erolz3 wrote:Piratis wrote: Erolz, I would have hoped that by now you would have learned that what is legal and what is illegal is determined by recognized courts and not you.
The only recognised and legal court that could have ruled on the legitiamcy of GC telling TC in 1965 that they could only return to government if they accepted the unilateral resinding of their consituional rights, as documented by the UN, was the RoC consitutional court. Unfortunately that had already been destroyed by Makarios , when he unilatwerlay decide that he was not bound by its jusdgments and simply refused to abide by them, regadless of all and any legality.
It does not take a court to know that there was no legal basis on which the GC could unilateral and permanently remove TC communal rights granted in the 60's agreement and enshrined in the RoC consitution. Yet they did it anyway.
Your argument its totaly specious. In your argument the Orams comitted no illegal acts until a court ruled they did.
Yet again you want to pass your own one sided opinion as the law. With the Orams case we knew we were right and we
proved it. The TCs withdrew from the Goverment
themselves in order to pursue partition, instead of staying in the Government and working with Makarios to make Cyprus a more democratic place.
Piratis wrote: If you think that RoC did is illegal then why don't you sue RoC? Probably because you know you would lose this case as well?
You tell me a court that has jurisdiction to make such a determination and I will take the case there. Maybe the constitutional court of the RoC as defined in the consitution and the 60's agreements ? Oh no sorry forgot, Makarios already destroyed that one. So what else ? ECHR - sorry not gonna work , it rules on denial of indivduals human rights not on communites consitutional rights. The Inernational court in the Hague ? Nah not gonna work unless the RoC agrees to submit itself to its jurisdiction and rulings beforehand.
As Kifeas said you could apply to the ICJ. In fact Cyprus is asking from Turkey for many years to go to the ICJ and determine once and for all what is legal and what is not in Cyprus, and Turkey
denies this.
So your tactic is to say
lies in order to convince people like the Orams and profit from them, but when we ask you to put your lies to the test of an international court, you deny, because you know you will lose again.
Piratis wrote:So after being pressed for so much time to tell us some compromise that you made this is all you could come up with? Something which is not even a compromise?
You really can not be so dense as this Piratis.
Under the 60s agreements as far as the TC community had political equality as a community with the GC one, it had such (in paper but not in actuality as it turned out) in perpetuity. Under the Annan plan as far as it had political equality as a community there was no such permanent guarantee that it would retain such indefinately. So on one had we have permanent equality and on the other temporary with no long term guarantee that it would be maintained. Yet of course that is no compromise.
My friend, I repeat to you: it is
your side who demands "political equality of component States" as opposed to "political equality of communities", and now you are trying to turn your demand into supposedly being a compromise? The fact is that with Annan plan you got more land, more power and more separation than what you had with the 1960 agreements. You got more of
everything.
Otherwise, if 1960 agreements are worst (or not better) for you, then why don't you agree to return to them? Who are you trying to fool here?
Piratis wrote:Cypriots had already decided what should happen to Cyprus, and that was union with Greece.
And here we go straight back to the crux of the problem. Cypriots did not decide they wanted union with Greece. Greek Cypriots decided they wanted that and they had a right in the name of a unitary Cypriot people that did not exist in theory or practice to impose this total and puerly COMMUNAL desire on TC against their will and with them as a community having no say in the matter at all.
There is no issue with GC deciding that as GC they wanted union with Greece. THe problem came when they decided that they could present this purely communal will as the valid will of a unitary CYpriot people when it was solely the will of one of the Cypriot communites, as a means of not only achieving it for themselves but also imposing on the TC community against their will with no regard for them and with them having no effective say in such a fundamental decision about their lives and their shared country.
Piratis wrote:The Cypriot people had clearly decided that they prefer to be part of Greece, rather than be a banana republic of the British and the Turks.
The sheer idocy of trying to claim that enosis was an expression of the will of a single unitary Cypriot people is stunning to me. Enosis by defintion was and is based on the notion that there is no such thing as a unitary Cypriot people or a Cypriot nation. That there is in fact only Greeks, part of the Greek people who happend to live in Cyprus and few troublesome others that are not Greek. It is like claiming that a state of 70 % cats and 30% mice had democraticaly decided as a single unitary entity that the Cats would eat the Mice.
Piratis wrote:So don't tell me you wanted "Cypriots to decide what happens in Cyprus" when in fact you made everything possible to deny this right from Cypriots.
Try reading what I actualy wrote before getting on your ranting horse.
I did not say I wanted that, though actually I do. I pointed out in response to your absurd claim that 'You won [stopping of enosis in Cyprus]', that what our 'victory' ensured was that today Cyprus exits as a nation and that Cypriots decide what happens in CYprus. Had we not 'won' this the reality is that Cyprus would not today exist as a nation and it would be run by Greek and from Athens. This is the plain and simple reality of what the 'winning' of TC community in stoppng enosis means today for all CYpriots. I realise this is a difficult and bitter reality for you to accept and you will choose to ignore it but it remains reality none the less.
Piratis wrote:Even today, you want to ignore the will of the 80%+ of the native population of north Cyprus, and you threaten us that either we should gift that part to you, or otherwise you would prefer Turkey to annex this part, rather than having it returned to its rightful owners. And then you tell us that you want Cypriots to take decisions for Cyprus??
There can simply be no rational debate with you Piratis. You have no interest or desire in it or seemingly any ability to achieve it.
I have no desire to ignore the will of the GC community. What I do not accept is that it has a right to impose purely communal desires on the TC community in our shared homeland in the name of a unitary Cypriot people. Nor do I threaten you at all. I am posting my sincere and genuine concerns following this ECJ ruling. These are not threats at all. You should be capable of recognising a threat given how often in the past you have made them along the lines of if we can not get you to agree a fair settlement then one day we will take back by force what was taken from us. That is a threat. Saying that I fear this ruling will lead to increasing legal attacks by GC against those in the North on a whole range of fronts that seek to replace a negotiated settlement with destroying the viability of the TRNC to exists and tnis in turn can only force TC away from the RoC and the EU and ever more into the hands of Turkey is an expression of concern. See if you can work out the difference.
As I say Piratis there is no rational point in trying to have these 'discussions' with yourself. I have tried hard in the past and all expereince has tought me that it is a pointless and futile exercise. I should have realised that when your response to my attempts to get some constructive bi communal action going in the past was essentialy 'this is a bad idea because it may make us friends and that is bad because one day I may need to come and shoot you to take back what was taken from me and that will be harder if we are friends'. I should have realised there and then the futitlity of trying to 'discuss' such things with you but I guess I am a slow learner, but I do get there in the end.
Cyprus has a Turkish minority in the exact same way that Greece, Bulgaria and other former Ottoman colonies do. And in the same way that other colonialists spread their own people in the territories they had under their colonial rule (e.g. Whites in South Africa)
Are you telling me that because the invading Ottomans created some Muslim (later to be called Turkish) minority on our island, that the Cypriot people should be indefinitely denied the right to democratically decide the destiny of their own territory? If that was the case then no territory would have the right for self-determination. The Colonialists (Ottomans, British, French etc) could just claim that even a minority of their people located on that territory should have the right to deny the democratically expressed will of the people of that territory!
In fact we have a Greek minority in Egypt from the time of Alexander the Great. Should we now go and demand from the Egyptians that they can not take democratic decisions for their own country without the approval of our Greek Community there?
In Asia Minor our minority existed for 1000s of years before the Turks invaded. The same with the Kurds. Are the Greek or Kurdish communities asked for approval for anything that Turkey decides?
Yes indeed this is the crux of the problem. Turks using their minority on our island as an excuse to deny to the Cypriot people their freedom and self-determination. Instead of accepting that the Ottoman era is now over, and that the Cypriot people should be equal without racist discrimination, and with democracy, one person - one vote, decide the destiny of Cyprus, the Turks insist to divide the Cypriot people, deny democracy and self-determination to Cypriots, and grand privileges to their own kind on the expense of every other Cypriot, just like they did during the Ottoman rule.
And yes Erolz, as long as you are criminally and illegally violating our rights, we will fight back and have every right to do so. We have every right to prosecute and convict many of you. Is telling to a criminal the consequences of his crimes a "threat"? Take it as you like.
Similarly, the Republic of Cyprus has every right to protect its own sovereignty from foreign invaders. So yes, of course if you do not give back what you stole, and if RoC has the opportunity, then it will use military force to liberate its own land. It is you who are committing the crime today. RoC liberating its own territory is a
right.
You shouldn't consider these as "threats". These are just the consequences of crimes. If these were "threats" then every law that listed penalties for its violation would be considered a "threat".
So be prepared to face the consequences of your crimes, and instead of blaming us for seeking justice via 100% legal means, blame yourselves for acting criminally and illegally.
Just think of it as your national service boot camp all over again.
I think it's in everyone’s interest not to build my self-esteem any further...
