The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


The Cyprus Problem for Dummies .....

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Postby YFred » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:34 am

Kikapu wrote:
YFred wrote:
Kikapu wrote:
YFred wrote:
Viewpoint wrote:So are we getting the TRNC flag?
Image

If they don't, they will continue to see the Turkish flag. I call upon all TCs who think it is wrong for admin to ban any flags to use the Turkish flag until they change their minds.


I'm keeping my sheep.! :lol:

You were meant for each other.
Can we have an opinion from you Kicks baby. Between 63 and 67, which clause of the true human rights law was the roc implementing to blockade food stuffs to reach the TCs?


Wasn't the UN in charge of the food supply, YFred.!

Besides, the 1960 Constitution was not based on True Democracy, Human Rights and International laws, so why would you be surprised if non of those principles were exercised, YFred.

Have you never heard of the saying, "Garbage In, Garbage Out".!!

That's what we had in Cyprus during those times, YFred, however unfortunate as it may have been, That's why we do not want another system like that one or the Annan Plan ever again.

The central point of this is they were blockading food stuffs, milk for babies, kickapoo, you have to understand the deep resentment felt towards the roc. It is genuine.
User avatar
YFred
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 12100
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:22 am
Location: Lurucina-Upon-Thames

Postby paliometoxo » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:35 am

the rules say do not post trnc flags yet you people still ignore the rules and just do it anyway..

keep the turkish ones and be happy that the admin let you use that one
User avatar
paliometoxo
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8837
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:55 pm
Location: Nicosia, paliometocho

Postby Viewpoint » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:39 am

paliometoxo wrote:the rules say do not post trnc flags yet you people still ignore the rules and just do it anyway..

keep the turkish ones and be happy that the admin let you use that one


Then the rules should also say no "RoC" flags especially not in the avatar section, equality for both TCs and GCs on the CF.
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25214
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Postby paliometoxo » Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:05 am

well in your opinion it should but it is not.. so in the meantime please stop posting the trnc ones and respect the rules.
User avatar
paliometoxo
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8837
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:55 pm
Location: Nicosia, paliometocho

Postby Oracle » Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:11 am

Viewpoint wrote:
paliometoxo wrote:the rules say do not post trnc flags yet you people still ignore the rules and just do it anyway..

keep the turkish ones and be happy that the admin let you use that one


Then the rules should also say no "RoC" flags especially not in the avatar section, equality for both TCs and GCs on the CF.


Why should the rules say that? Do you think Admin is a thieving opportunist like you?

The RoC is a legally recognised sovereign country. The "trnc" is a figment of your imagination.

Go find a madman's forum and post it there!


You care nothing about legalities, rights and wrongs. You just contaminate everything you touch with selfish avarice.

If you had any sensible arguments, you wouldn't care so much about waving a red rag around.

You and your "flag" really are the crux of the Cyprus problem.

The End.
User avatar
Oracle
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 23507
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:13 am
Location: Anywhere but...

Postby YFred » Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:27 am

Oracle wrote:
Viewpoint wrote:
paliometoxo wrote:the rules say do not post trnc flags yet you people still ignore the rules and just do it anyway..

keep the turkish ones and be happy that the admin let you use that one


Then the rules should also say no "RoC" flags especially not in the avatar section, equality for both TCs and GCs on the CF.


Why should the rules say that? Do you think Admin is a thieving opportunist like you?

The RoC is a legally recognised sovereign country. The "trnc" is a figment of your imagination.

Go find a madman's forum and post it there!


You care nothing about legalities, rights and wrongs. You just contaminate everything you touch with selfish avarice.

If you had any sensible arguments, you wouldn't care so much about waving a red rag around.

You and your "flag" really are the crux of the Cyprus problem.

The End.

Always a pleasure to read your unbiased un-progreek point of view, old girl.
User avatar
YFred
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 12100
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:22 am
Location: Lurucina-Upon-Thames

Postby BirKibrisli » Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:23 am

Kikapu wrote:
Kikapu wrote:

BirKibrisli wrote:1...do you believe the core of the Cyprus problem was a desire by Turkey to expand her territories????

2...Do you think the TC climb into the enclaves in 1963 was simply to open the way for Turkish occupation??? They had no legitimate fears for their lives????

3...Would you consider the TC move into enclaves as "ethnic cleansing"?
Or does that only apply to the GC expulsion from the North???

Let us get your honest opinion on these points...You do not of course have to answer these questions....You can simply say it is none of my business...But ,please, don't side step them again and pretend to answer...


1. The last 36 years says "YES". Had they came and did what they were suppose to do and left, then the answer would be a "NO". While I was in Turkey last October, some Turks believed that Turkey should have taken all of Cyprus back in 1974. If it wasn't for expansion purposes, then there would not have been any need to expel GCs from the north if we were to overlook at her all other faulty. If the TCs were their major concerns to help them from the GCs, Turkey should have come in 1963 and to spared us the bad times from 1963-1974. I do not want to hear any excuses why Turkey did not come in 1963 because America did not let her, because then Turkey should have never become a Guarantor Power to Cyprus and particularly for the TCs, if she needed permission like a child needing a permission from her teacher to go to the bathroom. Turkey is part responsible for the sufferings of the TCs along with those seeking Enosis and Taksim. I'm sure that's not what you wanted to hear, but that's what happened.

2. Yes, the TCs did fear for their lives and it was also a very ideal way to try and bring most TCs together for that eventuality for Taksim by their leaders. Naturally Turkey would have loved to take part of Cyprus once the British left. After all, they had it for 300 years at one point, so what better way to take it back, if not in full, but in part by coming in to save the TCs from the GCs. Many variables played part once the 1960 constitution was signed. From then on, the race was on as to who was going to achieve Enosis or Taksim first, or for much better outcome, by having a double Enosis-Taksim with as little blood shed as possible. It appears that the extremist from the Enosis felt they deserved 100% and was their aim, but in 1968, Makarios had already given up on the whole idea for Enosis, but Taksim kept on going.

3. YES, it was ethnic cleansing, speaking from experience that we went through in Küçük Kaymakli. We were uprooted at the point of a gun, shipped to imprisonment, and then dropped off someplace in Nicosia which was not where our home was. I don't know the exact stories on how all the other TCs ended up in enclaves, but I'm sure they had somewhat similar experience, if not at the point of the gun from the GCs, but at the point of a gun from the TMT.!


BirKibrisli wrote:I think you got the meaning of my first question wrong,Kikapu...I was asking for your opinion of the "core" reason for the Cyprus problem...You gave me an analysis of your take on the events since 1974....I don't think you believe at the core of Cyprus conflict is Turkey's territorial ambitions...You might want to clarify your positon on that issue,or you might not..


Bir, let me make this reply very short and to the point to answer your question, which requires me to ask you a questions so that you can answer your own question.!

Now, the core problem for Cyprus crisis has to do with Enosis and Taksim, that much we can all agree with, I'm sure. Then comes the 1960 Constitution, then comes the interests of Greece, Turkey, Britain and couple of other countries in an indirect way. To find the answer to your own question, you will need to answer this following question as honestly as you can, which you will then get your answer. So, the question is;

"Could the TCs from 1958 on have been able to achieve Taksim on their own without the help of Turkey.????"

For my answer to the above, the answer would be a "NO", which then it means, "YES", Turkey did have territorial ambitions, otherwise they would have prevented Taksim movement to get too far from 1958. Even when Makarios in 1968 declared Enosis was no longer the goal, Taksim was still on going, and today, it is still on going, so Bir, if we are to connect the dots, it is obvious that partition today could not have happened without Turkey's help no matter what Denktash tried to get one without Turkey, he simply would not have been able to do. The 1960 constitution was the "vehicle" that would assist Turkey in wanting to take part of Cyprus going back as early as 1963 when the problems started, just because the 1960 constitution was designed for it not to be a workable constitution, but the US prevented them. The GCs really didn't need Greece to help them achieve Enosis with them militarily due to their numbers over the TCs, but the TCs most certainly needed the help of Turkey, and they got it in 1974, 11 years after 1963 when they first wanted to come to achieve what they achieved in 1974. If we needed further evidence of the above, look what has happened in 1974 and since. To me it is very clear once you connect the dots.!



But the trouble is,Kikapu,you are connecting the wrong dots...

Your starting dot is spot on...At the core of the Cyprus problem lies the double headed monster,ENOSIS and TAKSIM...We agree on that...
The next dot you should join is "Which one came first"???
I am sure you will agree that ENOSIS came first... Its inspiration was the Greek struggle for independence way back in 1820s...Taksim was a very late invention of the British,in order to divide and rule...The next dot is :"Did the TCs really have an alternative option to Taksim??? What could they possibly have done to counter the Enosis danger???" given the historical animosity between the Greeks and Turks,fueled by the Greek invasion of Anatolia in the 1920s I would say anbody who expected then TCs to just go along with Enosis was very deluded...Turkey had washed her hands of Cyprus,Kikapu when they officially signed it over to the British...It was not till late 50s that they were convinced by the British and the Americans that they ought to pay more attention to the events in Cyprus....To suggest that the 1960 agreements was specialy designed to pave the way for Turkey to invade Cyprus and achieve Taksim is fanciful to say the least... Makarios was still dreaming of Enosis when he signed those agreements,and The Akritas plan hatched during the first year of the Republic is proof that the GCs were hell bent on sidelining the TCs at all cost,to pave way for Enosis...And once the 63 troubles started,and the TCs were forced into their enclaves the scene was set,not by Turkey but by Makarios himself...

So sure the answer to your question enlarged above is NO...the TCs could not have achieved Taksim without Turkey...But this doesn't mean at the core of the Cyprus problem you find Turkey territorial ambitions...If you connect the dots I have outlined you ought to come to the conclusion that the GC demand for ENOSIS and the TC counter demand for Taksim lies at the core of the Cyprus problem...And without ENOSIS there would never have been TAKSIM... And without ENOSIS and TAKSIM there would never have been a Turkish intervention/invasion...Now what does that tell you??? Certainly NOT that at the core of the CP lies Turkey's territorial ambitions :!: :!:
User avatar
BirKibrisli
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: Australia

Postby Malapapa » Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:31 am

BirKibrisli wrote: And without ENOSIS and TAKSIM there would never have been a Turkish intervention/invasion...Now what does that tell you??? Certainly NOT that at the core of the CP lies Turkey's territorial ambitions :!: :!:


Wonderful. You've convinced me, can you convince Turkey now? When are they leaving so Cypriots can reunite, rebuild their country and get on with their lives?
User avatar
Malapapa
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 3416
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:13 pm

Postby BirKibrisli » Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:41 am

Malapapa wrote:
BirKibrisli wrote: And without ENOSIS and TAKSIM there would never have been a Turkish intervention/invasion...Now what does that tell you??? Certainly NOT that at the core of the CP lies Turkey's territorial ambitions :!: :!:


Wonderful. You've convinced me, can you convince Turkey now? When are they leaving so Cypriots can reunite, rebuild their country and get on with their lives?


When you guys accept the key role of Enosis in this conflict,show some understanding and remorse for the plight of the TCs during the 63-74 period,and show some sign of preparedness to compromise....
User avatar
BirKibrisli
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: Australia

Postby Malapapa » Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:47 am

BirKibrisli wrote:
Malapapa wrote:
BirKibrisli wrote: And without ENOSIS and TAKSIM there would never have been a Turkish intervention/invasion...Now what does that tell you??? Certainly NOT that at the core of the CP lies Turkey's territorial ambitions :!: :!:


Wonderful. You've convinced me, can you convince Turkey now? When are they leaving so Cypriots can reunite, rebuild their country and get on with their lives?


When you guys accept the key role of Enosis in this conflict,show some understanding and remorse for the plight of the TCs during the 63-74 period,and show some sign of preparedness to compromise....


Accepted and remorseful (though wasn't even there). And prepared to compromise too (though not on human rights). Let me know when they've gone.
User avatar
Malapapa
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 3416
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:13 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests