Cyprus-Forum.com

[MicAtCyp]

Bananiot,

I think you missed very important discussions in this forum regarding the concept of political equality. So I consider your "oh dear" sighs as..... lets say inappropriate under the circumstances.

Concerning Papadopoulos the only thing he ever said about this matter is that Political equality does not mean arithmetic equality. In other words it does not mean 50-50 on everything. Do you agree with this yes or no? If you disagree then How is your definition different from that of Papadopoulos? And please don't repeat me your hearsay gossip about Papadopoulos as an answer.

Furthermore you failed to answer me how you view the equality principle applied to the GCs as individual human beings.

I repeat my question:

How about our own equality as human beings, should we donate 2/3rd of our properties to those who got it by force and thereafter gave half of it to the settlers? Should we be restricted basic human rights like for example to live in a place where -what the hell- we pay taxes for it to exist as well?

Should I repeat it for ever Bananiot?

I am making a political judgment of an elected person who is accountable for his actions or inactions.

Which of course is totally based on hearsay unfounded allegations, most of which contradict with facts that already occured. If Papadopoulos was against the Political equality of groups he wouldn’t send an urgent letter to Anan last year to resume the talks based on Anan Plan.

Could all GC users state clearly whether they accept or not political equality of the two communities?

Erol could you kindly copy the link for our friend Bananiot of the thread we are discussing this matter and we even agreed if it were possible to go to the UN to set it as standard? I am kind of lost in this forum, it will take me hours to spot it. I warn you Bananiot thats a big thread about 18 pages but it worths it.
At least it will save us some time understanding each other in here....

[Bananiot]

"If Papadopoulos was against the Political equality of groups he wouldn’t send an urgent letter to Anan last year to resume the talks based on Anan Plan"

Oh dear! So, your judgement here tells you that the letter he sent to the SG is a proof of his acceptance of political equality of the communities! I thought that he was buying time in order to get us safely into the EE by showing that we were willing to solve the problem according to the SG's plan. The world leaders weren't tricked for nothing ...

Anyway, sound political judgement is a must if one is to understand underlying thought. Papadopoulos insists on functionality and viability and this says a lot, even to the unsuspecting. He reckons that decisions that need the approval from the other side too, make governance dysfunctional. This is sound proof that he does not want political equality of the communities. He also tries to be "clever" about it too, by repeating that he does not object to personal equality, that is, political equality for the individual person. This is a totally different thing and no one will buy it. This is so obvious. World leaders and people that matter understand it very well. Only the natives seem to have a problem, but this is a symptom which results from the wearing of blinkers for too long a time.

The gist of the matter is that Papadopoulos will take us no where with his insistence on this issue. Rather, he is leading us to permanent partition but many G. Cypriots, in their private conversations, are already flirting with this treacherous idea. Since Papadopoulos is not stupid, it can easily be deduced that he prefers partition to political equality of the communities. He has already said this publicly, but people prefer not to listen.

[MicAtCyp]

One questionable argument from Bananiot and a lot of rhetoric.
Sorry I am not used in discussing this way.This is totally meaningless.
Whenever you want to avoid the discussion you start a rhetoric.This makes me sleepy man, sorry..

Anyway here is the link of the thread I told you.

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.p ... 6&start=50

[Bananiot]

Sweet dreams ... hope the Muazzin's summon does not distract your sleep too much.

[pantelis]

The “NO” front's policies between 2002 and 2004 will cost us a lot in the near future.

You'll see that Greek Cypriots will fully utilize their advantage.

I hope those who opposed the Annan plan, and especially Rauf Denktaş, realize what they have done. I wonder if they see the mistakes they made. Maybe they still believe they did the right thing.

Let's not blame Greek leader Tassos Papadopoulos for everything. We shouldn't even blame the EU.

I was us who made the mistakes.

We used the wrong tactics and wasted a lot of time deciding on what to do.

We have no reason to blame anyone but ourselves.

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/arti ... ewsid=8053


http://groups.msn.com/CyprusForum/gener ... 5663048244

http://groups.msn.com/Cyprustalks/gener ... _Last=1406

[insan]

Pantelis, it is true that in 2002 Turkish side did a mistake by hiding behind the delaying tactics. However if they didn't make that mistake; the negotiations would have completed earlier; maybe in early 2003 and the referanda would have been held in mid 2003. Norhing would have changed because none of the relevant parties would have agreed on key issues.

In conclusion, the stance of "no front" and Turkey's delaying tactics in 2002 only gave a negative image to international community. But when Turkey changed her stance to be more pro-active and gave support to "yes front", everything returned to normal, even in favour of Turkish side.


Now it is Hellenic side that hiding behind the delaying tactics. Let's see where this delaying tactics will lead us...

[-mikkie2-]

However if they didn't make that mistake; the negotiations would have completed earlier; maybe in early 2003 and the referanda would have been held in mid 2003. Norhing would have changed because none of the relevant parties would have agreed on key issues.

Insan,

How can you tell? The object of the exercise was to reach an AGREED solution. In all likelyhood Clerides would have agreed to the plan, as we saw his stand in the actual referenda last year. Perhaps the vote if the referendum was done during the Clerides reign would have been positive from our side. The plan may have also been subtly different to A5. Again, you just don't know. If the solution was agreed by the politicians then perhaps the plan would have gone through.

In any case, A5 was not an agreed solution. It is telling that both Greece AND Turkey did not agree to the security arrangements of the plan, yet the Turks keep saying that they agreed to everything and did their bit!

[insan]

However if they didn't make that mistake; the negotiations would have completed earlier; maybe in early 2003 and the referanda would have been held in mid 2003. Norhing would have changed because none of the relevant parties would have agreed on key issues.

Insan,

How can you tell? The object of the exercise was to reach an AGREED solution.

The object of the last 40 years was the same but they never could have managed to reach and AGREED solution.

In all likelyhood Clerides would have agreed to the plan, as we saw his stand in the actual referenda last year. Perhaps the vote if the referendum was done during the Clerides reign would have been positive from our side.

Clerides and %30 or %40 of the GCs might have supported the final outcome as "the best possible". however the certain political groups such as Diko, split part of DESI, EDEK and a part of AKEL would oppose the final outcome with the same arguments: "European Solution", "compatibility with acquis communautaire", "ethnic discrimination", "disguised partition", "Guarantees for implementation of the plan", "Anglo-Saxon games" etc... In the end, majority of GCs would reject the plan.

The plan may have also been subtly different to A5. Again, you just don't know. If the solution was agreed by the politicians then perhaps the plan would have gone through.

Which issues would have changed in favour of GC community, in your opinion? Majority rule? Nullification of treaty of guarantee and treaty of alliance? Repatriation of all settlers? No restrictions on freedom of movement? Return of all refugees?

In any case, A5 was not an agreed solution. It is telling that both Greece AND Turkey did not agree to the security arrangements of the plan, yet the Turks keep saying that they agreed to everything and did their bit!

Turks keep saying that it is a "balanced" plan.

[MicAtCyp]

hope the Muazzin's summon does not distract your sleep too much.

Whatever you say Muazzinoglu

[Bananiot]

To cut a long story short. When Tasos asks for negotiations with no strict timetable, no arbitration and an agreed solution, he really means that he does not want a solution. It is plain obvious and it beats me that some people in this forum cannot make a simple political deduction. Probably Christofias is in this as well (are you pellos Mehmet, of course I will say yes!) because 100 members of his Central Committee heard him explain that he will "push the plan a bit to the side, gradually, until it is overturned" (mexri na to poukouppisoume).