Cyprus-Forum.com

[MicAtCyp]

Eprises mas ta! Papadopoulos & PapadopoulosPapadopoulos & PapadopoulosPapadopoulos & PapadopoulosPapadopoulos & PapadopoulosPapadopoulos & PapadopoulosPapadopoulos & PapadopoulosPapadopoulos & PapadopoulosPapadopoulos & PapadopoulosPapadopoulos & Papadopoulos

Evarethikamen se

[MicAtCyp]

Count the number of swears of this unbeleivable teacher Kifeas, and the way he hides himself like an ostrich:
You are laughable,miserable, pupil of your master unexcused for being immature and unwise.
One has to pass through a sea of swears, to locate any essense to his messages-if he finds any.

Bananiot go to the zoo.Take your Bananas with you.

[Kifeas]

Papadopoulos was labelled a "turkeater" by a number of prominent AKEL leaders such as Papaioannou, Ziartides and Fantis. Of course it does not mean that he killed many Turks in battles but it portraits a fanatic man who hates the turk to his bone marrow.

Look carefully how Bananiot phrases his sentences so that he can give a distorting impression to a reader. He says “Of course it does not mean that he killed many Turks in battles…” What is he trying to do with this sentence? He implies that Papadopoullos didn’t kill many Turks but that doesn’t exclude the possibility that he killed some Turks. What he excludes is the killing of many but by saying so, he immediately and subconsciously invites the reader to assume or imagine that he must have killed some. Pathetic Bananiot! Very pathetic!

What is pathetic Kifeas is to judge by association. You readily condemn GC's because a TC declares that he agrees with him and you make mockery of serious debate.

I did not condemn any GC because a TC declared that he agreed with him. If you are talking about Othellos, then you need to read more into the topic. I entered into such a serious debate with him, despite my general remark about how some TCs rushed to cheer his Papadopoullos criticism. My remark was not a hint against Othellos but rather a hint to those TCs that choose to play the role of cheerleaders to anyone who criticises Papadopoullos.

This is a laughable attitute, just as laughable as your insinuations that there are always ulterior motives for a person's stance, ie your insistence that someone who said yes to the solution did so only because he stood to gain something, return to his properties etc.

And who is this person Bananiot? Othellos again? If you read again more carefully, my “insinuation” in relation to Othellos property in Famagusta was associated with his current frustration for the stalemate and his impatience to see some action on the whole issue, which he seems to believe that is deriving from Papadopoullos lack of leadership abilities. It was not an “insinuation” to the reasons he said “Yes” to the plan!

This is also a miserable attitude and you prove to be a good pupil of your master.

I am not a pupil and I have no Master. I do not follow anybody’s agenda and I do not repeat like a parrot some political party leaders clichés and slogans. Unlike you!

This is always how Papadopoulos functioned, since he burst onto the political scene of Cyprus in the 50's. Age has done nothing to make him more mellow, more wise. What is your excuse?

My excuse is my common sense, studying and research! Yours?

[Othellos]

My apologies to all in adbance for this long post.


Mikkie2,

In my view Papadopoulos is waiting for certain things to happen before October 3rd. You only have to see how Turkey is doing what she can to avoid signing the customs protocol. A game is being played here.

Following last year's referendum, Christofias referred to an upcoming deadline in September or October of the same year when important developments were expected to take place, but nothing happened. The next deadline was set in December when Turkey was to get a date to start accession talks and again nothing happened with respect to Cyprus. Now we are all being referred to October 3rd as a new deadline. While this will be a historic day for Turkey, my own guess is that again nothing much will happen regarding Cyprus. Why? Because through his "policy", President Papadopoulos has been successful in providing Turkey with all the excuses they need for not solving the problem for the next 2 decades or so. By then of course most of the parameters of the problem will have been resolved through time.

Other than that I agree with you about needing leaders who can get the job done. But in all honesty, can anyone believe that this man we elected for President (personally I never voted for him) is trying hard for a solution to the Cyprus problem? When the process was still in place and when he had the chance to negotiate a better (and thus more acceptable UN plan) he failed to do so. What makes anyone think that he will be more successful if he starts from scratch? And what makes us believe that the international community is willing to go along with this scenario? (more on this further down in my post).

Gabaston, Viewpoint, Metecyp and brother:

I have no doubt that you all agree with me when it comes to Tassos Papadopoulos. But do you also think that I still think and speak like a true Cypriot when I talk about Turkey's ongoing occupation in Cyprus and the right of all Cypriot refugees to return to their ancestral homes? I understand that there is nothing wrong or unexpected about disagreeing on some issues, as we all come from different backgrounds. I become extremely skeptical however when we disagree on basic principles about what is just, fair and honest. Having Turkey occupying military the homes of thousands Cypriot refugees and having Anatolian settlers living in them is neither honest, nor fair. Yes, we can go back and start talking about the 1950's and the 1960's but then again we will be all thinking like Papadopoulos and by agreeing with my previous post, you have already established that we should not remain attached to the mentality of that era. So what will it be? While I agree in full with brother that we all need to make a sincere effort in understanding what is best for our island and its future, when I read some of the "arguments" expressed in this forum that aim in "justifying" how some Cypriots must remain eternal refugees because of their Greek background then I just lose hope.

Kifeas

Which thoughts and ways you have known or experienced and which are firmly glued to the 1960’s era? Can you be specific? Because I also read these nonsense and slogans every day in “Alithia” and Cyprus mail” and none of them does much of a sense to me.

Labeling individual citizens as "traitors" but without any proof and holding secret (!) meetings with Denktash Jr. to undermine the UN solution efforts are only 2 of the examples I can come up with as I write this.

Can you tell us which one specifically he accused of being a traitor? He only said so about those who had received funds from outside in order to carry out part of the “YES” campaign.

On more than one occasions Papadopoulos accused Cypriot citizens being "traitors" but without being ever able to prove how they "betrayed" their country. And I am sure that you remember the infamous "nenekides" insult (nenekos was a traitor in the Greek Revolution of 1821) made last August and directed against a number of refugees from Famagusta. For all I know, a real leader never labels his people "traitors" because they disagree with him. In case he does make a mistake like this (and we all make mistakes), he can always come back and apologize for it - but this takes guts to do.

Did he say that you, Othellos, because you voted “Yes” you are a traitor? Did you receive money from outside, in order to promote the “Yes”? Where is the problem on this issue? Did he force anyone not to promote or carry out his campaign in favour of “Yes”?

That is exactly the problem, Kifeas: the fact that Papadopoulos way of doing politics includes the issue of labels and the cast of accusations without ever bothering to prove them. If u ask me this is the worst kind of populism. Other than that, there are some things that happened in the days just before the referendum that were anything but flattering for us as a society. These ranged from the intimidation of government employees while informing them about the negative provisions of the UN plan, to the vandalizing of cars and private property of some YES supporters. In a way all this reminded me of that one time when Dr. Evdokas dared to stand out by running against Makarios for President.

Well, only someone with guts, high moral and vision could have stood up against so many foreign pressure and threats during the pre-referendum period, and advice the people on what he believed was right. If you have forgotten it, during those days only the threat for an A-bomb was not utilised in order to crush the moral of the people. All the rest of means and threats have more or less being employed in order to get a “Yes.” Yet, Mr Anastasiades had the audacity to report the government to the E.U. commission for using “undemocratic” means in order to secure the “No.”

The easiest thing in the world, Kifeas, is to take a plan (even when this is far from perfect) and trash it without second thought or before making a serious effort to improve it. You have every right to call this guts, high moral and vision. I call it plain stupidity, total lack of vision and irresponsibility. If Papadopoulos had all the great qualities that you mention above (guts, vision etc), then he would have first made a serious and sincere effort to improve the plan. If all his efforts failed then he could reject it without taking it to a referendum, while providing adequate explanations to the plan authors about why their work (or parts of it), are unacceptable to us. Which brings me to my next question: Was the Annan plan totally unacceptable as a solution or not? If the plan was totally unacceptable in the first place, then why did Papadopoulos agree upfront that this should be placed in a referendum anyway? How much could change in this plan once it was accepted as a basis for a solution?

Which 12 months are you talking about? Before or after the referendum?

I was talking about before the referendum. But what I wrote earlier can also apply to the period after the referendum where we see very little action (to use mikkie’s term) from Papadopoulos.

In which way do you think Mr. Klerides or Mr. Anastasiades would have addressed them and what in particular did Mr. Klerides do during his term, towards this direction? These concerns were there all along, even before the A-plan made its first appearance, which was during Klerides presidency.

The first version of the UN plan appeared in November 2002. Despite its many imperfections, this was the first time that a comprehensive plan for the solution of the Cyprus problem was prepared by the international community. In part this was the result of an overall strategy that was pursued by the Greek and Cypriot Governments: to make Cyprus an EU member and use this opportunity to solve the problem. Considering that the upcoming Presidential elections were only 3 months away, I do not think that Clerides had enough time to do much with the plan, especially since this had already been rejected by the Turkish side.

Papadopoullos made specific suggestions for more guarantees by the UN for the implementation of the plan and also for the territories agreed to be returned, to become formally part of the GCCS from day one of the agreement and to be administered by the UN. Turkey accepted none of his proposals and consequently none of them was adequately address by the UN.

Formally speaking and from what I remember, the returning territories were to become part of the GCCS from day 1. The problem was a practical one, as the UN were the first to reject the idea of assuming extensive police and administration duties in areas that would still be inhabited by TCs during the transitional period. But if this is our only problem with the UN plan then why doesn't our President just say so? If there is good will from all sides then I am sure that this can be resolved in a mutually acceptable manner?

Is it? I just had the opposite opinion! Thanks for the inculcation any way! I also hear this admonishing slogans quite often from Themistokleous, Vasiliou, Papapetrou and Anastasiades.

All I am saying, Kifeas, we are less than 1 million people on this island. This makes us equivalent to the population of a medium sized city in Europe. What makes you think that the rest of the world has the time to bother with us eternally? Either with or without a solution, rest assured that the rest of the world will continue to exist.

Don’t you realise that under the current circumstances and climate - as it emerged after the rejection of the plan, and with the known attitude of the US -that used to do nothing else than repeating to us that it only supports a solution on the A-plan with almost none or very few and minor changes, that to begin a fervent campaign for a resumption of negotiations -in an almost pleading manner, would have only ended up getting ourselves back to the same plan that we have already rejected? Don’t you just see this very simple logic?

Ah..but in part it was the way that Papadopoulos called for the rejection of the plan - and not the rejection of the plan by itself - that created the current climate and circumstances. Again Kifeas, rejecting a solution proposal that was prepared with the aid of the UN upon our 30 year long insistence like that and without even bothering to explain to them in detail what is it exactly that we reject and why, was in my opinion unwise. Consequently one can only wonder why the UN will even bother to re-initiate a long and expensive process with the aim to prepare a new plan when there are no guarantees about all parties participating seriously and constructively in it.

You said before that we are not the centre of the Universe. That means that the capacity and power of any Cypriot president is not unlimited and that there is a certain maximum length that we can reach, especially when the international circumstances and climate are not the most favourable.

Agreed.

What we need is some patience. I know you are frustrated because as a person originating from an area, which was meant to be returned to the GC community, you feel like this opportunity has been denied to you unreasonably and perhaps due to Papadopoullos handlings. However, there is also an equally large number of GC refugees whose properties and return rights would have been usurped for ever and without a possibility for a way back or even a provision for any decent compensation, either by the plan itself or by the GC community alone.

Being patient, my friend is what many people here in Cyprus have been doing since 1974 and even before that. And no, contrary to what some may think my interest in a solution does not stem exclusively from my undeniable desire to return to my now occupied home (and there is nothing wrong with that btw). We Cypriots (Greek or Turk) all need a solution because right now and perhaps with the exception of Turkey, everyone else on this island is losing. Yes, the rights of all Cypriot refugees should be accounted for in any solution, but how can that happen when we have reached a complete stalemate? Not so long ago, Minister of tourism George Lilikas stated that we can wait for another 25 years for a solution if we have to. What mr. Lilikas does not dare to tell us is how many refugees will there be left in 25 years time and about what rights of theirs will we be talking by that time?

Klerides was in the list of candidates to replace Makarios once the coup would have taken place. He refused the offer when he found out that Makarios was still alive and in Pafos. Then the same offer was made to Sampson who accepted it. I know how Klerides became the president later. What is so important about Papadopoullos whereabouts-in summer 1974?

Whose list was this and when did Clerides agree to be on it? Papadopoulos' whereabouts in 1974 are important because imo, the quality of any person can be best evaluated from their behavior in times of crisis. And as far as I know, Clerides was the only one who stood there.

Who said so! I just made a hind for gabaston. It is very amusing to watch how some TCs in the forum rush quickly to applauded and cheer every GC that says something against Papadopoullos

I agree that you have a point here. Our TC friends and compatriots must understand that when we GCs criticize our leaders or when we point out our own past mistakes, this does not reduce one bit the great responsibility of the Turkish side for the ongoing situation in Cyprus. What they need to understand even more is that if there is going to be a solution, this must not result to the humiliation of either side, that it must be viable and at the same time as fair as it can be after 30+ years.

And as for any solution plan, no one can expect this to be perfect and no solution will be implemented without any difficulties. At the end of the day it all comes down to how much will there is on both sides to cooperate.


Bananiot:

Papadopoulos was labelled a "turkeater" by a number of prominent AKEL leaders such as Papaioannou, Ziartides and Fantis. Of course it does not mean that he killed many Turks in battles but it portraits a fanatic man who hates the turk to his bone marrow.

Labels alone are not enough here. Do you or anyone else have reliable information about Papadopoulos ever participating in any battles and killing people? If yes then I would be extremely interested to know.

O.

[gabaston]

Othellos

I have written that Paps is a liar and that he is selling gcs down the drain and his main concern is a second term, however he is doing his job i.e. he represents the people who voted for him, and in that respect he deserves some credit. I doubt that he will ever change. In a way I take my hat of to him for representing his people.

It is not up to him to change but the gc people as a whole. Thanks to free thinkers like yourself, Saint Jimmy, Bananiot there is hope. The danger is that in twenty years time most of gc voters will have had no experience of those earlier years and what this is all about. They will only have stories of Ottomans and barbaric turks etc, much like our lot will have their horror stories. Propaganda in other words. We could now be entering a very critical twenty year period. Possibly make or break.

The Turkish Army

This is a big one huh..

well from our point of view we are a bit suspicious as to the reasons why they should leave. I mean how will things change if they do? How will you benefit? I doubt that you’ll all rush over the border with guns and start a war. So what have you to gain? In the last thirty years they have not officially crossed the green line and generally not harmed gc’s ….sure there may have been incidents but on the whole they have been of no further threat since the 74 invasion. They have been a defensive force rather than offensive. They pose a threat I appreciate.
Maybe out of goodwill they could withdraw, but then wouldn’t we be throwing away some of our bargaining chips. Once a solution has been agreed I’m sure that Turkey will withdraw the majority of them.

Re settlers

I have no strong views on this one, all countries have immigrants. Britain has millions France Germany etc etc do you not have any? As an Eu country are you not suppose to open your doors to other Eu citizens? Gooses and Ganders on this one I guess.

Othellos you talk like a true Cypriot. We wish there were more like you. Most of us tcs would like to be Cypriot too, make no mistake on that, but history tell us that we’ve been second class cypriots since 1963. Hopefully future generations can see beyond past present day stigmas and come together again, but for now I think we should agree on some kind of bi-zonal system and look at it again in say twenty years.

There is too much hostility and a respected cooling off period may be the best solution. This does not have to be permanent and it does not have to entail partition either. When you dropped Enosis it was only natural that we dropped partition.

Those who insult free thinkers are the traitors. Their Freudian slips show and their use of the word traitor reveals hidden agendas, which perhaps we are not supposed to know about. Believe it or not many tcs would prefer to live with gcs than fight them or be partitioned. Our economy would benefit, our cultures would be enriched, our children could grow without hatred in their hearts. In London my generation of t and g mix well and we are all the better for it. Our children know very little of the past and most are to busy being teenagers to be even interested, until that is, they go to cyprus for holidays. Then they start asking questions, so we tell our kids our stories, and you tell your kids your stories, and around and around we go again.