Cyprus-Forum.com

[miltiades]

Eric the Plonker wrote :
"""Is this "much like a contract" that we TCs and you GCs signed in 1960 and you GCs and Greeks didn't keep to or had any intentions to honour little sock-puppet? !!!
You missed out your favourite rapsody mate !
""Instead you genocide us and killed us and forced us to ........

[Oracle]

No Oracle I didn't 'pose you a question'. I already know what your views are - page after page of endlessly repeated racist, tawdry, cheap, hate-filled drivel. I'm not in the slightest bit interested in an exchange with you - to think that I'm interested in that, let alone have an obligation to you, is just more evidence of your delusional state of mind.

Now I'll turn back to people and issues that matter.

LIAR!....so you did not pose me any questions?....

Turn where you like ... you have no INTEGRITY!

Presenting for your MOROSE DELECTATION! .......

Oracle your words don't mean anything, they've become a language private to you. How on earth can you in the same sentence write "if it [Turkey] ever gets in" [which as you well know is if it meets the membership criteria and receives no veto from existing members including Cyprus] ..." and "....it will be tantamount to invasion" [invasion written in the randomly highlighted text symptomatic of a seriously unstable mind].

Since when and in what universe has the idea of unanimous admission become synonymous with the word invasion ? I'm sorry but this is not a matter of political, legal, scientific or moral differences. The plain fact is that you are a nutcase.

What do you call those? ... from a few posts above ...

CopperLiar! .... examine the workings of your own mind first!

[Khan]

I think your arguments are irrational Oracle, based more on a disdain for Turkish people than any sound argument.

[Oracle]

How does one forfeight a right ? Surely the whole point of a right is that it cannot be alienated. But Oracle, again, you might have your own private notion of a right whizzing around your head which is unknown in the rest of the real world.

You posed me questions which I answered. My participation here grants you that right to ask me questions .... but only in exchange for similar in kind .... reciprocal arrangement ... much like a contract.

If you do not fulfill your part which is the occasional answering of a question then you forfeit any right to ask me questions and expect further replies.

This is not a court of Law, Legal executive / secretary, whatever you are ... where you come along, make a statement pose questions and leave ....

If you want to debate .... and get the most out of others you have to occasionally offer something meaningful .... even an attempt at a reply.

So far you are a let down ...

Is this "much like a contract" that we TCs and you GCs signed in 1960 and you GCs and Greeks didn't keep to or had any intentions to honour little sock-puppet?

No you sap, must I explain everything to you? ...... the Consitution was not a contract ... you TCs did nothing towards gaining it.

[Oracle]

I think your arguments are irrational Oracle, based more on a disdain for Turkish people than any sound argument.

Well that's because you are biased!

..... so why don't you answer the questions I asked you ... or are you another mouth with empty phrases?

[Khan]

Well what is there to answer, you haven't said anything intelligent or argued anything substantial. Most of your statements are gross oversimplifications, ignorant, naive or just insulting.

You state Europe has been culturally and morally united, yet ignore the centuries of conflict between European nations. Consider who sacked Istanbul in the fourth crusade and why Loukas Notaras said "Better the Sultans turban than the popes tiara" as an example.

You say Turkey forced its way into the European psyche, and is not a friend of Europe. Perhaps you should consider that Turkey before its creation was occupied by European colonial powers and its lackey Greece, and it was they who entered Turkey as enemies and not friends.

You say Turkey is nation of violence and say nothing of the violence European nations have inflicted on the world on an industrial scale. Perhaps it does not fit into your argument to know that Greece has expanded its borders no less than 4 times through conflict, 5 if it succeeded in its invasion of Turkey, and 6 if it succeeded in Cyprus. Considering that Turkey has not expanded its borders once through conflict since 1923, how can you call them expansionist?

You say Turkey does not fit in, that they are not wanted, well neither was the UK wanted when it was Charles de Gaulle who vetoed them, and neither was Greece, or Portugal or Spain wanted because southern Europeans were at one stage not considered as sharing the same "values" as northern Europe.

You say only the UK and USA support Turkey when this is obviously wrong. Sweden, Finland, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece to name a few and even Cyprus support Turkeys candidacy. In fact, most nations political elite support Turkeys entry, even if they do not say it out loud. The simple reason is their membership makes sense politically and economically for Europe.

[Oracle]

Well what is there to answer, you haven't said anything intelligent or argued anything substantial. Most of your statements are gross oversimplifications, ignorant, naive or just insulting.

You state Europe has been culturally and morally united, yet ignore the centuries of conflict between European nations. Consider who sacked Istanbul in the fourth crusade and why Loukas Notaras said "Better the Sultans turban than the popes tiara" as an example.

You say Turkey forced its way into the European psyche, and is not a friend of Europe. Perhaps you should consider that Turkey before its creation was occupied by European colonial powers and its lackey Greece, and it was they who entered Turkey as enemies and not friends.

You say Turkey is nation of violence and say nothing of the violence European nations have inflicted on the world on an industrial scale. Perhaps it does not fit into your argument to know that Greece has expanded its borders no less than 4 times through conflict, 5 if it succeeded in its invasion of Turkey, and 6 if it succeeded in Cyprus. Considering that Turkey has not expanded its borders once through conflict since 1923, how can you call them expansionist?

You say Turkey does not fit in, that they are not wanted, well neither was the UK wanted when it was Charles de Gaulle who vetoed them, and neither was Greece, or Portugal or Spain wanted because southern Europeans were at one stage not considered as sharing the same "values" as northern Europe.

You say only the UK and USA support Turkey when this is obviously wrong. Sweden, Finland, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece to name a few and even Cyprus support Turkeys candidacy. In fact, most nations political elite support Turkeys entry, even if they do not say it out loud. The simple reason is their membership makes sense politically and economically for Europe.

Khan, these were the questions I asked you ....

So why do you think they want to join so much?

What does Turkey have to offer Europe, that Europe will suffer if it lacked?

And the million dollar question which nobody can answer ... why is it only the other misfit UK, and complete outsider USA .... that make the greatest noise for Turkey to join?

CopperLiar has been avoiding the same ...

I'll read and digest what you've written above ... But I would seriously like an answer to those three, otherwise I may have to start another thread ......

(BTW ... no other country has gone out of its way to support Turkey ... not objecting is not enough!)

[CopperLine]

Khan,
Excellent, worth quoting all over again.

You state Europe has been culturally and morally united, yet ignore the centuries of conflict between European nations. Consider who sacked Istanbul in the fourth crusade and why Loukas Notaras said "Better the Sultans turban than the popes tiara" as an example.

You say Turkey forced its way into the European psyche, and is not a friend of Europe. Perhaps you should consider that Turkey before its creation was occupied by European colonial powers and its lackey Greece, and it was they who entered Turkey as enemies and not friends.

You say Turkey is nation of violence and say nothing of the violence European nations have inflicted on the world on an industrial scale. Perhaps it does not fit into your argument to know that Greece has expanded its borders no less than 4 times through conflict, 5 if it succeeded in its invasion of Turkey, and 6 if it succeeded in Cyprus. Considering that Turkey has not expanded its borders once through conflict since 1923, how can you call them expansionist?

You say Turkey does not fit in, that they are not wanted, well neither was the UK wanted when it was Charles de Gaulle who vetoed them, and neither was Greece, or Portugal or Spain wanted because southern Europeans were at one stage not considered as sharing the same "values" as northern Europe.

You say only the UK and USA support Turkey when this is obviously wrong. Sweden, Finland, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece to name a few and even Cyprus support Turkeys candidacy. In fact, most nations political elite support Turkeys entry, even if they do not say it out loud. The simple reason is their membership makes sense politically and economically for Europe.

Everything above, spot on.

... and .... you've a lot more patience than I have with the resident nutcase.

[boomerang]

Pantheman,
Let's suppose that you are right and Turkey 'has to learn'. Then the question is what is the best (i.e, most effective) and fastest way of learning : one way is to do so by offering and honouring EU membership. This gives both a carrot and a stick. Those fundamentalists who reject out of hand Turkey's EU membership can offer neither carrot nor stick.

A bit of EU history is instructive for this example. The application of Greece, Spain and Portugal were all encouraged by existing EEC members in order to encourage and consolidate the democratic transformation of those states following (long) periods of military dictatorship. Each of those three states were not adequately democratic etc when they applied for membership but the prospect of membership acted as the carrot for reform. I think that this model is applicable to Turkey. (Again, if Turkey does not democratise, make constitutional changes, revise the criminal code, etc, then who is going to suffer ? Turkish citizens, and Cypriot citizens. So again, you can have Turkey pissing in or you can try to stop Turkey pissing at all).


Following Boomers and Oracles 'logic' Turkey is irremediable; their argument is basically one of saying if Turkey reforms and joins the EU it will still fuck the EU and Cyprus and anywhere else ('cos that's what Turks are like'); if it doesn't reform and join the EU it will still fuck the EU and Cyprus. Not only is that a literally hopeless argument, but is is of absolutely no help to Cyprus.[/i]

Really spinmeister?...What I am saying there is no way in hell "turkey=fascists state" is ready,...not alone not ready to join in 7 to 8 years, but not even ready for a date...Not while you got boy scouts running aroung ordering the government at a every turn of the wheel...

How about the government reigning in the boy scouts and stop trying to alter the rules for accession...You think she can do all that on her own?...or you think the EU is gonna invade and impose the changes?

Do try and not run ahead of yourself spinmeister...The biggest challenge is gonna have to come within...something to this very day she demostrated she is incapable of doing...

[CopperLine]

A rhetorical question is a statement which does not require an answer.

Just because there is a question mark at the end of a sentence does not make it a question requiring an answer.

Not all questions are demanding of an answer. For example, "not all questions are demanding of an answer ?" That is one of the beauties of the English language.

A question which asks "In what universe has the idea of .... " is not anticipating an answer, except from the most dimwitted literalist who might answer "not in an M-theory universe, but only in an F-theory universe..."


Finally, I am not a liar. A lie entails a deliberate intention to mislead or to knowingly speak an untruth. What Oracle described as a lie presupposes that she knew what my intention was - and of course she didn't know what my intention was. She thought I was asking her a question. But I was not asking her a question. Her presumption was a mistake on her part. I will not call her a liar for this mistake, for I do not know whether she had an intention to deceive readers of her posts. However I do think she made a mistake in accusing me of lying. In fact I think that I can name the kind of mistake that she made - I think she made what the English philosopher Gilbert Ryle labelled a 'category mistake' or 'category error'. So, that said, I was not lying when I said that I was not 'posing a question' to Oracle, and nor do I think that Oracle was lying when she made some rambling accusation. She's just highly susceptible to making category errors.

So, when I write "who in the hell would respond to this bizarre post ?" I'm not, Oracle, expecting an answer, even from you.