Cyprus-Forum.com

[zan]

DT said Firstly why do you leave out a part of this resolution (I've included it for you, its in red)
Secondly The ROC has recognised that the settlement to the Cyprus problem is through a bi-communcal and bi-zonal federal state.

As Cyprus President Tassos Papadopoulos stated "What we demand is very reasonable and what we aim for is self-evident:
We demand and aim for the reunification of our country and our people in the framework of a bi-communal,
bi-zonal federation; a state with one economy, a cohesive society and non-fragmented institutions.
We demand and aim to safeguard our fundamental rights and basic freedoms. We demand a solution which can be
workable and lasting in order to serve the interests and rights of all Cypriots and not of other countries."

The parliament of Cyprus has released a number of resolutions and votes preparing the groundwork to amens the constitutional order of the state into one of bi-zonal and bi-communal.

You on the other hand have drunk up a diffferent state, and are actively seeking recognition of this state (partition).

I now await your apologies because and I quote from you " We (the TC;s) as a community are guilty as charged for violating this resoultion" This is due to your side maintaining a policy of partition and/or union with a separate country.

Great post DT, very clear and sasinct. I applaud the Cypriot president upon his coments. Well said Mr President

Thanks humanist. another freebie for my friend murataga.

I think if you look back carefully you will read that Clerides said to Makarios that his trying to change the constitution in the manner he was planning to at the time, was the way to secure partition and Turkeys involvment. Well done Makarios?????

[DT.]

DT said Firstly why do you leave out a part of this resolution (I've included it for you, its in red)
Secondly The ROC has recognised that the settlement to the Cyprus problem is through a bi-communcal and bi-zonal federal state.

As Cyprus President Tassos Papadopoulos stated "What we demand is very reasonable and what we aim for is self-evident:
We demand and aim for the reunification of our country and our people in the framework of a bi-communal,
bi-zonal federation; a state with one economy, a cohesive society and non-fragmented institutions.
We demand and aim to safeguard our fundamental rights and basic freedoms. We demand a solution which can be
workable and lasting in order to serve the interests and rights of all Cypriots and not of other countries."

The parliament of Cyprus has released a number of resolutions and votes preparing the groundwork to amens the constitutional order of the state into one of bi-zonal and bi-communal.

You on the other hand have drunk up a diffferent state, and are actively seeking recognition of this state (partition).

I now await your apologies because and I quote from you " We (the TC;s) as a community are guilty as charged for violating this resoultion" This is due to your side maintaining a policy of partition and/or union with a separate country.

Great post DT, very clear and sasinct. I applaud the Cypriot president upon his coments. Well said Mr President

Thanks humanist. another freebie for my friend murataga.

I think if you look back carefully you will read that Clerides said to Makarios that his trying to change the constitution in the manner he was planning to at the time, was the way to secure partition and Turkeys involvment. Well done Makarios?????

sorry zan...not really sure where that sticks here?

[Get Real!]

Zan... Stop eating kippers so early in the morning!

[bigOz]

I read with interest the posts in this thread. Some very good points raised as well!

My problem is the thread title and the figures for the poll concerned. Assuming at least 6 of the pollers (possibly 7 including myself) were TCs. If that is the case, then according to this forum 1 in 3 GCs believe that TCs are not joint owners of Cyprus!

Which brings me to ask myself what are the likely chances of any such UN resolutions being supported by the GC side. Perhaps we can hear some honest comments / opinions on that subject from our fellow citizens...

[DT.]

I read with interest the posts in this thread. Some very good points raised as well!

My problem is the thread title and the figures for the poll concerned. Assuming at least 6 of the pollers (possibly 7 including myself) were TCs. If that is the case, then according to this forum 1 in 3 GCs believe that TCs are not joint owners of Cyprus!

Which brings me to ask myself what are the likely chances of any such UN resolutions being supported by the GC side. Perhaps we can hear some honest comments / opinions on that subject from our fellow citizens...

i think no one really bothered with the poll. Perhaps Mrfromng can give us the results with who voted for what.

[Kikapu]

Zan , ever since VP came to London and signed you up you begun to question the legality of the following governments and institutions .
UN
EU
USA
BRITAIN
CANADA
AUSTRALIA
NEW ZEALAND
"

Miltiades,

After VP arrived in London and met with Zan, Zan had realized that he had a weakness for temptations on what may have been offered by VP to join the "TRNC's" Propaganda team, which was more than likely to be Sex, Money, of some "Haram Land". I expect it was not Sex, but the other two is a very distinct possibility for Zan to violate his integrity to be bought.

Was VP a good salesman or was it that Zan's just weak.

[bigOz]

I read with interest the posts in this thread. Some very good points raised as well!

My problem is the thread title and the figures for the poll concerned. Assuming at least 6 of the pollers (possibly 7 including myself) were TCs. If that is the case, then according to this forum 1 in 3 GCs believe that TCs are not joint owners of Cyprus!

Which brings me to ask myself what are the likely chances of any such UN resolutions being supported by the GC side. Perhaps we can hear some honest comments / opinions on that subject from our fellow citizens...

i think no one really bothered with the poll. Perhaps Mrfromng can give us the results with who voted for what.

erm... It is getting worse DT - I figured out there are at least 8 TCs out of the possible 10 currently active, who participated (including myself) - that leaves 7 GCs out of which 3 had said No! Brings the odds down to almost 1 out of two now!

[MR-from-NG]

I read with interest the posts in this thread. Some very good points raised as well!

My problem is the thread title and the figures for the poll concerned. Assuming at least 6 of the pollers (possibly 7 including myself) were TCs. If that is the case, then according to this forum 1 in 3 GCs believe that TCs are not joint owners of Cyprus!

Which brings me to ask myself what are the likely chances of any such UN resolutions being supported by the GC side. Perhaps we can hear some honest comments / opinions on that subject from our fellow citizens...

i think no one really bothered with the poll. Perhaps Mrfromng can give us the results with who voted for what.

Are you sure I can do this DT. I tried and cant see how its done, if you know how please let me know.

Cheers.

[Pyrpolizer]

Wow… nice to see that my "fan club" is getting more crowded by the day. I was exchanging posts with Piratis when you (Get Real! and Piratis` officially designated suck-up DT) jumped in to divert the subject. I am only one person and can deal with only a number of you at a time. Anyway... in recognition of your enthusiasm (!), I am going to cut you guys a slack and give you a free bee for this time, so here goes:

It was asked if I am aware of my community`s violation of the Resolution which states: RoC, which by definition should be a bi-communal, bi-zonal state with politically equal communities, should exclude any kind of partition or secession. The answer to your question is not even a matter of debate, so I`ll give it to you straight:

How can we, as a community, be in secession/partition of an RoC that does not exist according to the definition of the Resolution to begin with?

Better yet: Are you an RoC that recognizes/acknowledges/embeds in its CONSTITUTION a bi-communal, bi-zonal state with two politically equal communities as defined in the U.N. Resolutions?

If the RoC which claim to be recognizes/acknowledges/embeds in its constitution a bi-communal, bi-zonal state with two politically equal communities as defined in the U.N. Resolutions: my apologies, for yes we as a community are guilty as charged of violating this resolution. If not: you should stop your illegal usurpation/theft of the title/benefits of the government of RoC today because you by definition of the U.N. and in accordance with our Agreements are not the RoC. What is it going to be?

I could never imagine a TC having studied so well Ancient greek SOPHISTRY practices and doing us a demonstration in this very forum, puzzling people as to how on earth he managed to do that!

Well Murataga should i first point out that you NEVER managed to put down an answer to any of my posts uncovering your sophistries and lies you try to spread in this forum? I hope this time you will not slip with an excuse you have to go to bed as it is only 6pm.

Well let's examine you new SOPHISTRY step by step.

You claim that the mere fact that the UN in their own resolutions say that the SOLUTION to the Cyprus problem was agreed to be a BBF along the principles of political equality as CLARIFIED in paragraph 11 of SGs letter which says:

"While political equality does not mean equal numerical participation in all Federal Government branches and administration, it should be reflected inter alia in various ways:In the requirement that the FEDERAL constitution of the State of Cyprus be approved or amended by both communities;in the effective participation of both communities in all organs and decisions of the Federal government; in safeguards to ensure that the federal government will not be empowered to adopt ny measures against the interests of one community; and in the equality and identical powers and functions of the two federal states"

that what exists TODAY as an RoC using your own words is

" illegal usurpation/theft of the title/benefits of the government of RoC today because you by definition of the U.N. and in accordance with our Agreements are not the RoC".

I shall only concentrate on the initial falaccy of your whole SOPHISTRY because everything you say is built upon this very first fallacy:

The UN acknowledges there is a problem in the territory called RoC. It does not say the problem is the law of the RoC. It does not say the problem is the constitution of the RoC, it does not say the problem is because RoC is not a BBF.
If it were to say that, then it shouldn't have accepted RoC as a UN member on the first place.

Now what is the problem that RoC has if it is not the constitution and the law and the fact that is a nitary state and not a BBF?

The problem man is the Turkish Invasion the unsurping nd ethnic cleansing of 180,000 GCs from their lands and properties etc etc etc, do we have to repeat all that? Plus of course the problems of the 60s.

Sooo, starting from these facts it is obvious (and nobody can deny) that there is problem in the geographical region of Cyprus, however the problem was not caused by faulty law or constitution by by the people themselves and outside forces! Does that make the RoC illegal? (this is question number 1)

In view of the above there has been an agreement that all those who cause those problems to the RoC and its proper functioning (including foreign powers that cause those problems) would structure the state with a new law, plus a lot of other arrangements. Does that make the present form of RoC illegal? This is question number 2)

The UN do nothing in their resolutions but repeating what OUTLINE was presumably agreed. Suppose all parties involved finally agree and sign final partition on a 12-88% basis. Would the new arrangement be illegal just because the UN said in its resolutions the solution should have been BBF? This is question number 3 for you)

Should I continue further uncovering your complete fallacy and SOPHISTRY?

I am rather bored really but if you wish I may oblidge.

For the moment the only valid, internationally accepted, recognized, and absolutely legal entity is the RoC, in which unfortunately you refuse to participate because you are the ones who violate all its laws, and the rights of 180,000 citizens, nd of course the Turkish Army which sustains this illegality.

[Murataga]

Wow… nice to see that my "fan club" is getting more crowded by the day. I was exchanging posts with Piratis when you (Get Real! and Piratis` officially designated suck-up DT) jumped in to divert the subject. I am only one person and can deal with only a number of you at a time. Anyway... in recognition of your enthusiasm (!), I am going to cut you guys a slack and give you a free bee for this time, so here goes:

It was asked if I am aware of my community`s violation of the Resolution which states: RoC, which by definition should be a bi-communal, bi-zonal state with politically equal communities, should exclude any kind of partition or secession. The answer to your question is not even a matter of debate, so I`ll give it to you straight:

How can we, as a community, be in secession/partition of an RoC that does not exist according to the definition of the Resolution to begin with?

Better yet: Are you an RoC that recognizes/acknowledges/embeds in its CONSTITUTION a bi-communal, bi-zonal state with two politically equal communities as defined in the U.N. Resolutions?

If the RoC which claim to be recognizes/acknowledges/embeds in its constitution a bi-communal, bi-zonal state with two politically equal communities as defined in the U.N. Resolutions: my apologies, for yes we as a community are guilty as charged of violating this resolution. If not: you should stop your illegal usurpation/theft of the title/benefits of the government of RoC today because you by definition of the U.N. and in accordance with our Agreements are not the RoC. What is it going to be?

I could never imagine a TC having studied so well Ancient greek SOPHISTRY practices and doing us a demonstration in this very forum, puzzling people as to how on earth he managed to do that!

Well Murataga should i first point out that you NEVER managed to put down an answer to any of my posts uncovering your sophistries and lies you try to spread in this forum? I hope this time you will not slip with an excuse you have to go to bed as it is only 6pm.

Well let's examine you new SOPHISTRY step by step.

You claim that the mere fact that the UN in their own resolutions say that the SOLUTION to the Cyprus problem was agreed to be a BBF along the principles of political equality as CLARIFIED in paragraph 11 of SGs letter which says:

"While political equality does not mean equal numerical participation in all Federal Government branches and administration, it should be reflected inter alia in various ways:In the requirement that the FEDERAL constitution of the State of Cyprus be approved or amended by both communities;in the effective participation of both communities in all organs and decisions of the Federal government; in safeguards to ensure that the federal government will not be empowered to adopt ny measures against the interests of one community; and in the equality and identical powers and functions of the two federal states"

that what exists TODAY as an RoC using your own words is

" illegal usurpation/theft of the title/benefits of the government of RoC today because you by definition of the U.N. and in accordance with our Agreements are not the RoC".

I shall only concentrate on the initial falaccy of your whole SOPHISTRY because everything you say is built upon this very first fallacy:

The UN acknowledges there is a problem in the territory called RoC. It does not say the problem is the law of the RoC. It does not say the problem is the constitution of the RoC, it does not say the problem is because RoC is not a BBF.
If it were to say that, then it shouldn't have accepted RoC as a UN member on the first place.

Now what is the problem that RoC has if it is not the constitution and the law and the fact that is a nitary state and not a BBF?

The problem man is the Turkish Invasion the unsurping nd ethnic cleansing of 180,000 GCs from their lands and properties etc etc etc, do we have to repeat all that? Plus of course the problems of the 60s.

Sooo, starting from these facts it is obvious (and nobody can deny) that there is problem in the geographical region of Cyprus, however the problem was not caused by faulty law or constitution by by the people themselves and outside forces! Does that make the RoC illegal? (this is question number 1)

In view of the above there has been an agreement that all those who cause those problems to the RoC and its proper functioning (including foreign powers that cause those problems) would structure the state with a new law, plus a lot of other arrangements. Does that make the present form of RoC illegal? This is question number 2)

The UN do nothing in their resolutions but repeating what OUTLINE was presumably agreed. Suppose all parties involved finally agree and sign final partition on a 12-88% basis. Would the new arrangement be illegal just because the UN said in its resolutions the solution should have been BBF? This is question number 3 for you)

Should I continue further uncovering your complete fallacy and SOPHISTRY?

I am rather bored really but if you wish I may oblidge.

For the moment the only valid, internationally accepted, recognized, and absolutely legal entity is the RoC, in which unfortunately you refuse to participate because you are the ones who violate all its laws, and the rights of 180,000 citizens, nd of course the Turkish Army which sustains this illegality.

o.k. this is getting extremely long and repetitive out of stubbornness and ego of some participants. I can not keep writing pages of explanation for every GC that refuses to read and understand what I have clarified time and time again in previous posts. Let’s get one thing straight: it is neither my duty nor interest to address ridiculous questions emerging out of one-dimensional thinking, egoistic nature and perverted historical data. If you make a point that has a level of attraction for a dialogue-based discussion I’ll engage (as my time permits), otherwise I can not and will not bother. The likes of you have the common misconception that if an answer to your post is not immediately given , than the other side is unable to answer the question and that you have automatically proven something or scored a point. The two that have made this mistake on this very thread got a spanking of the worst kind, so I suggest that you rid yourself of this shallow habit. Finally, you have chosen not to answer the question I have asked above, but at the same time did not refrain from directing questions at me. As a matter of courtesy to our conversations in the past, I will still try to give an overall explanation to your inquiries for just this once.

Firstly: I do not deny the existence of your illegal/wrongful/unethical recognition as the RoC; I challenge it. I challenge it as a person would challenge slavery in the 18th century (legal and practiced but illegitimate and motivated by political interest), I challenge it as a man would challenge calling the planet flat in the 15th century (as facts not known well enough by the world due to the success of your propaganda). I challenge it because the U.N. defines how and what RoC should be and you are not. I challenge it because our leaders have agreed on what RoC should be and you are not. I challenge it because RoC can come about only with the contribution/attendance of two people after the establishment, implementation and safeguard of an agreed legal framework based on what the U.N. mandates and our leaders have agreed. You are not the RoC because you lack these imperative terms. You are not the RoC because the RoC which you claim to be is not a bi-communal, bi-zonal state granting politically equal status to two communities of this island, not to mention that it is comprised of a single community, period.

Sooo, starting from these facts it is obvious (and nobody can deny) that there is problem in the geographical region of Cyprus, however the problem was not caused by faulty law or constitution by by the people themselves and outside forces! Does that make the RoC illegal?

Of course the U.N. recognizes there is a problem in Cyprus. So do you and so do I. How that problem was caused and what its implications are is a matter of debate between us that can go on in millions of posts. The bottom line is that the solution of the problem lies in an RoC defined by the U.N. The U.N. outlines what this RoC is. Obviously, the RoC which you claim to be/hijacked the title of and illegally and wrongfully recognized by the world is not what this Resolution specifies. Although you claim to be the RoC neither your constituency, constitution, state, government is as foreseen by the U.N. or our Agreements. So how can you be the RoC? How can we be expected to become a part of something that is not what it should be? How can we be expected to become a part of something that is implied to us by the U.N. not become a part of to begin with? Additionally, would Zimbabwe be the RoC if somehow the U.N. said that is o.k.? Would its legal recognition by the world make it the RoC in fact, or grant it the privileges of the RoC in legitimacy, or the right to negotiate about RoC`s future/policies/transformation for that matter? There are certain credentials for the legal/lawful presence of the RoC; this Resolution puts forth what they are; and you do not satisfy them, as neither do the Zimbabweans; end of story.

In view of the above there has been an agreement that all those who cause those problems to the RoC and its proper functioning (including foreign powers that cause those problems) would structure the state with a new law, plus a lot of other arrangements. Does that make the present form of RoC illegal? This is question number 2)

It doesn’t say “structure the state with new law” it says the “solution should be as”. Let`s say for the sake of the conversation that you and I are supposed to be partners. We do not agree on the terms of a partnership and go to court. The court decides the terms of the partnership. How can you be the final partnership venture during all this time when (A) the venture is to be formed between the two partners and not by the venture and one of the partners (2) what the venture is supposed to be is a matter of debate taken to a higher institution of decision-making to begin with (3) the terms of the venture set forth by the court has no resemblance to your accusatory venture at any time. As ONE of the communities whom should have equal political status with us in the RoC you can have no right to decide on what/how RoC, which is to be formed by the two communities according to the U.N., is.

The UN do nothing in their resolutions but repeating what OUTLINE was presumably agreed. Suppose all parties involved finally agree and sign final partition on a 12-88% basis. Would the new arrangement be illegal just because the UN said in its resolutions the solution should have been BBF? This is question number 3 for you)

This is a totally separate issue. The U.N. is involved in Cyprus because there is a problem/disagreement among the parties of concern. If there is an agreement among the communities (not necessarily in the way you point to) and the problem is solved, the issue would no longer be of concern to or in the jurisdiction of the U.N. Of course, I hold aside (if) any individual/corporate objections made to international courts/U.N. in the case of that agreed solution by the communities.

Any way, please don’t get me wrong but I am really short on time these upcoming few days and won’t be able to attend this discussion as actively as I was able to in the past couple of days. I hope I was able to point something out to all readers. I would like to conclude with the famous words of René Descartes from his book "Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason in the Search for Truth in the Sciences" dating 1637 :

If you would be a real seeker after truth, you must at least once in your life doubt, as far as possible, all things.