Cyprus-Forum.com

[boulio]

Murat have you had a change to digest the german model that will grant your community the state in the north and political equality.

[Murataga]

Murat have you had a change to digest the german model that will grant your community the state in the north and political equality.

No my friend, unfortunately not yet. You seem really enthusiastic about it, so I`ll be sure to get back to you on it either as a post or a PM after studying it. Take care.

[zan]

The GC community will never accept any solution where they are reduced from the nation status to the community status (as I have quoted from Tassos in my previous post) no matter who interprets anything as what; this is amatter of principle not technical details. More importantly they can refuse it because they are already recognized as the RoC nation and the sole navigator of the RoC.

Come to mention it God forbid if 800,000 people reduce themselves to a community because a handfull of opportunistic Turkish remnants can't fit in a modern and democratic EU member country and want special (read ridiculous) arrangements! Here's your special arrangements Murataga...

Get lost to Turkey!

As you refer to them "opportunistic Turkish remnants " these people are equal partners, who will not be reduced to just another minority.

Equal my arse! Are you implying that you are more special than the other minorities in Cyprus and are thus entitled to more? I don't think so.

We rejected your likes for over 300 years and we'll go for another 300 if the need arises so in the meantime good luck preserving your "special" bloodlines your holiness!

Thats fine Gr....You can claim that the South is all yours but you will not claim the North as such. You seem to believe that you are the owners of Cyprus when it is clear that you simply do not. The Zurick agreement does not make you so and niether does any other resolution that has been made since. Show me where in any event, in court or in the EU or UN where it says that Cyprus belongs to you. Don't waste your time because there isn't any and well you know it. Not even the great Kifeas dare to look for anything of that nature because it does not exist. You started off with your own rediculous ideas on the Cyprob and now you are just one of the long line of parrot propaganda spreading partitionists. Nothing about you says unification and you will only get what you deserve in those terms.

[zan]

After reading some of the comments written in lieu of the exchange of the posts with myself and Piratis it seems necessary that a few points have to be clarified. The Resolution and the argument that I brought on for discussion is not about the illegality of the RoC. The RoC is illegal not because of the Resolution I pointed to, but for many other reasons, of which one has been fabulously pointed out by Zan in his post recently, and is the subject of another discussion. That is a debate completely different from the one I brought about which unfortunately Piratis tried to pull the conversation towards. My point is something else and perhaps it is necessary that I elaborate on it a bit…

My point is that the GCs wil nevr accept a solution to the Cyprus Problem withing the lagal framework of the U.N. since the U.N. foresees a solution that they become a community in the RoC after a settlement. The U.N. although recognizing the current illegitimate form of the RoC, clearly points that there is a problem with Cyprus involving the RoC. Furthermore, it has been, annually, declaring that the Cyprus Problem should be settled, acknowledging that there is a problem, through a solution where the RoC becomes a State comprised of TWO communities of GCs and the TCs where each of the two hold equal political status in separate zones. This Resolution is:

U.N. Resolution 750 (April 1992) (which has been reaffirmed annually since then)-
"Reaffirms the position set out in resolutions 649 (1990) of March 12 1990 and 716 (1991) October 11 1991 that a Cyprus settlement must be based on a State of Cyprus with a single sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship, with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded, and comprising two politically equal communities as defined in Paragraph 11 of Secretary-General’s report in a bi-communal and bi-zonal federation, and that such a settlement must exclude union in whole or in part with any other country or any form of partition or secession"

The standing fact is that there is a problem in Cyprus and the world points to the solution of this problem as RoC becoming a federated state with TWO communities in separate zones with equal political status. Now here is the core of the matter: the U.N. (along with the rest of the world) has trapped itself and locked any foreseeable solution within this framework they have given something to ONE of the communities that doesn`t belong to them in the first place and now they want it back and call this the solution of the Cyprus Problem. Where the U.N. has trapped itself is that it gave ONE of the communities, the GC community, the right to become the RoC thus granting them the status of being a nation within the RoC and synthetically elevating their status from being ONE of the TWO communities as she is foreseen in a solution of the problem. The GC community has believed, acted and educated its youth that they are a nation of the RoC and they have been treated as a nation of the RoC. Now the U.N. is pointing to a solution of the Cyprus Problem where the community recognized/treated as the RoC nation, reduce her status to a community of the RoC. Here in lies the greatest dilemma of paramount importance; and again, I am not discussing the events and developments that lead to this; just stating the situation. The U.N. first gives them the right to be the owner of the RoC, makes them a nation of the RoC, treats them as the nation of the RoC, and than points out that there is a problem in the RoC and that it is to be solved by this nation becoming a community. Even more paradoxically, although acknowledging that in the solution pointed to the Cyprus Problem the GCs are to be reduced from the nation of the RoC to a community in the RoC, the U.N. puts a prerequisite that it should be asked if the GCs would accept giving up being the nation of the RoC and becoming a community of the RoC. Guess what the GCs answered to no one’s surprise? A great big OXI! Hence, Papadopoulos`s famous and frequently quoted words regarding the answer:

“I have received a state (nation), I will not deliver a community”.

Call it the Annan Plan, Zimbabwe Plan, the Makarios Plan or whatever you like… Although the U.N.`s solution to settling the Cyprus Problem is by converting the current, illegitimate as far as universal principles are concerned but legal according to the EU and the UN, RoC in to a federated state with TWO politically equivalent communities in their separate zones, this solution will never ever be accepted by the GCs, ever. Because it is asking ONE of those (to become in the settlement) communities whether she will give up her extremely privileged status as a nation and become a community in the RoC. Who would say “Ne!” especially when they hold the tools with them to refuse this: an RoC already recognized by the world where they are the nation that gets to decide solely on their own on how that RoC is going to be navigated. Why become a community when you are the nation in the RoC? Why share policy/decision making of the RoC with another? Why give up living under a government of GCs to a one shared with another? And especially if that “another” is the long-time perceived “Satan” for which the RoC “nation” still carries with herself a heavy bag load of resentment?

That is why I kept asking the simple question that requires the simple answer of yes or no.

Please explicitly state whether or not you accept that in the solution of the Cyprus Problem according to the U.N. principles in an RoC: GCs are nothing more than ONE of the TWO communities that have politically equal status to their TC partners in their seperate zone in a federated state called RoC.

After writing:

U.N. Resolution 750 (April 1992) (which has been reaffirmed annually since then)-
"Reaffirms the position set out in resolutions 649 (1990) of March 12 1990 and 716 (1991) October 11 1991 that a Cyprus settlement must be based on a State of Cyprus with a single sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship, with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded, and comprising two politically equal communities as defined in Paragraph 11 of Secretary-General’s report in a bi-communal and bi-zonal federation, and that such a settlement must exclude union in whole or in part with any other country or any form of partition or secession"

The obvious answer is of course "OXI" for the GC side. Because they see themselves as the nation of the RoC, they have educated and made themselves believe they are the nation of RoC, and they have been treated as the nation of the RoC. However, an "OXI" also means they do not accept the solution of the U.N.`s legal framework and refusing U.N. contradicts their basis of supporting other Resolutions they have managed to pass as the RoC nation to strangulate the other community. So guess what the answer was: a great big NOTHING with complimentary cussing and swearing on the side and perversion as appetizer. Enjoy the show

Absolutely the point Murataga. Great post.

[bigOz]

After reading some of the comments written in lieu of the exchange of the posts with myself and Piratis it seems necessary that a few points have to be clarified. The Resolution and the argument that I brought on for discussion is not about the illegality of the RoC. The RoC is illegal not because of the Resolution I pointed to, but for many other reasons, of which one has been fabulously pointed out by Zan in his post recently, and is the subject of another discussion. That is a debate completely different from the one I brought about which unfortunately Piratis tried to pull the conversation towards. My point is something else and perhaps it is necessary that I elaborate on it a bit…

My point is that the GCs wil nevr accept a solution to the Cyprus Problem withing the lagal framework of the U.N. since the U.N. foresees a solution that they become a community in the RoC after a settlement. The U.N. although recognizing the current illegitimate form of the RoC, clearly points that there is a problem with Cyprus involving the RoC. Furthermore, it has been, annually, declaring that the Cyprus Problem should be settled, acknowledging that there is a problem, through a solution where the RoC becomes a State comprised of TWO communities of GCs and the TCs where each of the two hold equal political status in separate zones. This Resolution is:

U.N. Resolution 750 (April 1992) (which has been reaffirmed annually since then)-
"Reaffirms the position set out in resolutions 649 (1990) of March 12 1990 and 716 (1991) October 11 1991 that a Cyprus settlement must be based on a State of Cyprus with a single sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship, with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded, and comprising two politically equal communities as defined in Paragraph 11 of Secretary-General’s report in a bi-communal and bi-zonal federation, and that such a settlement must exclude union in whole or in part with any other country or any form of partition or secession"

The standing fact is that there is a problem in Cyprus and the world points to the solution of this problem as RoC becoming a federated state with TWO communities in separate zones with equal political status. Now here is the core of the matter: the U.N. (along with the rest of the world) has trapped itself and locked any foreseeable solution within this framework they have given something to ONE of the communities that doesn`t belong to them in the first place and now they want it back and call this the solution of the Cyprus Problem. Where the U.N. has trapped itself is that it gave ONE of the communities, the GC community, the right to become the RoC thus granting them the status of being a nation within the RoC and synthetically elevating their status from being ONE of the TWO communities as she is foreseen in a solution of the problem. The GC community has believed, acted and educated its youth that they are a nation of the RoC and they have been treated as a nation of the RoC. Now the U.N. is pointing to a solution of the Cyprus Problem where the community recognized/treated as the RoC nation, reduce her status to a community of the RoC. Here in lies the greatest dilemma of paramount importance; and again, I am not discussing the events and developments that lead to this; just stating the situation. The U.N. first gives them the right to be the owner of the RoC, makes them a nation of the RoC, treats them as the nation of the RoC, and than points out that there is a problem in the RoC and that it is to be solved by this nation becoming a community. Even more paradoxically, although acknowledging that in the solution pointed to the Cyprus Problem the GCs are to be reduced from the nation of the RoC to a community in the RoC, the U.N. puts a prerequisite that it should be asked if the GCs would accept giving up being the nation of the RoC and becoming a community of the RoC. Guess what the GCs answered to no one’s surprise? A great big OXI! Hence, Papadopoulos`s famous and frequently quoted words regarding the answer:

“I have received a state (nation), I will not deliver a community”.

Call it the Annan Plan, Zimbabwe Plan, the Makarios Plan or whatever you like… Although the U.N.`s solution to settling the Cyprus Problem is by converting the current, illegitimate as far as universal principles are concerned but legal according to the EU and the UN, RoC in to a federated state with TWO politically equivalent communities in their separate zones, this solution will never ever be accepted by the GCs, ever. Because it is asking ONE of those (to become in the settlement) communities whether she will give up her extremely privileged status as a nation and become a community in the RoC. Who would say “Ne!” especially when they hold the tools with them to refuse this: an RoC already recognized by the world where they are the nation that gets to decide solely on their own on how that RoC is going to be navigated. Why become a community when you are the nation in the RoC? Why share policy/decision making of the RoC with another? Why give up living under a government of GCs to a one shared with another? And especially if that “another” is the long-time perceived “Satan” for which the RoC “nation” still carries with herself a heavy bag load of resentment?

That is why I kept asking the simple question that requires the simple answer of yes or no.

Please explicitly state whether or not you accept that in the solution of the Cyprus Problem according to the U.N. principles in an RoC: GCs are nothing more than ONE of the TWO communities that have politically equal status to their TC partners in their seperate zone in a federated state called RoC.

After writing:

U.N. Resolution 750 (April 1992) (which has been reaffirmed annually since then)-
"Reaffirms the position set out in resolutions 649 (1990) of March 12 1990 and 716 (1991) October 11 1991 that a Cyprus settlement must be based on a State of Cyprus with a single sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship, with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded, and comprising two politically equal communities as defined in Paragraph 11 of Secretary-General’s report in a bi-communal and bi-zonal federation, and that such a settlement must exclude union in whole or in part with any other country or any form of partition or secession"

The obvious answer is of course "OXI" for the GC side. Because they see themselves as the nation of the RoC, they have educated and made themselves believe they are the nation of RoC, and they have been treated as the nation of the RoC. However, an "OXI" also means they do not accept the solution of the U.N.`s legal framework and refusing U.N. contradicts their basis of supporting other Resolutions they have managed to pass as the RoC nation to strangulate the other community. So guess what the answer was: a great big NOTHING with complimentary cussing and swearing on the side and perversion as appetizer. Enjoy the show

Absolutely the point Murataga. Great post.

I second all that! Point well made Murataga...

[74LB]

After reading some of the comments written in lieu of the exchange of the posts with myself and Piratis it seems necessary that a few points have to be clarified. The Resolution and the argument that I brought on for discussion is not about the illegality of the RoC. The RoC is illegal not because of the Resolution I pointed to, but for many other reasons, of which one has been fabulously pointed out by Zan in his post recently, and is the subject of another discussion. That is a debate completely different from the one I brought about which unfortunately Piratis tried to pull the conversation towards. My point is something else and perhaps it is necessary that I elaborate on it a bit…

My point is that the GCs wil nevr accept a solution to the Cyprus Problem withing the lagal framework of the U.N. since the U.N. foresees a solution that they become a community in the RoC after a settlement. The U.N. although recognizing the current illegitimate form of the RoC, clearly points that there is a problem with Cyprus involving the RoC. Furthermore, it has been, annually, declaring that the Cyprus Problem should be settled, acknowledging that there is a problem, through a solution where the RoC becomes a State comprised of TWO communities of GCs and the TCs where each of the two hold equal political status in separate zones. This Resolution is:

U.N. Resolution 750 (April 1992) (which has been reaffirmed annually since then)-
"Reaffirms the position set out in resolutions 649 (1990) of March 12 1990 and 716 (1991) October 11 1991 that a Cyprus settlement must be based on a State of Cyprus with a single sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship, with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded, and comprising two politically equal communities as defined in Paragraph 11 of Secretary-General’s report in a bi-communal and bi-zonal federation, and that such a settlement must exclude union in whole or in part with any other country or any form of partition or secession"

The standing fact is that there is a problem in Cyprus and the world points to the solution of this problem as RoC becoming a federated state with TWO communities in separate zones with equal political status. Now here is the core of the matter: the U.N. (along with the rest of the world) has trapped itself and locked any foreseeable solution within this framework they have given something to ONE of the communities that doesn`t belong to them in the first place and now they want it back and call this the solution of the Cyprus Problem. Where the U.N. has trapped itself is that it gave ONE of the communities, the GC community, the right to become the RoC thus granting them the status of being a nation within the RoC and synthetically elevating their status from being ONE of the TWO communities as she is foreseen in a solution of the problem. The GC community has believed, acted and educated its youth that they are a nation of the RoC and they have been treated as a nation of the RoC. Now the U.N. is pointing to a solution of the Cyprus Problem where the community recognized/treated as the RoC nation, reduce her status to a community of the RoC. Here in lies the greatest dilemma of paramount importance; and again, I am not discussing the events and developments that lead to this; just stating the situation. The U.N. first gives them the right to be the owner of the RoC, makes them a nation of the RoC, treats them as the nation of the RoC, and than points out that there is a problem in the RoC and that it is to be solved by this nation becoming a community. Even more paradoxically, although acknowledging that in the solution pointed to the Cyprus Problem the GCs are to be reduced from the nation of the RoC to a community in the RoC, the U.N. puts a prerequisite that it should be asked if the GCs would accept giving up being the nation of the RoC and becoming a community of the RoC. Guess what the GCs answered to no one’s surprise? A great big OXI! Hence, Papadopoulos`s famous and frequently quoted words regarding the answer:

“I have received a state (nation), I will not deliver a community”.

Call it the Annan Plan, Zimbabwe Plan, the Makarios Plan or whatever you like… Although the U.N.`s solution to settling the Cyprus Problem is by converting the current, illegitimate as far as universal principles are concerned but legal according to the EU and the UN, RoC in to a federated state with TWO politically equivalent communities in their separate zones, this solution will never ever be accepted by the GCs, ever. Because it is asking ONE of those (to become in the settlement) communities whether she will give up her extremely privileged status as a nation and become a community in the RoC. Who would say “Ne!” especially when they hold the tools with them to refuse this: an RoC already recognized by the world where they are the nation that gets to decide solely on their own on how that RoC is going to be navigated. Why become a community when you are the nation in the RoC? Why share policy/decision making of the RoC with another? Why give up living under a government of GCs to a one shared with another? And especially if that “another” is the long-time perceived “Satan” for which the RoC “nation” still carries with herself a heavy bag load of resentment?

That is why I kept asking the simple question that requires the simple answer of yes or no.

Please explicitly state whether or not you accept that in the solution of the Cyprus Problem according to the U.N. principles in an RoC: GCs are nothing more than ONE of the TWO communities that have politically equal status to their TC partners in their seperate zone in a federated state called RoC.

After writing:

U.N. Resolution 750 (April 1992) (which has been reaffirmed annually since then)-
"Reaffirms the position set out in resolutions 649 (1990) of March 12 1990 and 716 (1991) October 11 1991 that a Cyprus settlement must be based on a State of Cyprus with a single sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship, with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded, and comprising two politically equal communities as defined in Paragraph 11 of Secretary-General’s report in a bi-communal and bi-zonal federation, and that such a settlement must exclude union in whole or in part with any other country or any form of partition or secession"

The obvious answer is of course "OXI" for the GC side. Because they see themselves as the nation of the RoC, they have educated and made themselves believe they are the nation of RoC, and they have been treated as the nation of the RoC. However, an "OXI" also means they do not accept the solution of the U.N.`s legal framework and refusing U.N. contradicts their basis of supporting other Resolutions they have managed to pass as the RoC nation to strangulate the other community. So guess what the answer was: a great big NOTHING with complimentary cussing and swearing on the side and perversion as appetizer. Enjoy the show

Absolutely the point Murataga. Great post.

I second all that! Point well made Murataga...

I must also say that Murataga puts forward very valid points .

I'll always remember as a child my grandparents, parents, elders, you name it telling me how the Greek Cypriots have 'conned the world' ("dunyayı gandırdılar" as they would say) that they are the legitimate voice of Cyprus. The Turkish Cypriots either didn't have the necessary 'skill' to put their arguments across, or even if they did, no-one was prepared to listen.

Well, times are changing and there is definately a TC voice to be heard now and I for one am hopeful that both sides will see that a mutually agreeable solution is the only way to put an end to all the suffering that has occurred since the 1960's.

[Sotos]

all the Mongoloids agreed They stole our land and now they want more.

[74LB]

all the Mongoloids agreed They stole our land and now they want more.

That may be your interpretation, and who said anything about wanting more ?

[Sotos]

You said. It is not enough that you took our land you complain and you accuse us also!

[Get Real!]

Murataga, you unashamedly keep posting a Security Council resolution containing…

“…such a settlement must exclude union in whole or in part with any other country or any form of partition or secession"

…which clearly shoots you in the foot every time and yet your compatriots, Zan, BigOz, LondonBoy, and VP, see fit to applaud you! Is this an indication that the five of you have the combined IQ of an Albino Octopus on heat or is it a classic case of the infamous “TRNC” standards which you must be use to by now and assume the same for us? In case you’re wondering we are NOT amused Murataga!

On top of that you have been in violation of dozens of UN resolutions for more than three decades and yet here you are today making this laughably petty attempt to take advantage of a single unexplained phrase in a single (SC) resolution! How did you ever become so shameless???

SINCE WHEN HAVE YOU ACQUIRED ANY UN/SC RESOLUTION RIGHTS GIVEN THAT YOU ARE THE WORLD’S WORST OFFENDER OF THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS???

Are your parents/guardians aware that you have fallen so low Murataga???

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then my dear friend Zan posts this little gem…

“You seem to believe that you are the owners of Cyprus when it is clear that you simply do not.”

Think about this people…a remnant of a Turkish invasion dares tell an INDIGINOUS CYPRIOT that he is NOT the owner of Cyprus, and that HE the foreigner is!!!

Did you think long and hard before posting this Zan? Are you applying common sense here or just responding with pretty much anything because nobody else will? I can only conclude that you forgot to discharge the static electricity from your body after work!

Regards, GR.