful the GC community was to reject the Annan plan! They do not have the guts to do this, and instead, they consume themselves with meaningless and foolish rhetoric about the 1,000 [sic] so called UN “experts” that hypothetically tailored the plan! They think the GCs are a stupid and coward society, with no depth and historical consciousness, and which can ever be deceived and /or cowed into anything along the lines of their illegitimate aims and wishes.
cypezokyli wrote:
kifeas did not refer to parts of the anan plan which had to do with the central state. it specifically refered to how the tc state planned to treat the gcs.
You are right pezo, I did not refer to the foundation agreement or the URC (central government) constitution of the Annan plan, even though the constitutions of the two states were PART of the whole package bearing the code name “the Annan plan!” However, the issue is not only the constitution of the TCCS! It is the foundation agreement itself! To put it in different words, the constitution of the TCCS was the result or the outcome of certain provisions in the foundation agreement pertaining to the philosophy of it!
If we are to accept the philosophy of the foundation agreement, (which as I maintain is not an evolution and thus a continuation of the RoC, but –via “virgin birth,” one of a disguised partition into two legitimately separate and pre-existing “nation-states,” and then a disguised confederation between them,) then they TC community is “legitimised” to have come up with such a constitution for the TCCS! In a nutshell, it is not enough for the TCCS to be amended drastically and cleared out of all those emetic provisions, but also the foundation agreement has to be amended in certain ways, alternatively the TC community will always have the right to legally change the constitution of the TCCS, any time in the future, unilateraly, and bring it back to the same basis as the one under discussion. The way the foundation agreement was drafted, allows them to do this at will!
Anyhow, the Annan plan is now history –no one talks about it, and instead we have the “8th of July” agreement which puts everything onto a new basis and /or perspective.
