Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz]

and yet the unit of democracy (in countries) is always the citizen, and never the ethnic group.

No it is not Piratis. When MP's vote legislation in or our in the UK the UNIT of democracy is the consitutiency that voted the MP in. One consituency one vote and in the UK some constiuencies are more than twice the population size of others. This kind of aggregated up units of democracies runs through the entire UK. Some descions are made on a regional basis (those that affect regions, surprise surprise) and in these decsion each region has an equal voice regardless of their different population sizes. You insistacne that the unit of democracy within countires is always the indivdual citizen is bollocks. Yes it is an dominat unit but it is NOT the only unit and it tends to not be the only unit when interests are grouped in different ways than accross the whole country, and for GOOD REASON. In the UK on many regional issues the unit is the region. On some national issues the unit is the nations that make up the UK.

I understand that you WANT to believe that one person one vote is the fundamental aspect of democracy or democracy within states and unless it exist totaly for all decisions that country is not a democracy, because such belief allows you to justify why even on purley communal issues you can not possibly accept the idea of one community one vote, but such belief is actually bollocks when you look at it.

As I explained to you earlier (and you didn't reply to it) if the relationship that you want between TCs and GCs is the one that exists between Spanish and Polish then what you want is clearly partition.

You must be blind as well as racist and stubborn !

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.p ... &start=280

you said

If you tell me that the relationship that you want between GCs and TCs is the one that Italians and British have within the EU, then you are directly telling us that what you want is in fact partition, and just some cooperation between the two separate countries.

I replied

But I am so clearly NOT telling you that is what I want. All I am doing is countering your (unspportable) claim that one person one vote is a fundamental principal of democracy as a concept , by showing you clear examples of democratic entities where one person one vote does not rule and yet ARE democratic. This is not saying that what I want in Cyprus between our communites is what they have in the EU between states. It is just pointing out that your self rightgous lectures about what the fundamental principles of democracy are as a concept are bollocks.

Now you ask the same question AGAIN, complete with an accusation that I did not answer it before !

What we want is one country kind of unification and democracy as it exists within all other democratic countries, and not the association of two separate and independent parts of Cyprus so we can be "united" with the north part of our country in the same way we are now united with Estonia within EU.

Look Piratis if you are going to make up what I have said, ignore what I have actually said and then attack the things you have made up and claimed I have said then whats the point ? I have explained CLEARY that I am NOT after a solution in Cyprus that is similar to the relationship between two states within the EU.

Democracies do not separate people between ethnic groups.

No Piratis democracies do not seperate ethnic groups. What sperated and seperates CYPRIOTS is ONE GROUP of them defning themselves in a way that EXCLUDES the other and seeking objectives that are purely ETHNIC GROUP based and totaly prejudical to the other group and then seeking to IMPOSE these ETHNIC based desires on the other group. THAT is waht seperated Cypriots between ethnic groups and a GOOD democracy would protect smaller ethnic groups from such imposition.

What exists to protect and give an effective voice to all citizens are things like human rights,

Which is WHY the UN charters on human rights assign the right to self determination to PEOPLES and not nations or states. Exactly because the right to self determination assigned to a state or nation that has different peoples in it would be a licence to TYRANNY. This right REQUIRES a UNITY of common interest and purpose in the group claiming it and enosis destroyed that unity.

http://www.unpo.org/article.php?id=4957

Nevertheless, the right to self-determination is recognized in international law as a right of process (not of outcome) belonging to peoples and not to states or governments.

This right of PEOPLES is the CORNERSTONE AND FOUNDATION of ALL the other indivdual rights, as the UN charters again clearly lay out.

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/f3c9 ... endocument

The right of self-determination is of particular importance because its realization is an essential condition for the effective guarantee and observance of individual human rights and for the promotion and strengthening of those rights

.... but still not enough for you.

No Piratis because I do not want your 'gifts'. I want MY RIGHTS.

When you continue to insist that GC had and HAVE the right to pursue and IMPOSE a purely GREEK CYPRIOT desire on all cypriots , that is when you act not as common cypriots to me but ACT as an ETHNIC GROUP against me, then we are no longer a common cypriot people. In such cases TC as a people that live in CYprus and are NOT GREEK , have the RIGHT to self determination - and this right is what you deny me. This right that is laid out as the "essential condition for the effective guarantee and observance of individual human rights" in the UN charters is the on you seek to deny me. You basis for this is that we are a single unitary people EVEN WHEN you seek to destroy our nation as a single unitary people, our state as single unitary people and our status as a people.

Furthermore I had the goodwill to listen and discuss your diversions from democracy and accepted that in order to satisfy you we could agree to some such diversions if you would also agree to some strong safeguards that would make it impossible for TCs to abuse those diversions, or even worst use them to achieve partition. You rejected the safeguards I asked for, you said you would come back with alternative solutions but you never did.

You consider it 'goodwill' to listen (very very badly) and discuss my 'diversions'! That is no more goodwill than it is goodwill for me to listen to you insist on rights of the GC community purely as a COMMUNITY to impose its will on ALL Cypriots and call this democracy and an expression if human rights and I having the patience to pint out over and over what bollocks you are talking.


I did not reject your 'safegaurds'.To the first I said

"We would have to argue about who is a settler or not but we could problably , with some good will and mutual compromise agree on that. I have no problem with there being a 'great majority' requirment. "

to the second

"I personally as an indivdual can live without bizonlaity provided the right bicommunal protections exist. However this prob not true of most TC at least for a period of time. I would also consider other specfic measure to protect against the risk of intentful forced colapse as a route to division but I am out of time and will have to expand on these other possibilites later. "

and no I have not had time yet to expand on this because I am taking up my time defending MY RIGHTS, rather than indulge you in thinking you are offering me incredible concessions to your rights and pointing out GR's mistakes. I will exapnd as and when I have time and inclination to do so.

and the third

No list is not acceptable to me. I need a principal that can be applied fairly and consistnetly to anything that may occur in the future for I can not predict the future. Another big problem with a list is what would stop you as a GC community 'democraticaly' changing the list in the future , according to your defintion of democracy ? Give me 100 things on the list today and tomorrow 'democratically' remove then , one by one. No sorry that is all to familure for me to find it acceptable.

Here is a quote from Sevgul that describes how TCs view "unification" and as a result "democracy".

And this from the man saying quoting "The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented" and demanding 'complete' quotes of UN documents.

Yo say Piratis that the below shows TCs views, yet the selective extracts from the article you 'quote' (with no referances to its source other than 'Sevgul') statrs CLEARLY with the problem of the 'mainstream media' not the TCs.

I have great respect for the author of this work you quote selectively and then disort its meaning. I do not however have suc respect for you for obvious reasons. If you want to provide the WHOLE article I may choose to discuss it with you. If not I have little to say about it execpt to point out you rank hypocrasy and your obvious distortion of what it says.

If what they label as "unification" and as "democracy" is modeled after the relationship between the sovereign and independent EU countries, so GCs and TCs can be "united" in the way that Italians and British are within EU, then obviously the gap between us is huge and we will never reach a peaceful agreement since the TCs have not yet abandoned their criminal aim of partitioning Cyprus and Turkifying the north part of it.

Again you go tillting at the windmills. I said EXPLICITLY that I DID NOT want a solution based on the kind or realtionship states within the EU have between them. Yet STILL you prattle on about how such a solution is not acceptable to you.

[Piratis]

(1) Where has GR supplied the complete SG report ? Or are you talking about the GC criminal regimes fabricated text which got him in to trouble?

I have not examined in detail the link GR gave. The fact is that he gave his source so everybody could read the whole report and judge it as they wish. You should do the same, otherwise your quotes lack any validity.

(2) The SG reports are very long as I`ve explained and was written in the 60s, i.e. not available online. I have explained how I`ve acquired them, go back and read the posts carefully.

And for the very long SG reports all you have is some tiny quotes. Even if we trust you that you are not misquoting anything, you still just present a very selective part of it that fits your needs, which is nothing less than propaganda.

(3) My quotes were put here as counter-arguement to claims that TCs were not attacked and ousted. The whole report is not exclusively relevant to the specific discussion of concern especially given that they range from 20-50 pages each in hardcopy.

Maybe the same report also described on how GCs were attacked? Do you even know what the rest of the report says? Or you just know what was supplied to you so you can reproduce the Turkish propaganda?

(4) Overlooking all of these, I can tell you that from what I recall that the rest of the reports kept on describing the crimes you performed in general - as erolz elaborated with one of the SG reports he had available online (go back and read carefully). I`ve also made an offer, if you go back and read carefully, regardig the whole hardcopy documents. Feel free to answer it.

Here are the UN resolutions about Cyprus since the 1960s http://www.un.int/cyprus/resolut.htm There are resolutions from 1964 (not too old be online apparently). I don't see anything there that comes anything close to your accusations. I don't know what offers you made, but if you want to use the SG reports then you should give them in whole (like I did with all UN resolutions) and not to produce just the tiny selective parts that suit you.

[erolz]

I have not examined in detail the link GR gave. The fact is that he gave his source so everybody could read the whole report and judge it as they wish. You should do the same, otherwise your quotes lack any validity.

Well maybe you SHOULD have read it before jumping in? The document that GR linked to was a document written BY the RoC in 98 and submitted TO the UN.
Within this document is a selective quote from UN document S/6426 that misleadingly quotes a passage from that document as the words of the SG of the time (64). In fact s/6426 is one of the regualr 6 monthly reports written by UNFICYP and submitted by the SG to the SC.

And for the very long SG reports all you have is some tiny quotes. Even if we trust you that you are not misquoting anything, you still just present a very selective part of it that fits your needs, which is nothing less than propaganda.

Which is EXACTLY what the document written by the RoC as its required core document submitted to the un as required and then linked to by GR does ! Not only does it selectively quote it is misleading in its attribution. Propaganda indeed !!!

Maybe the same report also described on how GCs were attacked? Do you even know what the rest of the report says? Or you just know what was supplied to you so you can reproduce the Turkish propaganda?

I have s/6426 here in front of me. do you ?

[Murataga]

(1) Where has GR supplied the complete SG report ? Or are you talking about the GC criminal regimes fabricated text which got him in to trouble?

I have not examined in detail the link GR gave.

I know you didn`t. But be more careful next time because I won`t let you get off the hook this easy.

The fact is that he gave his source so everybody could read the whole report and judge it as they wish. You should do the same, otherwise your quotes lack any validity.

Perhaps you did not look carefully and I repeat for the second time: He did NOT give the whole report - period.

(2) The SG reports are very long as I`ve explained and was written in the 60s, i.e. not available online. I have explained how I`ve acquired them, go back and read the posts carefully.

And for the very long SG reports all you have is some tiny quotes. Even if we trust you that you are not misquoting anything, you still just present a very selective part of it that fits your needs, which is nothing less than propaganda.

No, not tiny quotes but elaborate descriptions regarding the ousting of and crimes against the TCs. And as you seem to conveniently neglect: The whole report is not exclusively relevant to the specific discussion of concern especially given that they range from 20-50 pages each in hardcopy.

(3) My quotes were put here as counter-arguement to claims that TCs were not attacked and ousted. The whole report is not exclusively relevant to the specific discussion of concern especially given that they range from 20-50 pages each in hardcopy.

Maybe the same report also described on how GCs were attacked? Do you even know what the rest of the report says? Or you just know what was supplied to you so you can reproduce the Turkish propaganda?

I just told you that I had accessed and read the reports first hand - hard copies. No one supplied anything.

(4) Overlooking all of these, I can tell you that from what I recall that the rest of the reports kept on describing the crimes you performed in general - as erolz elaborated with one of the SG reports he had available online (go back and read carefully). I`ve also made an offer, if you go back and read carefully, regardig the whole hardcopy documents. Feel free to answer it.

Here are the UN resolutions about Cyprus since the 1960s http://www.un.int/cyprus/resolut.htm There are resolutions from 1964 (not too old be online apparently). I don't see anything there that comes anything close to your accusations. I don't know what offers you made, but if you want to use the SG reports then you should give them in whole (like I did with all UN resolutions) and not to produce just the tiny selective parts that suit you.

Resolutions are the written motions, the SG reports are information or other content reflective of inquiry or investigation (and they are not available online for the 60s period - I believe they start with 1997). The way things happened as reported and how international political interests of countries led them to decide based on what actually happened are two very different different things.

[erolz]

You mean you didn't see Erol self-destruct? Didn't you see the fireworks? Go back and read it.

What are you prattaling on about now GR ? In some fantasy world of your own again no doubt.

Let me try and help you out GR , as you clearly have lost your way here.

You used a document to show "This is the only piece by a REAL Secretary-General you will ever need to read to understand what your people were up to during those turbulent years."

The document you used was this one

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/a99f ... endocument

What this document is, is a document written and submitted by the RoC to the UN in 1998. I know all this GR because on another forum that I am not allowed to mention here you ALREADY tried to pass of this RoC written document as having been written by the UN itself and eventualy 'dispaeared' from the htread when it was shown beyond ANY possible doubt that the document was actually written by the RoC. But just in case you are still in doubt let me remind you.

From the OHCHR sites glossary of terms

http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/tre ... ary.htm#CD

Core document

A document submitted by a State party to the Secretary-General containing information of a general nature about the country which is of relevance to all of the treaties, including information on land and people, the general political structure and the general legal framework within which human rights are protected in the State. The core document consitutes a common initial part of all reports to the treaty bodies. The core document was introduced in 1991 as a way of reducing some of the repetition of information found in States' reports to the various treaty bodies.

Like I say you did in the past make an effort to pass this document off as a UN written document , saying at the time things like this

Erolz, you have failed to provide any evidence that the author of this document is somebody other than the UN.

Your theory rests entirely on your disagreement with the contents of this document so you therefore deem the document invalid!

Knowing how damning this document is for the Turkish Cypriot community you will go to any length to pervert the course of justice in your selfish attempt to undermine historical facts forming the core of the tragedy of Cyprus.

When it was proven beyond a doubt that the document in question was not written by the UN as you had clamied and repeatedly inssited it was you retorted with

My thread was never intended to analyze the types of UN documents or anything like that.

And declared the matter closed and never appeard in that thread again. Prompting a GC poster to say

GR you opened this thread to argued a point based on the neutral position of UN but in fact the actual report was written by our government so you don't really prove anything. Sorry but to me the conclusions are not very clear.

So this then is the document that is the source for you 'real' piece by the SG of the UN. Your source is a RoC written propaganda document. It is true that within that RoC written propaganda document it quotes the SG as saying something that is in fact an extract from S/6426. That is the problem in believing your own propaganda. S/6426 is one of the regular 6 monthly reports prepared by UNFICYP for the SG who then presents tese 6 monthly reports to the SC. In some sense it is the SG report on the situation in Cyprus to the SC, but it is written by those UN people actually there on the ground in Cyprus not the SG. As Piratis has so clearly demostrated this kind of selective quoting and misleading attribution is nothing short of propaganda, propoaganda that you seem to have swalloed hook line and sinker.

You then take great amusment at the idea that the RoC in it's propganda attempts would be stupid enough to pass off an extract from a UNFICYP 6 monthly report as the words of the SG to that same SG himslef. Unfortunately once more the egg is squarely on your own face here, for the SG that presented the UNFICYP report to the SC in 1964 was not the same SG that presided over the UN in 1998 and who probably never read the cyprus core report in any case as all such reports are propaganda (check out the Turkish one or the Zimbabwe one if you doubt me).

So having yourself in the past (on another forum) twice made attempts to pass of a report written by the RoC as one written by the UN and failed, you then repeate the misleading propaganda contained in that same RoC propaganda report on this forum now, that the SG said such and such when in fact a UNFICYP 6 monthly report said it and the SG presenented this reoprt to the SC. THEN you have the sheer audacity to claim Murtagas quotes from UN documents are 'made up'.

What is that word you use ? Ah yes OWNED I think.

GR you have been cought here with your pants so far down you would need the legs of a giraffe to accomodate them Perhaps you should critisie my spelling instead, for there is no doubt there is cause for that or perhaps it's time to slink off into an new persona ?

[Piratis]

No it is not Piratis. When MP's vote legislation in or our in the UK the UNIT of democracy is the consitutiency that voted the MP in. One consituency one vote and in the UK some constiuencies are more than twice the population size of others. This kind of aggregated up units of democracies runs through the entire UK. Some descions are made on a regional basis (those that affect regions, surprise surprise) and in these decsion each region has an equal voice regardless of their different population sizes. You insistacne that the unit of democracy within countires is always the indivdual citizen is bollocks. Yes it is an dominat unit but it is NOT the only unit and it tends to not be the only unit when interests are grouped in different ways than accross the whole country, and for GOOD REASON. In the UK on many regional issues the unit is the region. On some national issues the unit is the nations that make up the UK.

I understand that you WANT to believe that one person one vote is the fundamental aspect of democracy or democracy within states and unless it exist totaly for all decisions that country is not a democracy, because such belief allows you to justify why even on purley communal issues you can not possibly accept the idea of one community one vote, but such belief is actually bollocks when you look at it.

I accept what they have in the UK. Lets have different constituencies in Cyprus and do it in that way if you wish. The unit is still the citizen, since the citizen is free to move to any area he desires regardless of his religion, race, gender or ethnic background and his vote counts the same just like everybody else. No problem. Agreed?
I never said that dividing the country into sectors for administrative reasons is wrong. What I said is wrong and undemocratic and racist is dividing the people based on their race or ethnic background, and this happens nowhere since Apartheid ended in South Africa.

Again: I accept what they have in other democratic countries. If you call that "bollocks", and you claim that you know what democracy means more than anybody else that just shows that even you realized that you have lost the argument regarding this issue and you are getting upset about it.

But I am so clearly NOT telling you that is what I want. All I am doing is countering your (unspportable) claim that one person one vote is a fundamental principal of democracy as a concept , by showing you clear examples of democratic entities where one person one vote does not rule and yet ARE democratic. This is not saying that what I want in Cyprus between our communites is what they have in the EU between states. It is just pointing out that your self rightgous lectures about what the fundamental principles of democracy are as a concept are bollocks.

That was your answer? To that claim I have already explained to you that EU is an association of sovereign independent states, and therefore the unit is the state. In countries the unit is the citizen, who I agree with you can be grouped into different administrative regions (but always free to move to whatever region they like), but people are never divided based on the ethnic group they belong as such thing would be undemocratic and racist.

Look Piratis if you are going to make up what I have said, ignore what I have actually said and then attack the things you have made up and claimed I have said then whats the point ? I have explained CLEARY that I am NOT after a solution in Cyprus that is similar to the relationship between two states within the EU.

Yes, you say that, but then what you describe is very similar to an association between two separate countries and not one country. You even use EU as an example. The essence is what is important here, not the labels.

No Piratis democracies do not seperate ethnic groups. What sperated and seperates CYPRIOTS is ONE GROUP of them defning themselves in a way that EXCLUDES the other and seeking objectives that are purely ETHNIC GROUP based and totaly prejudical to the other group and then seeking to IMPOSE these ETHNIC based desires on the other group. THAT is waht seperated Cypriots between ethnic groups and a GOOD democracy would protect smaller ethnic groups from such imposition.

If there was a separation imposed, that was imposed by the Turks during their barbaric rule of Cyprus, where they divided people between Christian GCs and higher class Muslims, where GCs had almost no rights and paid twice as much taxes.

And don't tell me that is "ancient history". It was merely 7 decades before the events of the 50s.

So cut your double standards and selective use of history. Do you want to finally leave the past behind and move ahead as a normal democratic country like all the rest, or you want to continue the war?

Which is WHY the UN charters on human rights assign the right to self determination to PEOPLES and not nations or states. Exactly because the right to self determination assigned to a state or nation that has different peoples in it would be a licence to TYRANNY. This right REQUIRES a UNITY of common interest and purpose in the group claiming it and enosis destroyed that unity.

The people of Cyprus are the Cypriots. If you don't want to be part of Cypriots thats your problem, not mine. It is like telling me that the peoples that the colonialists (Spanish, English, French, Ottomans etc) spread around the world during their empires should now have their own separate self-determination rights in the countries they formerly ruled because they have small minorities there.
The UN exactly talks about the freedom of people like us from their colonialists. So stop trying to blur things when they are very clear.

No Piratis because I do not want your 'gifts'. I want MY RIGHTS.

Your rights are those of a minority in Cyprus, exactly like the Turkish minority of Bulgaria (actually they have been there for longer than you have been here). Beyond that for anything to become your right it has to either be given as a gift to you from us, or we to be forced to give it to you (as it happened with the 1960 agreements). So the max you can claim as your rights is what is in the 1960 constitution. Nothing beyond that is your right. What you do is just enforcing what you want by military power and you have absolutely no right for it.

and no I have not had time yet to expand on this because I am taking up my time defending MY RIGHTS, rather than indulge you in thinking you are offering me incredible concessions to your rights and pointing out GR's mistakes. I will exapnd as and when I have time and inclination to do so.

I made an effort to leave the discussion about the past and to concentrate on the future, but you apparently prefer it the other way around. OK! If you don't care to invest time for your own proposals then I am not either.

And this from the man saying quoting "The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented" and demanding 'complete' quotes of UN documents.

Yo say Piratis that the below shows TCs views, yet the selective extracts from the article you 'quote' (with no referances to its source other than 'Sevgul') statrs CLEARLY with the problem of the 'mainstream media' not the TCs.

I have great respect for the author of this work you quote selectively and then disort its meaning. I do not however have suc respect for you for obvious reasons. If you want to provide the WHOLE article I may choose to discuss it with you. If not I have little to say about it execpt to point out you rank hypocrasy and your obvious distortion of what it says.

The only reason I quoted that part from Sevgul was that I agreed with it but I didn't want to post it as mine since she wrote it first. It is just an opinion of her that I adopt.

That is not the same with a UN resolution or an ECHR ruling etc which is not just the opinion of some person, but facts with legal validity. Trying to distort the essence of UN resolutions is what is wrong. Saying "I agree with this position of X person" is not wrong at all, so don't try to confuse things in order to avoid answering the question.

Again you go tillting at the windmills. I said EXPLICITLY that I DID NOT want a solution based on the kind or realtionship states within the EU have between them. Yet STILL you prattle on about how such a solution is not acceptable to you.

Erolz, you reject what exists in other democratic countries, and then you give the example of EU. What does that mean?

Why don't you give Turkey as an example for the democracy we should have in Cyprus.

Then if you get a taste of the rights Kurds have in Turkey you might appreciate the rights a true democracy can give to you, without trying to use force to gain on our loss power and land that does not belong to you and you have no right for.

[Piratis]

Well maybe you SHOULD have read it before jumping in? The document that GR linked to was a document written BY the RoC in 98 and submitted TO the UN.
Within this document is a selective quote from UN document S/6426 that misleadingly quotes a passage from that document as the words of the SG of the time (64). In fact s/6426 is one of the regualr 6 monthly reports written by UNFICYP and submitted by the SG to the SC.

I know you didn`t. But be more careful next time because I won`t let you get off the hook this easy.

Perhaps you did not look carefully and I repeat for the second time: He did NOT give the whole report - period.

Get Real gave his source so you could read it and judge it as you wish. On the other hand you didn't give your source for those quotes so the rest of us can read the whole thing and inform you about the things included there that do not suit you.

No, not tiny quotes but elaborate descriptions regarding the ousting of and crimes against the TCs. And as you seem to conveniently neglect: The whole report is not exclusively relevant to the specific discussion of concern especially given that they range from 20-50 pages each in hardcopy.

Thats all your usual blah blah. We know very well that the TCs committed crimes against GCs even during the same period, and you saying that SG did not cover this in his reports is not belivalbe. If you want me to believe that then show to me all those reports as I have shown to you all the UN resolutions (which have mush more weight than any report) and nothing like that is mentioned there.
http://www.un.int/cyprus/resolut.htm

Resolutions are the written motions, the SG reports are information or other content reflective of inquiry or investigation (and they are not available online for the 60s period - I believe they start with 1997). The way things happened as reported and how international political interests of countries led them to decide based on what actually happened are two very different different things.

What is different is that I gave you all the resolutions in full, and you gave me some quotes to suit you.

Which is EXACTLY what the document written by the RoC as its required core document submitted to the un as required and then linked to by GR does ! Not only does it selectively quote it is misleading in its attribution. Propaganda indeed !!!

Maybe. But you should be the last one complaining. The last time I tried to talk to you about the whole truth you rejected it.

as I said earlier:

This is why I always insist that if we are going to appropriate blame based on what happened in the past then we should see the whole picture and the chain of events. However the whole truth doesn't suit TCs. This is why they selectively choose a tiny part of our past by ignoring everything that happened before and excusing everything that happened after. Even worst, even during that small part they keep talking about and exaggerate by a factor of 100 to make it sound more than what it really was, they again employ their usual selective propaganda in an effort to blame GCs exclusively for it, ignoring or excusing their own mistakes, crimes and responsibilities.

I have s/6426 here in front of me. do you ?

No, I have all the UN resolutions about Cyprus: http://www.un.int/cyprus/resolut.htm

Do you have all SG reports about Cyprus? Or that one (or few) in particular. If you have just one or a few out of many, then why and how those exactly?

[Murataga]

Your rights are those of a minority in Cyprus, exactly like the Turkish minority of Bulgaria (actually they have been there for longer than you have been here).

Bulgaria is the homeland of those people which have a civilized history dating back more than six millennia to a prehistoric time. You arrived here as Greek settlers at a time when others were already living here and since than you lived as Greeks, you speak Greek, sing the Greek anthem, tried to unite with Greece, posses political ambitions of Greek interests, watch TV in Greece, listen to musicians of Greece, practice the Greek religion and practically live the Greek way of life. Simply painting yourself as some neutral innocent people for convenient political reasons does not change any of these facts. The rights you seek are the ones you deserve in your motherland Greece - feel free to go back and claim them any time you like. But, in Cyprus you are one of the two major settlers which both define themselves as Cypriots and will learn to respect the autonomy of the other. Get the difference now?

Beyond that for anything to become your right it has to either be given as a gift to you from us, or we to be forced to give it to you (as it happened with the 1960 agreements). So the max you can claim as your rights is what is in the 1960 constitution.

And that is what we adhered to until you devastated us for more rights and/or ENOSIS. How do you expect us to go back to them?

Nothing beyond that is your right. What you do is just enforcing what you want by military power and you have absolutely no right for it.

Neither community has ruled the other or enforced the will of one over the other at any time in history - never. Attempting to enforce such atrocious conditions now have nothing to do with democracy; it is an invasive action equivalent to tyranny by definition.

Tyranny (from webster dictionary): a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force

[Piratis]

Murataga, yes Bulgairans are much more civilized than Turks and you ought to admire them.

Now of course your complexes do not allow you to do the same for the great Greek civilization part of which Cyprus is, but be sure that sooner or later our island will be liberated from foreign invadors and will be free.

[erolz]

I accept what they have in the UK. Lets have different constituencies in Cyprus and do it in that way if you wish.

You are doing it again Piratis. You claim that the citizen is the only unit of democracy in all countires, then when it is shown to you that this is NOT the case in ANY country, you move the goal posts to 'ok let's have what they have there'. The reason WHY I pointed out the case in the UKis not because the UK has a system suited to Cyprus that can adress the historical problems in Cyprus, but merely to show you claim up as bollocks. Showing your claims about democracy and what is 'normal' in other countries as bollocks is not the same thing as saying I want that systme for Cyprus or that it can solve our uniquely Cypriot problems as a system.

The unit is still the citizen, since the citizen is free to move to any area he desires regardless of his religion, race, gender or ethnic background and his vote counts the same just like everybody else.

No it is not the case even in the UK that everyones vote counts the same. If I live in one are in the UK, which I may have lived in all my life and my family for gnerations, my vote can be worth 1/2 as much as someone living in another area. The basic unit in the UK is MP's and each citizens vote as to who is there MP is NOT equal. But let's not bother about reality of facts shall we ?

I never said that dividing the country into sectors for administrative reasons is wrong. What I said is wrong and undemocratic and racist is dividing the people based on their race or ethnic background, and this happens nowhere since Apartheid ended in South Africa.

Elements of a Cyprus problem that are ethnic based would be atypical. That is because the history and nature of the Cyprus problem and the status of the two communites and how they behaved and its geographical location are all atypical. However saying that an atypical system that matches the atypical situation in Cyprus can only ever be undemocratic or aparthied is where you move into rehtoric.

Again: I accept what they have in other democratic countries. If you call that "bollocks", and you claim that you know what democracy means more than anybody else that just shows that even you realized that you have lost the argument regarding this issue and you are getting upset about it.

Bollocks is a technical british term. It does not show any upset on my part but simply means nonsense, when used in the phrase 'you are talking bolocks'.
I also will accept other countries as models for a Cyprus solution provided the solution is designed to the needs of solving our historic and current problems and not as a means to reinforce your imagined right as a GC community to impose aything on me as a TC that lives in Cyprus as well, when such is purely a GC will and not a general Cypriot one and by defintition exludes me and seperates us as a unitary people. Belgiums federal model is probably the closet starting point. With suitable modifications for the differences in the Belgium situation to the Cyprus one I could happily see a solution along such lines.

That was your answer? To that claim I have already explained to you that EU is an association of sovereign independent states, and therefore the unit is the state.

Ill try and nmake it simple for you Piratis.

You claim one person one vote is fundamental principal of democracy. I respond by giving you an example of a democratic insitution that does not run simply on one member one vote. You then respond in turn by saying 'you want as a solution in cyprus what EU states have between themselves within the EU'

Can you see where you are going wrong yet? The EU is NOT an example of the kind of solution I want in Cyprus. It is an example of why your assertion that one person one vote is a fudamental of democracy is clearly bollocks (or nonsense if u prefer).

In countries the unit is the citizen, who I agree with you can be grouped into different administrative regions (but always free to move to whatever region they like), but people are never divided based on the ethnic group they belong as such thing would be undemocratic and racist.

The problem in Cyprus , histocially, is that as a community you did divide us as cypriots along racist lines, sought a future for Cyprus that was based on you being a part of a non cypriot race different from me as a cypriot and then sought to impose this on me. The inevitable consequence of this history is that a future solution has to take account of these 'ethnic elements' in it if it is to address the problems we made as cypriots in the past.
Belgium is federaly divided into geographical areas that also represent differnet ethnic groups within Belgium. Such a model would be suitable and acceptbale to me for Cyprus. The only differance I would require to the belgium example would be some kind of (time limited possibly) protection to ensure that two geogrpahical based federal elements to do not both come under numerical domination of GC. The reason for wanting some kind of protection to ensure this is nothing to do with me wanting apartheid or being fundamentaly undemocratic as you would like to make out. The reason for wanting such is that the potential of both geographicaly based federal units both comming under numerical GC domination is real and it would UNDERMINE the whole point and basis of such a settlement.

Yes, you say that, but then what you describe is very similar to an association between two separate countries and not one country. You even use EU as an example. The essence is what is important here, not the labels.

I simply can not be held responsible for things you have imagined I have said. In this thread to date excluding this post I have limited myself to talking about why your assertions on democracy (and to a degree human rights) are largley bollocks. As far as I have spoken about a solution it has only ever been in terms of 'principles' like the right for TC to have an equal voice as a community ONLY on issue that are COMMUNAL. Beyond that I have said NOTHING about the kind of system I want and nor could this limited principal be said to be what states within the EU have between themselves as states. Yet you imagine I HAVE laid out what kind of system I want and continue to imagine I have used the EU as an example of what kind of system I want. Again I really do not know how to say this any clearer? I use the EU as an example of why your claims about democracy are bollocks and NOT as an example of the kind of system I want in Cyprus. Let me try and be clearer.

You = democracy is blah blah blah. Me = EU , bollocks.

NOTHING to do with what kind of system I want in CYprus. OK ? Clear now ?

If there was a separation imposed, that was imposed by the Turks during their barbaric rule of Cyprus, where they divided people between Christian GCs and higher class Muslims, where GCs had almost no rights and paid twice as much taxes.

Yes Piratis a rule that ENDED in 1872. I am talking of the speration of us as COMMUNITES of CYPRIOTS in cyprus by people that are still alive today and is still be justified by you today. Do I claim that in todays terms or even in general terms conquest and rule of Cyprus by ottomans (or any other foreign power) was right or just? No I do not. Yet you CONTINUE to argue that the actions of your community in the 50's and 60's was right and just. The reality is that our division and speration as communites living in Cyprus as a sovreign state are directly related in time and action to how your community behaved in recent history and indirectly related in time and action to an ottoman rule in CYprus that ended in 1872.

And don't tell me that is "ancient history". It was merely 7 decades before the events of the 50s.

Too late I have already done so.

So cut your double standards and selective use of history. Do you want to finally leave the past behind and move ahead as a normal democratic country like all the rest, or you want to continue the war?

It is not selective use of history at all Piratis. It is common sense. The relevance of history to today is a sliding scale that dimishes over time. The futher back the less relevant. Then there are key 'jump points' as well where status quo changes where again the relevance of hsitory to today dimishes with this status quo changes. Independence in the 60's was on of these 'jump points'. British annexation another. End of Ottoman rule another. Beginning of Ottoman rule another. What is TRUELY a propaganda based distortion of history is the idea that we are where we are today as much because of our own acts as COMMUNITES in the recent past and after the recent changes in status quo as we are for acts comitted hundreds of years ago and several staus quo changes ago. That is the REAL manipulation of history and one you seem addicted to.

The people of Cyprus are the Cypriots. If you don't want to be part of Cypriots thats your problem, not mine.

You simply can not claim that the people of Cyprus are Cypriots when you sought to destory Cyprus as a nation and state and people because you were GREEK. Only a madman or a fantic would try and insit on such a claim. I suspect there are elements of both in you Piratis.

It is like telling me that the peoples that the colonialists (Spanish, English, French, Ottomans etc) spread around the world during their empires should now have their own separate self-determination rights in the countries they formerly ruled because they have small minorities there.
The UN exactly talks about the freedom of people like us from their colonialists. So stop trying to blur things when they are very clear.

No it is nothing like that at all. Those colonial people sought to establish their OWN states free of colonial rule and certainly foreigners (remants of the colonial rulers or not) who already have a state and people of their own have no sperate right of self determiation. What makes Cyprus atypical is exactly the fact that GC did not seek to simply end colonial rule, an objective that could and would have been supported by ALL Cypriots. They sought to annex Cyprus from former colonial rules to another country as if as an ethnic group in cyprus that consider themselves part of this other country was the ONLY ethnic group in cyprus or the only one that mattered or had rights. That is the problem.

Your rights are those of a minority in Cyprus,

No Piratis they are not, not when you make my numrical minority a sperate people from you in our shared homeland, by pursuing an agenda that makes me not the same people as you. In a situation such as this my rights are those of a seperate people that shares cyprus with you as a homeland. This is exactly the right your community tried to deny me and you continue to try and justify and that is the cornerstone of all other rights.

This is ignoring the small detail of the 60's agreements, which are legaly valid and internationaly recognised (even if the contempt shown to them by the GC leadership since signing them is ignored), where we are legally and consitutionaly more than a mere minority within the RoC.

exactly like the Turkish minority of Bulgaria (actually they have been there for longer than you have been here).

You just do not get it do you. It is not to do with how long a ethnic group has been in a location. It is to do with if ethnic groups within an area, when seeking the end of foreign rule seek a goal that includes and can be and is shared by all ethnic groups in that are of if they seek one that excludes other ethnic groups and is shared by them. If the former happens then they can claim to be and are a 'people' . If the later happens then the one group seeking an objective that excludes the other group can not speak for all of them as a single people.

Beyond that for anything to become your right it has to either be given as a gift to you from us, or we to be forced to give it to you (as it happened with the 1960 agreements). So the max you can claim as your rights is what is in the 1960 constitution.

No piratis I can claim as my rights exactly what the UN charters on human rights lay them out to be. You can continue to deny our seperate right as a people for whom CYprus is our shared homeland by insiting that we are not a sperate people. However your claim is just totaly destroyed by the FACT that what you sought for Cyprus was NOT the will of this fictional unitary Cypriot people, but ONLY the will of your ethnic community. The basis for us being a single cypriot people, given that there was no basis in shared language or religion and limited basis in shared culture would be shared common interests and vision for our Cypriot homeland. You CHOSE to destory and such potential for a shared inclusive vision of the future for all Cypriots and in the process made me a seperate people from you for whom Cyprus was our homeland.

Nothing beyond that is your right. What you do is just enforcing what you want by military power and you have absolutely no right for it.

I have never claimed we had or have a right to impose partition in Cyprus by force of arms. Division in cyprus by force of arms is a CONSEQUENCE of your denial of my rights. It is not justifed by that denial but is a result of it none the less. I want to end such division but when you refuse to accept you deny my rights that caused division, you make it next to impossible to achieve this.

I made an effort to leave the discussion about the past and to concentrate on the future, but you apparently prefer it the other way around. OK! If you don't care to invest time for your own proposals then I am not either.

What garbage. Your 'effort' to leave the past behind was full of prejudice assertions. It required that I accept that what I wanted were 'diversions' from democracy and many other such prejudice comments. I merely have chosen to focus on countering this continued bollocks of yours.

The only reason I quoted that part from Sevgul was that I agreed with it but I didn't want to post it as mine since she wrote it first. It is just an opinion of her that I adopt.

No it is an opinion of hers that you have distorted through your own prejudice and then re present as hers and yours. She talks of the problems of mainstream TC media and some mainstream TC journalists and you pervert that into the view of TC.

That is not the same with a UN resolution or an ECHR ruling etc which is not just the opinion of some person, but facts with legal validity. Trying to distort the essence of UN resolutions is what is wrong. Saying "I agree with this position of X person" is not wrong at all, so don't try to confuse things in order to avoid answering the question.

You can make propaganda just as effectively by misrepresnting someones views as you can by selectively quoting from UN reports as your fine attmempt with the article of opinion shows.

Erolz, you reject what exists in other democratic countries, and then you give the example of EU. What does that mean?

LOL . HOW MANY TIMES ????

If you make absurd claims about democracy then IU use the EU as an example that totaly disproves this absurd claims. No more no less.

Why don't you give Turkey as an example for the democracy we should have in Cyprus.

Because it is not a suitable model at all. I have given you an example of a STATE that is a viable starting point for a system in Cyprus and explain what differences I think would be necessary and why. Still I guess you prefer to keep on asserting that I am saying I want in CYprus what states have within the EU, rather than accept the plain and simple , frequently repeated fact, that the ONLY way I use the EU as an example is to counter your bollocks claims about democracy.