Cyprus-Forum.com

[MicAtCyp]

Yes I might be sloopy reading sometimes and I have no problem admitting that. I'm not one of those always-right, too proud to admit they're wrong, types.

Maybe you can do the same and instead of blaming me for being sloppy in reading, you can try to learn how to express yourself properly so everyone can understand.

Well Metecyp,

despite your opinion that I never admit I am wrong, I many times admitted it when someone proved me wrong. And for this particular case I will again admit I was not very clear. But then on the other hand I said many times in this forum that I am rude only when I reply to rude posts.You should actually check to see why I was so rude and I am sure you would easily spot the reason. Insans statement was rude in the sense that he was referring to your feelings as a past Governor or Ruler of the enslaved GCs during the Ottoman era. And I did include that part FIRST in my original quote didn't I?

So if you want me to be absolutely clear to what i meant then heres an ammendment.

YOUR FEELINGS AS A PAST GOVERNOR OR RULER OF THE ENSLAVED GCs DURING THE OTTOMAN ERA CAN GO TO HELL.

Was I right to what I replied or was I wrong? Please answer honestly.

************************************

So lets make a solution that gives effective political control to TC in Cyprus and the problem is solved!

Are the TCs 82%??????

************************************

Third: lose what, man? Our 'Hellenicity'? Maybe it will lose hellenicity and gain cypriotism. But I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'losing everything'. Maybe you could explain it further.

No, I meant lose the rest of Cyprus. And then have no other choice than immigrate abroad been a stranger among strangers, working with minimum salary, and start your life all over again from ZERO. Because this is what would happen if the Anan Plan was accepted. The state would collapse within 6 months in every aspect you can imagine: Politically, economically, socially. Then the rule of the jungle would prevail. Perhaps you cannot apprehend a situation where the state itself collapses. Look at what happened in the Ex Eastern block to realise that. Families selling their babies for a piece of bread, women working in whorehouses abroad selling their bodies just to send some money to their kids. You would not simply have to work harder son.As for losing your Hellenism and stuff like that, thats the last thing you would propably have to worry about.

[garbitsch]

You've got Insan's point wrong Mic!!! Just like you have been existing in Cyprus for thousands of years, you do not want to live under the yoke of another nation. Right? We, Turkish Cypriots, who had never less priviledged than Greek Cypriots, not under British rule, even under the original Republic of CYprus. And when G.Cs attempted to take our rights, we started resisting and we ended up coming to this point. You both want to go back to your houses, and rule over the Turkish Cypriots, and you think the T.Cs will compromise. Where is your sacrifice? Where is your compromise? So, please stop calling people idiots, garbage, or other rude names, and try to come with some tangible ideas that will benefit BOTH sides.

[Saint Jimmy]

Perhaps you cannot apprehend a situation where the state itself collapses.

Equally, perhaps you cannot apprehend a situation where a country is truly reunited on two of the aspects you mentioned in the short and medium term (politically and socially), and on the remaining third in the long term (economically). No transition can be 'safe' and frictionless, and it would be utopian to expect it to be. It's part of the deal, part of the compromise. If we want to be in the kitchen, we have to take the heat.

The rest you mentioned are mere expectations, speculations, estimations, call it what you will. I think your generation prefers to focus on whether the milk is white or black, instead of whether it's milk or not. Just think of the possibilities if, contrary to your belief, we managed to get through the first 6 months, or two years, or whatever.

This 'generation' thing is quite interesting... We haven't been through what you've been through, that's true. But that's why we're not interested in payback. GCs were at +10 in the '60s, fucked up and managed to go to -10 in 1974, and you want to go to 0 now. We'd be happy to go to -3, as a start.

[turkcyp]

This 'generation' thing is quite interesting... We haven't been through what you've been through, that's true. But that's why we're not interested in payback. GCs were at +10 in the '60s, fucked up and managed to go to -10 in 1974, and you want to go to 0 now. We'd be happy to go to -3, as a start.

Saint Jimmy TCs would be more than pleased if GCs are willing to go 0. Afterall they had voted "Yes" for Annan Plan where it was probably +1 or +2 for GCs. The problem as I see it is that GCs do not want to go back to 0, they want to go back to +10, or in other words constituional environment of post 63. That is not acceptable to TCs.

My humble opinion,

p.s. Why we think A. Plan was +1 or +2 for GCs. If we accept 1960 as 0, then all the constituional rights of TCs from 1960 agremments are diluted, and in return we have been given a temporary bizonality. Nothing else. (temporary because it would have been turned from EU courts easily as the A. Plan would not be a part of "primary law in EU")

And a further ps. I disagree with you that 1974 was -10 for GCs. They do not have to share power with TCs anymore like 1960 do they. So it can not be -10. It may be somewhere around may be -5. -10 would be if GCs after 1974 start giving our rights back from 1960 constituion and still do not get their land back. (this is half joke, half serious. Nobody can quantify these things as -10 or +10, but I was just flowing with your analogy, to bring another aspect that people tend to forget. Which is for the TCs under RoC administration their righst from 1960 constituion is still toppled.)

[Saint Jimmy]

Yes, there are valid points there, turkcyp. But the point was not the numbers themselves, but their 'spirit', so to speak, i.e., what they represent. I have no problem accepting your figures, although I reserve agreement on the post-1974 'minus figure'.

[MicAtCyp]

You both want to go back to your houses, and rule over the Turkish Cypriots, and you think the T.Cs will compromise. Where is your sacrifice? Where is your compromise?

And where is your sacrifice Garbitsch? Where is your compromise? Do you think giving us back what was ours on the first place is a compromise and a sacrifice? The loading us of almost as many settlers as your current population is a compromise and a sacrifice?Just give me one single right of yours which you are willing to sacrifice to justify your demand that we should sacrifice another right of ours.

By the way if you want me to consider Insans point as a valid point to think about, then you should also consider as a valid point that the GCs seeked to retaliate on you for the years of oppression under the Ottoman and later British rule which grated you so many rights for been "previous rulers". In this respect why do you complain for your sufferings in the 60s? You should have taken them for granted, and even accept to have no rights in a new solution because the so many years of oppression is enough excuse to deprive you of everything in retaliation.

Anyway I don't want to use harsh language again, the least I can say it was a ridiculous and offending argument.

Equally, perhaps you cannot apprehend a situation where a country is truly reunited on two of the aspects you mentioned in the short and medium term (politically and socially), and on the remaining third in the long term (economically). No transition can be 'safe' and frictionless, and it would be utopian to expect it to be. It's part of the deal, part of the compromise. If we want to be in the kitchen, we have to take the heat.

Who said I cannot apprehend what you said? The question is, would that happen? In your opinion it would. In my opinion (which is shared by 76% of the GCs) it would not. Can you prove it or can I prove it? The answer is no. Can we duscuss it? Of course we can, but whats the point.

What is there however about the Anan Plan are indisputable FACTS. I presented many of them in this forum, those who wanted to learn-as you claim to do-should have already learned.

One of those undisputable FACTS is that unless the Anan Plan became a primary EU law the Generals of Turkey were NOT oblidged abide to the agreement, and thus move no single soldier out, return not a inch of land, allow not a single refugee to return, etc etc.This is the first FACT for a start.

PS. Do you understand now why their US+UN clients did not include our demand that the Plan is first approved by the Turkish National assembly before been put at a referendum?

[Saint Jimmy]

One of those undisputable FACTS is that unless the Anan Plan became a primary EU law the Generals of Turkey were NOT oblidged abide to the agreement, and thus move no single soldier out, return not a inch of land, allow not a single refugee to return, etc etc.This is the first FACT for a start.

PS. Do you understand now why their US+UN clients did not include our demand that the Plan is first approved by the Turkish National assembly before been put at a referendum?

Let me get this straight: right now, Turkey is in trouble (or is going to be in trouble, some time in the future), because she is violating International Law and various Treaties, right? This is the key assumption on which T-Pap's strategy is based, with which, I presume, you agree, for the most part.
In contrast, you assume that, because they wouldn't be obliged to endorse the A-Plan (which I am not denying), they necessarily wouldn't... (or else, what's the argument you put forth above?) But wouldn't that bring us back to the previous paragraph?
Further, are we in agreement that Erdogan accepted the A-Plan because it served Turkey's goals and solved its part of the Cyprus problem? Surely, if it didn't solve any of their problems, he wouldn't have accepted it. Also, are we in agreement that these problems, besides Turkey's concerns of the TC community's interests, include her own international legality issues of violating UN resolutions, the UN Charter and the Treaty of Guarantee? If we are, please explain to me why you think the Generals or whoever else would choose to violate the A-Plan provisions, thus recreating the same problems it solved for them.

[NickTheGreek]

One of those undisputable FACTS is that unless the Anan Plan became a primary EU law the Generals of Turkey were NOT oblidged abide to the agreement, and thus move no single soldier out, return not a inch of land, allow not a single refugee to return, etc etc.This is the first FACT for a start.

PS. Do you understand now why their US+UN clients did not include our demand that the Plan is first approved by the Turkish National assembly before been put at a referendum?

Let me get this straight: right now, Turkey is in trouble (or is going to be in trouble, some time in the future), because she is violating International Law and various Treaties, right? This is the key assumption on which T-Pap's strategy is based, with which, I presume, you agree, for the most part.
In contrast, you assume that, because they wouldn't be obliged to endorse the A-Plan (which I am not denying), they necessarily wouldn't... (or else, what's the argument you put forth above?) But wouldn't that bring us back to the previous paragraph?
Further, are we in agreement that Erdogan accepted the A-Plan because it served Turkey's goals and solved its part of the Cyprus problem? Surely, if it didn't solve any of their problems, he wouldn't have accepted it. Also, are we in agreement that these problems, besides Turkey's concerns of the TC community's interests, include her own international legality issues of violating UN resolutions, the UN Charter and the Treaty of Guarantee? If we are, please explain to me why you think the Generals or whoever else would choose to violate the A-Plan provisions, thus recreating the same problems it solved for them.

Are you english?

[Kifeas]

Are you english?

[Saint Jimmy]

Andrik?
I thought it was Nick's quote...?
Anyways, sorted via pm.