Cyprus-Forum.com

[james_mav]

As to getting rid of Turkey as a guarantor, I think Talat has no say in the matter. The North is the 'whore' and Turkey is the 'pimp'. Figure it out.

talat has very little say in pretty much anything, including of course guarantor rights, but also the specifics of any kind of 'peace agreement'; he is neither in a position to accept or refuse a deal. He who pays the piper calls the tune!

[YFred]

I need more than that.... And if you really could go on all night I would love to know what really sends you round the bend with the current status of the constitution. Today is more important to me than yesterday...

Well, for starters the TC's do not have a veto today.

No. They have a bigger stick. Which would you have prefered? A veto or the whole island?

The whole island without a veto. Veto all you like on matters that involve the TC community specifically and list them before hand in the constitution. But to have the arrogance to think that 18% of the population should be able to stop ANY law or action by the govt is ludicrous.

Especially when the ties with Turkey are so strong and it will take decades for the Cypriot Turks to start acting for the benefit of Cyprus and not the benefit of Turkey.

Well, this is where democracy was a failure. Even the 30:70 would not have saved the TCs from the overpowering GCs. What chance would 18% have. These figures were presented to give the TCs a chance of survival. Not perfect but no chance was given to the people of Cyprus to work this out -TOGETHER. Now we have this mess. I pray that those who created this mess rot in hell.

this is where democracy was a failure

Deniz,

But there was no such thing as a Democracy in Cyprus, at least not the kind of Democracy the West is built on, and that's why it failed. Numbers such as 30%-70% are a problem when unfair allocations of Government jobs, Government seats and a 50% power in the form of a veto power is given to a 18% of the population in an undemocratic method just because they are 18% and not because of earning those positions. In fact, a veto power by any group is not just 50% power control, but a full 100% power control, therefore the 18% had full 100% power and not just 50%. Where is the Democracy in that.? They also had "Democracy" in South Africa where the minority whites also had full 100% power over the majority, so was that also a Democracy or something else.? The whites believed it was a Democracy, but was it.? On the other hand, the Blacks in the USA are only 10% of the overall US population and only through True Democracy (in the last 50 years or so), we have a Black President. But yet, with 18% of the overall Cyprus population, a TC could never have become a president according to the 1960 constitution, so once again, where was the Democracy in that.? Today the TC's still want to go back to those dark days of no Democracy but only to privileges instead as the case was in the 1960 constitution, and also wanting a separate state in their own name built mostly on others land in a form of a "founding state" which can become independent anytime in the future just by the majority in that state voting for it. No wonder the GC's are in no mood to grant the 18% (less than 10% now) today what was given to them in 1960 by the British. I think it is high time , that in order to find a solution to Cyprus, everyone will need to walk in everyone else’s shoes a mile or so to understand where the others are coming from and not just only insisting on, I want, I want, I want.!

Hi, Kiks,

Thanks for your response and wise words.
One can only guess as to why it was necessary to have the above quoted figures. I know i6t is not the democratic way to 'run' a country. The British obviously had a motive in suggesting this with Greece and Turkey. Apart from self interest of the three guarantors, I think that they were there (the figures) to enable the TCs to survive and to 'veto' any moves that would drag Cyprus towards Enosis or total subjugation to the GC majority. It was obvious that it was not the best solution, but it could have worked if there was ever the will.

As to DTs comment on the incriminating 'alleged' documents left behind by TC ministers, this we had discussed nearly two years ago. Have these ever been 'authenticated'? In the past has Clerides ever asked Denktash as to their authenticity. Perhaps Piratis has a video clip of these as he does give credence to anything that Denktash says.(bombing of the press offices etc). I am just curious. Perhaps these ministers had a plan 'B' and had seen the writing on the wall.

Anyway, we are here now and what is next?

Anyway, we are here now and what is next?

Deniz, WE are here. The TC's are still then. Take a lok at the difference of points raised in the negotiations.

We say no virgin birth so that one of the statlets (not saying names) doesn't get tempted to leave the federation with the temptation of being on an exact equal legal footing with the other statelet.

We say no guarantees and no outside influence in this Independent EU Member state. The TC's are still dragging out treaties from the 60's in the year 2009. How can you expect us who have lived independently for so long to accept the interference of Turkey in the running of our state?

Christofias says (and I say Christofias says cause I'm not sure on the support he has on this) a rotating Presidency with a time bias to the numerical majority. Talat says a committee that rotates the Chairman every 6 months. Its obvious that Talat here is trying his best to avoid creating a strong persona and position in the Presidency because this would then lead to a strong central govt.

Christofias says no military and Talat quotes the treaty of Guarantee again, wanting Greek and Turkish bases on the island.

Chrstofias says 1 central bank, Talat says 2. Does Talat even know that the central bank we have now is obsolete since the decisions for the EURO are taken in Frankfurt?

I won't go into land, admin and settlers yet cause it'll take me all day but you get the gist. Who's arguments seem realistic to you? Who's arguments reek of windows of opportunity for partition and who wants a united country?

Who's here and who's still back then?

From the above post, there isnt much I disagree with.

Whereas I can put my trust into the hands of 'democracy' now, it seems Talat is not free to do so. Perhaps a bit paranoiac. This could be attributed to past experiences with the GC 's.Then there are those that will lose in the event of a 'peace agreement'.

As to getting rid of Turkey as a guarantor, I think Talat has no say in the matter. The North is the 'whore' and Turkey is the 'pimp'. Figure it out.

I hear the Grey wolves coming.

Deniz, kindly wash your mouth with soap immediately and that’s an order.

[YFred]

You have anything to say to me you treasonous, grey wolf, placenta by-product come say it to my face.

Why would you call a tourkomogolo a traitor? Do you believe that the mogoloi on Cyprus (before '74) ever gave their allegiance to Cyprus, rather than to tourkomogolistan, or to a tourkomogolistani protectorate in Cyprus? For someone to be a traitor to Cyprus, one must've held an allegiance to Cyprus in the first place.

James_Gav old boy, having been imprisoned in an enclave for 9 years and shot at by your beloved Eoka-B dogs in the mean time, you expect me to give allegiance to "roc", pull the other one the middle one has bells on it.

My allegiance is to free Cyprus but not the hijacked "roc" or the pretend democracy you cry about in the south which the whole of Europe now knows is a sham.

What do they say to your MEPs? “ The Cypriots are coming, scarper”.

[denizaksulu]

I need more than that.... And if you really could go on all night I would love to know what really sends you round the bend with the current status of the constitution. Today is more important to me than yesterday...

Well, for starters the TC's do not have a veto today.

No. They have a bigger stick. Which would you have prefered? A veto or the whole island?

The whole island without a veto. Veto all you like on matters that involve the TC community specifically and list them before hand in the constitution. But to have the arrogance to think that 18% of the population should be able to stop ANY law or action by the govt is ludicrous.

Especially when the ties with Turkey are so strong and it will take decades for the Cypriot Turks to start acting for the benefit of Cyprus and not the benefit of Turkey.

Well, this is where democracy was a failure. Even the 30:70 would not have saved the TCs from the overpowering GCs. What chance would 18% have. These figures were presented to give the TCs a chance of survival. Not perfect but no chance was given to the people of Cyprus to work this out -TOGETHER. Now we have this mess. I pray that those who created this mess rot in hell.

this is where democracy was a failure

Deniz,

But there was no such thing as a Democracy in Cyprus, at least not the kind of Democracy the West is built on, and that's why it failed. Numbers such as 30%-70% are a problem when unfair allocations of Government jobs, Government seats and a 50% power in the form of a veto power is given to a 18% of the population in an undemocratic method just because they are 18% and not because of earning those positions. In fact, a veto power by any group is not just 50% power control, but a full 100% power control, therefore the 18% had full 100% power and not just 50%. Where is the Democracy in that.? They also had "Democracy" in South Africa where the minority whites also had full 100% power over the majority, so was that also a Democracy or something else.? The whites believed it was a Democracy, but was it.? On the other hand, the Blacks in the USA are only 10% of the overall US population and only through True Democracy (in the last 50 years or so), we have a Black President. But yet, with 18% of the overall Cyprus population, a TC could never have become a president according to the 1960 constitution, so once again, where was the Democracy in that.? Today the TC's still want to go back to those dark days of no Democracy but only to privileges instead as the case was in the 1960 constitution, and also wanting a separate state in their own name built mostly on others land in a form of a "founding state" which can become independent anytime in the future just by the majority in that state voting for it. No wonder the GC's are in no mood to grant the 18% (less than 10% now) today what was given to them in 1960 by the British. I think it is high time , that in order to find a solution to Cyprus, everyone will need to walk in everyone else’s shoes a mile or so to understand where the others are coming from and not just only insisting on, I want, I want, I want.!

Hi, Kiks,

Thanks for your response and wise words.
One can only guess as to why it was necessary to have the above quoted figures. I know i6t is not the democratic way to 'run' a country. The British obviously had a motive in suggesting this with Greece and Turkey. Apart from self interest of the three guarantors, I think that they were there (the figures) to enable the TCs to survive and to 'veto' any moves that would drag Cyprus towards Enosis or total subjugation to the GC majority. It was obvious that it was not the best solution, but it could have worked if there was ever the will.

As to DTs comment on the incriminating 'alleged' documents left behind by TC ministers, this we had discussed nearly two years ago. Have these ever been 'authenticated'? In the past has Clerides ever asked Denktash as to their authenticity. Perhaps Piratis has a video clip of these as he does give credence to anything that Denktash says.(bombing of the press offices etc). I am just curious. Perhaps these ministers had a plan 'B' and had seen the writing on the wall.

Anyway, we are here now and what is next?

Anyway, we are here now and what is next?

Deniz, WE are here. The TC's are still then. Take a lok at the difference of points raised in the negotiations.

We say no virgin birth so that one of the statlets (not saying names) doesn't get tempted to leave the federation with the temptation of being on an exact equal legal footing with the other statelet.

We say no guarantees and no outside influence in this Independent EU Member state. The TC's are still dragging out treaties from the 60's in the year 2009. How can you expect us who have lived independently for so long to accept the interference of Turkey in the running of our state?

Christofias says (and I say Christofias says cause I'm not sure on the support he has on this) a rotating Presidency with a time bias to the numerical majority. Talat says a committee that rotates the Chairman every 6 months. Its obvious that Talat here is trying his best to avoid creating a strong persona and position in the Presidency because this would then lead to a strong central govt.

Christofias says no military and Talat quotes the treaty of Guarantee again, wanting Greek and Turkish bases on the island.

Chrstofias says 1 central bank, Talat says 2. Does Talat even know that the central bank we have now is obsolete since the decisions for the EURO are taken in Frankfurt?

I won't go into land, admin and settlers yet cause it'll take me all day but you get the gist. Who's arguments seem realistic to you? Who's arguments reek of windows of opportunity for partition and who wants a united country?

Who's here and who's still back then?

From the above post, there isnt much I disagree with.

Whereas I can put my trust into the hands of 'democracy' now, it seems Talat is not free to do so. Perhaps a bit paranoiac. This could be attributed to past experiences with the GC 's.Then there are those that will lose in the event of a 'peace agreement'.

As to getting rid of Turkey as a guarantor, I think Talat has no say in the matter. The North is the 'whore' and Turkey is the 'pimp'. Figure it out.

I hear the Grey wolves coming.

Deniz, kindly wash your mouth with soap immediately and that’s an order.

Phew!!! Its only you. I was expecting a call from the wolves.


Are the sentiments I expressed in my last paragraph, incorrect?

[DT.]

You have anything to say to me you treasonous, grey wolf, placenta by-product come say it to my face.

Why would you call a tourkomogolo a traitor? Do you believe that the mogoloi on Cyprus (before '74) ever gave their allegiance to Cyprus, rather than to tourkomogolistan, or to a tourkomogolistani protectorate in Cyprus? For someone to be a traitor to Cyprus, one must've held an allegiance to Cyprus in the first place.

James_Gav old boy, having been imprisoned in an enclave for 9 years and shot at by your beloved Eoka-B dogs in the mean time, you expect me to give allegiance to "roc", pull the other one the middle one has bells on it.

My allegiance is to free Cyprus but not the hijacked "roc" or the pretend democracy you cry about in the south which the whole of Europe now knows is a sham.

What do they say to your MEPs? “ The Cypriots are coming, scarper”.

You'll get all sorts here James. Some Grey Wolves will talk about being "imprisoned" in enclaves. Not mentioning that the TMT dogs had more to do with that than the GC facsists of the time.

Still I would be interested to hear where certain Grey Wolves on this forum have heard that the whole EUrope know the ROC is a sham

Perhaps he can give us a link to ONE European institution that thinks this rather than have to proove that the whole of Europe believes that. Its the tactic of the more some gimps on this forum fart the less people will notice complete and utter bullshit coming out of their keyboard.

[james_mav]

James_Gav old boy, having been imprisoned in an enclave for 9 years and shot at by your beloved Eoka-B dogs in the mean time, you expect me to give allegiance to "roc", pull the other one the middle one has bells on it.

The idea that you have or ever had an allegiance to the Republic of Cyprus is beyond preposterous to me. I am wondering how others can think otherwise.

The allegiance of every tourkomogolo is to tourkomogolistan with no exceptions, foolish is anyone who forgets this.

which the whole of Europe now knows is a sham.

Do they?

[theunifier]

James_Gav old boy, having been imprisoned in an enclave for 9 years and shot at by your beloved Eoka-B dogs in the mean time, you expect me to give allegiance to "roc", pull the other one the middle one has bells on it.

My allegiance is to free Cyprus but not the hijacked "roc" or the pretend democracy you cry about in the south which the whole of Europe now knows is a sham.

What do they say to your MEPs? “ The Cypriots are coming, scarper”.

Have you lived in the Republic of Cyprus? It isn't perfect but I can guarantee you it is a free country and the people on the RoC are civilized and reasonable.

Lets just say if you said some crazy stuff like what you said (see quote) today, you wouldn't get shot again for it, while in the North, accusations apparently get you handcuffs if you're lucky to dodge the bullet.

So since the RoC cares for you constitutionally, why don't you accept that and we can get on with it ?

[YFred]

James_Gav old boy, having been imprisoned in an enclave for 9 years and shot at by your beloved Eoka-B dogs in the mean time, you expect me to give allegiance to "roc", pull the other one the middle one has bells on it.

The idea that you have or ever had an allegiance to the Republic of Cyprus is beyond preposterous to me. I am wondering how others can think otherwise.

The allegiance of every tourkomogolo is to tourkomogolistan with no exceptions, foolish is anyone who forgets this.

which the whole of Europe now knows is a sham.

Do they?

This will give you a very good idea what the Europeans think of you since the referendum. They have woken up dear boy.

Super-patriots find the truth very insulting indeed
By Loucas Charalambous
(archive article - Tuesday, June 23, 2009)
EVERYTHING that could have been said about the Annan plan, which was rejected in 2004 by the Greek Cypriots, has been said and returning to it might be tiresome for many.

However I think that 2004 was a true turning point in the course of the Cyprus problem, as the rejection of the settlement by the Greek Cypriots has, in my opinion, sealed the fate of the island’s Greek community. It is a very serious matter, which is why it has remained at the centre of political debate, however tedious this might be.

Comments made by the vice president of the European Commission Guenther Verheugen during his visit last week brought the issue to the fore once again. With a couple of phrases, the German, who was the Enlargement Commissioner during our EU accession negotiations, exposed the stupidity of our behaviour.

For instance, we report Turkey about her occupation everywhere, while we ensured that the occupation troops stayed here with our vote. We demand the return of our territories but when these were being returned, we voted that we did not want them. We now want to put obstacles in Turkey’s EU accession path, which was opened with our vote.

Verheugen’s reminder that Turkey was still occupying Cyprus in 2005 when her accession negotiations were given the green light, with the vote of the late president Tassos Papadopoulos, was slap in the face of the hypocrites of our political establishment. They all jumped on his because he had “insulted the memory of our respected leader”.

But where was the insult? He had simply uttered a basic truth. Why did this reminder enrage the super-patriots of DIKO, EDEK and Phileleftheros? Is it because, he made them all look stupid for not having the guts back then to criticise their “respected leader” for backing Turkey’s accession course? At the time, they actually applauded Papadopoulos’ decision.

And I do not buy the claim that Papadopoulos’ memory was insulted by Verheugen. What were the good memories left behind by late president that were being insulted? In 2004, by resorting to scare tactics and a host of politically disreputable methods, he frightened people into voting against the peace plan and promised them that he – the great politician – would secure a ‘European’ solution.

He continued as president for another four years and instead of a ‘European’ solution, the only thing he achieved was to cement partition and to isolate Cyprus internationally. This is even being said, now, by the leadership of AKEL, which had made him president in 2003.

Essentially, Verheugen merely expressed the view that all foreigners have about us. This is why not a single foreigner, of those who have dealt with the Cyprus problem, has ever defended or justified our peculiar behaviour. The UN Special Representative, Alexander Downer, is the latest example.

Last year, one of our MEPs told me the following: “They are all fed up with us. They do not want to see us. As soon as they realise that we are preparing to raise some issue, they disappear. ‘There go the Cypriots again,’ they say between them.”

This should be borne in mind by our new MEPs who have already started sharpening their knives, in the false belief that the European Parliament exists to deal with our stupidities.
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2009

[theunifier]

You are mentioning people that were ultra-nationalists and Hellenic-boys , the kind that simply don't belong in a modern world. they will eventually reform, they have no choice or they will become obsolete. How does this relate to the majority of the people living in the RoC ? There is no Eoka B crap anymore!

[DT.]

James_Gav old boy, having been imprisoned in an enclave for 9 years and shot at by your beloved Eoka-B dogs in the mean time, you expect me to give allegiance to "roc", pull the other one the middle one has bells on it.

The idea that you have or ever had an allegiance to the Republic of Cyprus is beyond preposterous to me. I am wondering how others can think otherwise.

The allegiance of every tourkomogolo is to tourkomogolistan with no exceptions, foolish is anyone who forgets this.

which the whole of Europe now knows is a sham.

Do they?

This will give you a very good idea what the Europeans think of you since the referendum. They have woken up dear boy.

Super-patriots find the truth very insulting indeed
By Loucas Charalambous
(archive article - Tuesday, June 23, 2009)
EVERYTHING that could have been said about the Annan plan, which was rejected in 2004 by the Greek Cypriots, has been said and returning to it might be tiresome for many.

However I think that 2004 was a true turning point in the course of the Cyprus problem, as the rejection of the settlement by the Greek Cypriots has, in my opinion, sealed the fate of the island’s Greek community. It is a very serious matter, which is why it has remained at the centre of political debate, however tedious this might be.

Comments made by the vice president of the European Commission Guenther Verheugen during his visit last week brought the issue to the fore once again. With a couple of phrases, the German, who was the Enlargement Commissioner during our EU accession negotiations, exposed the stupidity of our behaviour.

For instance, we report Turkey about her occupation everywhere, while we ensured that the occupation troops stayed here with our vote. We demand the return of our territories but when these were being returned, we voted that we did not want them. We now want to put obstacles in Turkey’s EU accession path, which was opened with our vote.

Verheugen’s reminder that Turkey was still occupying Cyprus in 2005 when her accession negotiations were given the green light, with the vote of the late president Tassos Papadopoulos, was slap in the face of the hypocrites of our political establishment. They all jumped on his because he had “insulted the memory of our respected leader”.

But where was the insult? He had simply uttered a basic truth. Why did this reminder enrage the super-patriots of DIKO, EDEK and Phileleftheros? Is it because, he made them all look stupid for not having the guts back then to criticise their “respected leader” for backing Turkey’s accession course? At the time, they actually applauded Papadopoulos’ decision.

And I do not buy the claim that Papadopoulos’ memory was insulted by Verheugen. What were the good memories left behind by late president that were being insulted? In 2004, by resorting to scare tactics and a host of politically disreputable methods, he frightened people into voting against the peace plan and promised them that he – the great politician – would secure a ‘European’ solution.

He continued as president for another four years and instead of a ‘European’ solution, the only thing he achieved was to cement partition and to isolate Cyprus internationally. This is even being said, now, by the leadership of AKEL, which had made him president in 2003.

Essentially, Verheugen merely expressed the view that all foreigners have about us. This is why not a single foreigner, of those who have dealt with the Cyprus problem, has ever defended or justified our peculiar behaviour. The UN Special Representative, Alexander Downer, is the latest example.

Last year, one of our MEPs told me the following: “They are all fed up with us. They do not want to see us. As soon as they realise that we are preparing to raise some issue, they disappear. ‘There go the Cypriots again,’ they say between them.”

This should be borne in mind by our new MEPs who have already started sharpening their knives, in the false belief that the European Parliament exists to deal with our stupidities.
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2009

Thats it???? Thats the whole of EUrope? 1 EU commissioner 5 years go?