Cyprus-Forum.com

[EPSILON]

The below is a post sent to economist on same subject

Orbiter wrote:
April 27, 2009 17:43
@Turkdeniz

For starters I am not preaching morality and I don't have a problem leaving the high grounds to you. Nor I am questioning your knowledge of things, I am only putting it to the test in the spirit of a good debate. I don't see what is wrong in putting you face to face with your own writings, and then sit back and enjoy. My "bombastic rhetoric (whatever that means) is fine" you write, and yet immediately following, you find the same lines "pretentious" (whatever you mean by that also). And you wrap it up by "appreciating" my "talent" in what you describe as "textual illusionism" in a truly "bombastically rhetoric" fashion of your own!

Yes, I am against censorship, and I wrote so to the Economist when they removed MY posting (no different that what you are reading from me), because apparently someone was offended. Now, if you could briefly come down from your mountain, perhaps you may realize that this is not a morality issue, but rather one of a blog and the way it is moderated. In the end, we have to abide by the rules or find another blog. The Turkish Penal Code on the other hand (since you put the two together), is not just any blog, but it defines the Turkish Bill of Rights. The fact that most Turks feel comfortable with it does not preclude Western criticism in the context of your EU application. Again if you feel uncomfortable with what you call "western hypocrisy", please drop your application.

Next, you don't feel "obliged to educate me", nevertheless you do feel obliged (you can't resist the temptation!) to tell me "to go and do some reading" a stereotyped response I already mentioned, because I am "in desperate need"(!) I have no intention to deflate YOUR "bombastic rhetoric", but please rest assured that I do not despair over your civil liberties, or the lack of them thereof!

The above covers your next point as well, on "being cornered" and responding by "go and do some reading". You did just that and there is no further need for me to prove my point. On the issue of generalizing that you raise, I would agree that stereotyping is wrong. Adding that the "stereotyped" should make an effort not to fit and feed the stereotypes. The future of Greece and Cyprus is theirs to determine and not for Turkey to dictate. Get used to it. Stick to the "conquered" part of Cyprus to maintain illusions of Empire if you wish, call it a "draw" like someone wrote, and recollect on the true reasons of your isolation if you need to.

Perhaps you could inform me (I mean it!) on the reasons victorious Ataturk had to sign a Treaty with the defeated Greeks, where the Turks in Thrace are referred to a "Muslims". I will appreciate your input. But your math is wrong and the numbers to not add up. Thousands of Greeks emigrated in the 50s, Thrace was not an exception. The fact remains that today and by any name there are more Turks in Western Thrace than at the time following the exchange. And no matter how you slice it Greece DID NOT reciprocate. There is that much historical revisionism one may attempt, before one loses his credibility.

I won't argue against you on our European leaders knowing or not knowing what to do. Because you appear to have the clear picture of the situation, I will urge you once more to withdraw your application and then sit back and enjoy the show of a Turkish-less Europe falling apart as a result of this Turkishlessness.

[Get Real!]

First of all the purpose of the Turkish troops is to protect the TCs from the GC military attack in the absence of a peace deal. When it is signed, they will be removed.

And then what? Invite them back and forth as you see fit when you don't get your way?

Forget it Y-Fronts! Those TCs that cannot or will not become Cypriots would be better off moving out of Cyprus altogether because sovereign countries don’t work this way.

Secondly, the TCs total reliance on Turkey economically is the direct consequence of isolation.

It's an INTERNATIONALLY LEGAL isolation of the Republic’s occupied territory. Get over it...

The reason the GC government has blocked them so far is their fear that if TCs become economically independent, they will not want to unite with the GCs and will want independence.

The reason was given to you above, so stop patting yourselves on the back thinking that you're some kind of "business experts that the RoC fears", because TCs are generally hopeless in trade & commerce. Believe it!

If this is not so, why do you so vehemently object to isolation removal?

If and when full RoC control is established on her occupied territory then she will do whatever she thinks fit with it and not before. End of story.

Gharos du Rizokarpazo, if we are so bad, what have you got to fear. EU wanted to remove the isolation, and your Babadobillos, blocked it.
One just wanders how much longer?
BTW some us are coming to Cyprus, and soon.

The occupied territory of the RoC will NEVER be allowed to see the light of day and anyone choosing to live there have only themselves to blame.

[YFred]

(LETTER SENT TO ECONOMIST)

Dear sir

Perhaps The Economist's unnamed analyst was treated to a few too many rakis in Istantbul, which might explain their confusion in relation to the incredibly complex issue of Cyprus (A Hawkish problem, The Economist, April 23rd 2009). As a publication that prides itself on the quality of its news analysis I'm sure you'll welcome therefore this intervention to help set your analyst straight.

In regards to the Annan Plan – which you're still carping on about a full five years after the event – the overwhelming majority of the people of Cyprus exercised their democratic right to reject it. Why? Because suddenly, after decades of Turkish intransigence, a last-minute botch was presented aimed at exonerating an invading power for her crimes, just before Cyprus – having met all the accession criteria – joined the European Union. Over 75% of the electorate in the areas not under the control of Turkey's military said "No", an irrefutable indicator of the plan's relative merits as an equitable solution.

The plan was rejected because it sought to restrict the rights of Cypriots to have their property restored and to settle freely within their own homeland. It would have entrenched a repulsive system of apartheid on a tiny island and legitimised the presence of foreign occupation troops in perpetuity. No freedom-loving people in Europe, or the world, would have accepted such a settlement – except perhaps through desperation of a kind faced by Cypriots in the north under foreign military rule.

Not letting Cyprus into the European Union because more than a third of her territory remained occupied by a massive foreign army, in breach of dozens of UN Security Council resolutions, would have been unjust and against European principles.

Cyprus as a whole joined the European Union but with the acquis communautaire suspended in the north while the legitimate government of the island's entire territory is unable to exercise effective control. Lifting sanctions against and easing trade restrictions with this occupied territory has nothing to do with "rigidity" or not being "clever" but with respecting the wishes of a full member state. There is no trade with the northern part of Cyprus that cannot be undertaken through legitimate means and via legitimate ports of entry.

The government of Cyprus has made clear to its European partners the absurdity of proceeding with Turkey's accession while its military maintains upwards of 40,000 troops on European Union soil. And why shouldn't it? Cyprus has been held hostage by Turkey for more than 35 years, and the world has done nothing. Now that Cyprus is safely in the European Union, who can blame her for wanting to hold Turkey’s entry talks hostage until justice is done? She doesn’t have a massive army or powerful friends to take back what is rightly hers. Unlike Kuwait, the only oil she has is made from olives.

Perhaps the European Union has complicated matters for Turkey, by letting Cyprus join, but perhaps matters needed to be made complicated. And they certainly eased matters somewhat for a small island, at the mercy of an aggressive regional power for centuries.

Re KyproYero, aman se tho, tha se fileeso. Bravo re.

Re Pushdis, katsoshiragis.

[bill cobbett]

VP, your letter is a disgrace to all Cys. Use a spell-checker re!

[EPSILON]

ok finally i sent also mine to Economist-anybody else?
Epsilon the Great wrote:
April 27, 2009 18:57
Dear Sirs

"What is clear is that the EU complicated matters hugely by letting a divided Cyprus join. “Had [the EU] been less rigid and cleverer, it would have lifted the sanctions long ago and thereby minimised the dependency of northern Cyprus on Ankara,” argues Yavuz Baydar, a commentator. It would also have eased Turkey’s accession to the EU. But that is just what Turkey’s detractors inside the EU do not want."

Could EU or other international body overcome the international law, clearly stating that no state can be created by the force of arms? Is North Cyprus today's sitution a result of invasion/occuptation?How MrYavuz Baydar considered that this could be overcomed?
Maybe by Sultans law?

[Get Real!]

ok finally i sent also mine to Economist-anybody else?

But without a bloody link how can people respond to it?

How many times have we got to ask for LINKS???

[boulio]

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/d ... readBottom

[EPSILON]

ok finally i sent also mine to Economist-anybody else?

But without a bloody link how can people respond to it?

How many times have we got to ask for LINKS???

just get in economist side and you can find the article in first page-enter and then you can see all the posts

[EPSILON]

ok finally i sent also mine to Economist-anybody else?

But without a bloody link how can people respond to it?

How many times have we got to ask for LINKS???

www.economist.com

[Viewpoint]

VP, your letter is a disgrace to all Cys. Use a spell-checker re!

So besides the spelling you liked it? (spell checker dont work on my computer, got my secretary to correct and forward)