Piratis wrote:zan wrote:Piratis wrote:An anonymous document can not verify anything. What is verified is what we all know about with or without some anonymous document. For example the map of partitioned Cyprus that Kucuk officially proposed back in 1957 clearly showed the plans that Turks had for Cyprus since then. Apparently you have not changed your aim.
In defence of what is the question.......ENOSIS perhaps.....ENOSIS was not an option so plans were made in case......A bit different to the Akritas Plan which tried to manipulate the situation so ENOSIS was achievable. We have always been against ENOSIS...Where is the surprise in that...
On the contrary, back in 1957 when Kucuk was publishing maps of partition, Enosis has been our right, which was denied to us by the colonialists. On the other hand, partition, which involves the ethnic cleansing of 100s of thousands of people, has never been a legitimate option.
Go here and read the resolution about decolonization. There you will find that "integration into an independent State" was one of "the three legitimate options" for a territory that is decolonized if this is what the population of that territory choices in a democratic way.
The colonialists and the former rulers Turks have used force to deny to the Cypriot people their right.
Piratis, you keep on mentioning these Partition maps. But what do you expect when we knew all along your intentions of 'Enosis'. Contingency plans would have to be made to counteract these notions of Enosis, your rights or not. No sensible person would really believe in Partition but that is where you are driving us.
Regards Have a nice day