Cyprus-Forum.com

[Bananiot]

Takis Konis, a sociologist, tries to paint the portrait of the persons that in one way or another see partition as the only solution to the Cyprus problem or at best the second best solution. He has called for researching the matter so that the results can be a tool in the hands of Christofias who is currently engaged in negotiations with Mehmet Ali Talat. Konis claims that those calling for velvet divorce fall into one of the following three categories.

1. The desperate ones

They reckon that they do want solution as sought by our leaders but since they cannot see an agreement materializing in the near future and partition is practically consolidated with every day that passes, we should, they argue, compromise with the realities and try to make the most of our lives.

2. The traditional nationalists

They say that new structures (BBF) which are discussed are looking to make us co govern the island with the Turks. This, they claim will undermine the Greek character of Cyprus. If it is not feasible at present to have the Greek state we aspire, it is better for things to remain as they are: The Turks on one side, us on the other.

3. The meta modern nationalists

This is what they more or less say: The Turkish Cypriots led the mutiny of 1963-64 and basically dealt a mortal blow at the Republic. We the Greek Cypriots did not actually fall in love with RoC in 1960, but after the Turks left it, we the Greek Cypriots took completely over and made huge strides of progress culminating in the accession of Cyprus to the European Union. This is now our country, even if it is only 63% of the total, because of the barbaric Turkish invasion of 1974. We object, they say, to the abolishment of the RoC and its replacement with a new country which will not be under our complete control.

These are the three categories of rejectionists, according to Takis Konis and it would be an interestin exercise in my opinion if we were to try to classify the forum rejectionists according to these three categories. I will make a beginning and name two forumers for each category.

1. Humanist, Paphitis

2. Pantheman, EPSILON

3. Kifeas, GR

[DT.]

perhaps someone should make a study on the GC's who are willing to accept anything at all.

[Bananiot]

Again, changing the subject, DT has become an expert on this.

[DT.]

Again, changing the subject, DT has become an expert on this.

why is it that you can only dish out criticism but never take it?

[Oracle]

Again, changing the subject, DT has become an expert on this.

why is it that you can only dish out criticism but never take it?

Because he is a sensitive neoliberal fascist that rejects reason and logic in favour of fornicating with Kemalist acceptionists.

[Bananiot]

Stick to the subject DT, that is all I ask. Start a new thread whenever you feel like it and criticise me as much as you like.

[humanist]

I fil to see how I fall into the deserate ones.

That is a judgement on your behalf banaiot.

Mu argument has alweys been that TC's have just as much right ot Cyprus and any other Cypriot. No more or less treatmet than anyone else. Tye have the right to particioate and build a Cypriot community that is fair just and eaual for all inhabitats. If thats depserate well am haoppy to wear the ca you have assigned to me.

[Bananiot]

Fair enough but in the real world not in utopia.

[Kifeas]

Takis Konis, a sociologist, tries to paint the portrait of the persons that in one way or another see partition as the only solution to the Cyprus problem or at best the second best solution. He has called for researching the matter so that the results can be a tool in the hands of Christofias who is currently engaged in negotiations with Mehmet Ali Talat. Konis claims that those calling for velvet divorce fall into one of the following three categories.

1. The desperate ones

They reckon that they do want solution as sought by our leaders but since they cannot see an agreement materializing in the near future and partition is practically consolidated with every day that passes, we should, they argue, compromise with the realities and try to make the most of our lives.

2. The traditional nationalists

They say that new structures (BBF) which are discussed are looking to make us co govern the island with the Turks. This, they claim will undermine the Greek character of Cyprus. If it is not feasible at present to have the Greek state we aspire, it is better for things to remain as they are: The Turks on one side, us on the other.

3. The meta modern nationalists

This is what they more or less say: The Turkish Cypriots led the mutiny of 1963-64 and basically dealt a mortal blow at the Republic. We the Greek Cypriots did not actually fall in love with RoC in 1960, but after the Turks left it, we the Greek Cypriots took completely over and made huge strides of progress culminating in the accession of Cyprus to the European Union. This is now our country, even if it is only 63% of the total, because of the barbaric Turkish invasion of 1974. We object, they say, to the abolishment of the RoC and its replacement with a new country which will not be under our complete control.

These are the three categories of rejectionists, according to Takis Konis and it would be an interestin exercise in my opinion if we were to try to classify the forum rejectionists according to these three categories. I will make a beginning and name two forumers for each category.

1. Humanist, Paphitis

2. Pantheman, EPSILON

3. Kifeas, GR

First of all, if you were to "classify" me in anyone of the 3 so-called categories, the nearest you may possibly have come to is the 1st one, and not the 3rd. That tells a lot about your IQ, because it was only a few days ago that I explained my approach.

Nevertheless, since "sociologist" Takis Konis has named all of them as rejectionists, what makes those described in the first category as "rejectionists" and "desperates?" Why wouldn't that make them realists or pragmatists instead?

Is it a secret that a BBF solution, one that we may possibly tolerate and realistically accept, is no where near the horizon given the Turkish illegitimate positions? Is it a secret that such a solution is rather unfeasible, unless someone or something is able or willing to twist Turkey's arm? Is it a secret that as the years pass, the prospects of re-unification are evaporating, and thee only outcome is the danger of partition on the basis of the current occupational territory, and the only sensible thing to do is to become pro-active and think in a lateral way, by making a case in the international forums on the basis of partition, in exchange of substantial territorial adjustments that should represent the fair share of each community?

You and your "sociologist" may wish to brand the above as "rejectionism" and "desperation.” I call it logic and reason!

[Piratis]

Takis Konis, a sociologist, tries to paint the portrait of the persons that in one way or another see partition as the only solution to the Cyprus problem or at best the second best solution.

The people that accept partition are the acceptionists. The rejectionists reject partition and this is why we have rejected the Annan partition plan that would have legalized and made permanent the absolute control of the Turks over the north part of our country. What we would accept would only be a true solution that would truly unify our country without borders that would split our country in two and make 1/3rd of it officially and permanently a "Turkish Cyprus" ruled by the Turks.

On the other hand the acceptionists like Bananiot have told us several times that there are no solutions, but only options with the only option being an agreed partition that would legalize the rule of the Turks over the north part of our country.

The great majority of the Cypriot people however wants a solution that will actually solve our problems and they are willing to keep fighting for it, instead of just agreeing to partition like the acceptionists want.

perhaps someone should make a study on the GC's who are willing to accept anything at all.

Here are the categories of the acceptionists who accept partition:

1) The desperate ones

They reckon that there can be no solution because Cyprus is small and powerless and therefore we should just accept the partition that the Turks and the AngloAmericans want so we can close the problem.

2) The ones fooled by the words
Partition plans like the Annan partition plan are branded as "solutions" and as "unification" plans. Some people are fooled by these marketing words and do not analyze the content of those plans to realize that in fact "unification" is just in the name while in essence what that plan offers is partition that legalizes the absolute control of the north part of our country by the Turks.

3) Those that hope for personal interests
According to the Annan partition plan about 7% of land would theoretically (without any guarantees) be returned to Greek Cypriots while we would recognize that the rest of north Cyprus belongs officially to the Turks. Some of those people that own land in that 7% accept this partition arrangement because it would benefit them personally. (I do not blame them, but they shouldn't conceal the reasons of their acceptance)

4) The traitors

Some major groups, such as Cyprus Mail, are sponsored directly by the British/Americans in order to serve the British/American interests in Cyprus. Others, such as some "bi-communal groups" are bribed with trips abroad and other financial benefits, and along with some brainwashing they are made to accept the position of their foreign sponsors.