The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Turkey continues to use Cyprus as a trump card until.....

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Postby pantelis » Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:09 am

Dear Erol (and other co-hardliners),
For someone who was not born in Cyprus and has no first hand experience of the Cyprus history, especially the 63-74 part which you regularly refer to, you think to be very well "informed" of what the Cyprus problem is all about;

Your stance is that, since the GCs mistreated the TCs over the 11 years (63-74), the Turks with the TCs are justified in committing the crimes and ethnic cleansing at the expense of a major portion of the island's population.

Since you are such a "book-smart" person, you should also be aware that the problems between the GCs and the Turks did not begin in 1955 or in 1963, but in 1570.

In an orgy of victory on the day that the city fell--September 9, 1570--20,000 Nicosians were put to death, and every church, public building, and palace was looted. Word of the massacre spread, and a few days later Mustafa took Kyrenia without having to fire a shot. Famagusta, however, resisted and put up a heroic defense that lasted from September 1570 until August 1571. http://countrystudies.us/cyprus/7.htm


Three hundred years of Turkish rule, could fill many pages of misery for the GC people.

Eighty two years of British colonialism, added many more pages of exploitation, degradation and misery for the GCs, while the Moslems, later labeled TCs for obvious reasons, enjoyed preferential treatment by the British, at the expense of the "Christians", labeled GCs.
It is no secret that the TCs had taken the side of the British, during the GCs' liberation struggle.

To top the GCs life of misery, the British stepped aside (without leaving the island) by forcing the GCs to accept a constitution designed to divide and torture the people and island to this day.

The aspirations of the Greek Cypriots, for which they had fought during the emergency, were not realized. Cyprus would not be united with Greece, as most of the population had hoped, but neither would it be partitioned, which many had feared. The unsatisfactory but acceptable alternative was independence. The Turkish Cypriot community, which had fared very well at the bargaining table, accepted the agreements willingly. http://countrystudies.us/cyprus/12.htm


The seeds of un-democratic and divisive structure of the imposed 1960 constitution, became the crops of strife and hatred between the already divided people, which led to crimes and atrocities committed by small groups of fanatics, and the pathetic reaction of the general public, during the events of 63/64 and the artificial isolation of the TCs until the 1974 invasion.

I have tried to reason with you and other TCs on this forum, many times. I have tried to explain to you that it is high time we turn the page, all pages from 1570 till today, and to try to form a political system of the 21st century, where all the people are treated as equals, in all respects. Your responses: “63-74”, “political equality” “we are not a minority” etc, etc.

I said ok. We need to start from somewhere, as long as we are going in the right direction. I suggested the rule of simple community majority for the support of united sovereign country. Your response: simple majority is not enough, we prefer 2/3 or ¾ approval by each side , etc etc.
http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=1195

When I suggested to close the gates, though, everybody protested. That is a good sign. No one wants a “divorce ”, but very few are bothered to live in a “separation”. For the politicians, the current situation is a period of stability” and personal security.
No Change.

I give up!


PS
I will be in Cyprus in July, for four weeks. If anyone wants to meet with me, with or with other forum members, set it up and let me know when and where. If not, that's fine, I have lots to keep busy!
Last edited by pantelis on Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
pantelis
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 2:41 am
Location: USA

Postby boulio » Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:20 am

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=37735

the only reason turkey has interest in cyprus,not for the t/c never was about them,but erzo dosent seem to underatnd this or just dosent want to understand it.
boulio
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2575
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 6:45 am

Postby erolz » Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:53 am

pantelis wrote:I have tried to reason with you and other TCs on this forum, many times. I have tried to explain to you that it is high time we turn the page, all pages from 1570 till today, and to try to form a political system of the 21st century, where all the people are treated as equals, in all respects. Your responses: “63-74”, “political equality” “we are not a minority” etc, etc.


You mean you still deny the TC community it's rights today just as 'you' have done since Cyprus gained independance? If we are to draw a line under everything from 1570 (and why start in 1570 - the greeks took Cyprus by force from the Persians who had taken it from the Egytians who had taken it from the Assyrians who took it from the neolithic people who lived there and so on and so on) all the way to today then why do you claim to want back property lost in 74? Is that not 'in the past'? Is that 'turning the page'? It seems you do not want to draw a line under the past - just a line under the past from the point when you became the greater losers?

pantelis wrote:I said ok. We need to start from somewhere, as long as we are going in the right direction. I suggested the rule of simple community majority for the support of united sovereign country. Your response: simple majority is not enough, we prefer 2/3 or ¾ approval by each side , etc etc.
http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=1195


My response? My response was that I would accept the majority will of my community. Are you confusing me with someone else or just distorting facts as need?

pantelis wrote:PS
I will be in Cyprus in July, for four weeks. If anyone wants to meet with me, with or with other forum members, set it up and let me know when and where. If not, that's fine, I have lots to keep busy!


I will try and arrange a general meeting for the summer. In any case general meeting or not I would be willing to meet with anyone - indivdualy or in groups, in the north or the south or in the middle. Just let me know when you are here.
erolz
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Girne / Kyrenia

Postby pantelis » Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:21 am

It seems you do not want to draw a line under the past - just a line under the past from the point when you became the greater losers?


"greater losers" is the key phraze, Erol.

These "greater losers" are still alive, Erol. Can you look at them with a straight face and tell them to "forget about it, let's be friends again!"?
pantelis
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 2:41 am
Location: USA

Postby erolz » Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:51 am

pantelis wrote:
It seems you do not want to draw a line under the past - just a line under the past from the point when you became the greater losers?


"greater losers" is the key phraze, Erol.

These "greater losers" are still alive, Erol. Can you look at them with a straight face and tell them to "forget about it, let's be friends again!"?


Have you read what I posted elsewhere? I stated explictly elsewhere that I do not expect or think reasonable that GC should just forget everything they lost from 74 onwards - just as I do not expect or think it is reasonable for GC to want TC to forget what they lost from 60. That's my point. You are the one saying I will not forget what we lost at the same time you say why should GC forget what they lost. You lost property in 74 and we lost 'partnership status' in 63. You want back what you lost just as I want back what we lost. Is that not reasonable? What I think is unreasonable are arguments that you should get back what you lost in 74 and we should forget what we lost in 63.
erolz
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Girne / Kyrenia

Postby MicAtCyp » Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:50 pm

Erol wrote: Under pressure no doubt but 'blackmail' ?

Unfortunately it was under blackmail Erol. The proposal was we are tired of you.Either this or we proceed to partition giving half of Cyprus back to Turkey where from we took it.
Consent of Greece yes, I agree. Greece used us because she wanted to expand.Anything satisfying her expansion would be fine. The fact is they (the Greeks) had their plans already made up.
The Cyprus problem is actually due to Greece and Turkey.If those 2 did not exist we wouldnt have a problem, nor want Enosis’es and Taxims.
Makarios was very hesitant because he was the only one caring for his place.The rest (Greece included) were just looking for what they would get out of nothing...

Erol wrote: Just read the Akritas plan. The echos of your words today to its words then are sinister and scary imo.


Haaa????

Yep everything 'normal' then.


I said almost normal. And that was in relation to the conditions of 1963.

That it was only because they agreed to extended the trade protocol to include the RoC that they got the agreement for start of accession process and that if there was no 'Cyprus trump card' they would not. Madness. Sheer madness.


Be careful ! That was in my comments of "removing points" from the trump card. Do you disagree the road of Turkey to EU will remove points from the trump card?

It is a 'trump card' not for Turkish EU entry but the trump card for those GC that want to this. As you say to be used in whole or in part, slice by slice to gain concessions from Turkey over their protection of TC. That is why TP does not want a solution now.


Realities....

MicAtCyp do you believe that a 40 stone 6 foot person has the same rights as a 6 stone 4.5 foot person?


I do.Do you beleive that the 4.5 ft person can claim equality in height with the 6 foot one? And whats wrong accepting the fact that you are short rather than insisting you need the tall guy holding you up to his height for eternity?
User avatar
MicAtCyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:10 am

Postby insan » Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:21 pm

Pantelis wrote:

It is no secret that the TCs had taken the side of the British, during the GCs' liberation struggle.


Liberation struggle? Under the command of a wery well known monarcho fascist, Grivas? How could those "liberation" fighters embraced such a monarcho-fascist Grivas? Do you know how many liberation fighters were slaughtered by the commander of "liberation", Grivas between 1946-55, in Greece?

Which conquerers in history treated their slaves humanely in the age of conquerors?

You are still trying to distort the facts of conquerors age with modern times in orde to justify the Hellenic arguments.

Waste of time, Pantelis.
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9044
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby cannedmoose » Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:45 pm

I think the whole 'liberation struggle' would have been a whole lot more liberating and a lot less struggle had EOKA not used violence as a mechanism to force the British from the island. It's probably been discussed on here ad nauseum, but ultimately the British would have left, the evidence of the withdrawal from Empire is compelling on that score. Once the colonies east of Suez had been dissolved, the rationale for continued occupation of Cyprus was gone. As someone who disagrees with the maintenance of the SBAs and ToG, they are also a colonial overhang that should be at least modernised (i.e. in the form of a 50 or 99 year leasehold).

The EOKA 'struggle' only served to alienate the peoples of Cyprus. The TCs did gain from Britain's colonisation of Cyprus and could foresee the dimunition of their interests if the EOKAites gained power. Thus, they were forced into Britain's arms, they were not so much taking sides as forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. The conflict left a bitter lasting taste between Cyprus and the UK and to the rapid drafting and implementation of a very complex and difficult constitution that ultimately proved unmanageable. If they'd looked instead to the example of Gandhi, a better outcome could have been achieved.

Anyway, history is history, we can't change that now.
User avatar
cannedmoose
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:06 pm
Location: England

Postby magikthrill » Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:31 pm

pantelis,

i will have to agree with cannedmoose and erolz on the liberation struggle. If the goal of EOKA was to achieve Enosis then why would the TCs want to participate in the struggle if this would mean their potential removal from the island?
magikthrill
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2245
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:09 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Postby erolz » Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:18 pm

cannedmoose wrote:I think the whole 'liberation struggle' would have been a whole lot more liberating and a lot less struggle had EOKA not used violence as a mechanism to force the British from the island.


Just for info / reference your view is very close to that of John Reddaway's views in this regard in his book 'burdend with Cyprus'. The following link contains an extract from that book (just above the post linked too)

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.p ... daway#3315
erolz
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Girne / Kyrenia

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest