Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

Also "Mr. Peace" Bananiot, you didn't answer my question: Is there anything that is worth fighting for? Freedom? Democracy? Human Rights?

[halil]

I remind everyone of this year's educational target as set by the Ministry of education and culture.

Καλλιέργεια κουλτούρας ειρηνικής συμβίωσης, αμοιβαίου σεβασμού και συνεργασίας Ελληνοκυπρίων και Τουρκοκυπρίων με στόχο την απαλλαγή από την κατοχή και την επανένωση της πατρίδας και του λαού μας

Translation:

Cultivation of culture of peaceful coexistence, mutual respect and cooperation between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots in order to get rid of occupation and reunite our country and our people.

And, Halil and my other dear Turkish Cypriot friends are not my enemy. My enemy has always been people like you B25. Do not forget this!

Thank u very much Bananiot .....No one is our enemy Bananiot as long as we can live in this small island we must have respect for each others rights. Because of people like B25 and others We the Turkish Cypriots are asking and demanding effective gurantees of Turkey in Cyprus . That they will not dare to spoil our new partnership again .

We want peace and stability in this island for our children future . We want to grow up our children in this island that they can learn to live together and have a respect to each other culture and work together future of new Federal Cyprus .

[Tony-4497]

Mr Charalambous is a bitter man who fought hard to "sell" the Annan plan to GCs in 2004 and still cannot digest it that 76% of GCs rejected his views. He obviously considers those people as "fools".

His article is full of intentional alterations of the participants' views. Addressing the substance of his points:

One of the guests, Christos Triantafyllides, considered it an outrage to have improved a provision included in the Annan plan. His reasoning was that, as the plan had been rejected, an improvement of one of its provision was totally out of order.

In other words, any settlement plan must be brand new. Even the use of words found in the 9,000 pages of that plan must be prohibited. Perhaps we should invent a new alphabet for writing the new settlement deal, because if we use the traditional alphabet the agreement would stink.

The point Triantafillides made was that the STARTING POINT was the AP (i.e. they STARTED with the AP provision and then there was some give & take which got us to the final position). Tsielepis himself effectively stated this and anyone who watched the discussion knows this.

This may be fine for the Turks and for dear Loucas but Christofias's contract with those who elected him is clearly violated by this.

The fact that just a year after the referendum, then President Tassos Papadopoulos drafted a list of 12 changes he wanted made to the Annan plan in order to accept it in its entirety, seems to be of no significance to Triantafyllides.

The later 8th July agreement clearly superseded the above list (ownership of which was rejected by Tassos). This agreement was buried by Christofias, despite his written commitments to the opposite - this opened the door for the negotiation of the AP (i.e. "cementing the Yes").

A young lawyer by the name of Giorgos Christodoulou, who was also a guest on the show, for unknown reasons, made an astonishing revelation. Rotating presidency was not a proposal made by Christofias: it was made by the Turks. He repeated the phrase ‘proposal of the Turks’ about 10 times.

In other words, for this ambitious legal-eagle, a peace agreement, that would have to be accepted by the Turkish Cypriots, as it would determine their future as well, cannot include a provision that is based on their proposal. Is this, such a crime? Was he suggesting that all the provisions of the deal must be dictated by the Greek Cypriots, because we are smarter?

Tsielepis was arguing that the idea for the rotating presidency belonged to other presidents (Tasos, Clerides etc). The point made was that Christofias/ Tsielepis accepted an outrageous long-standing Turkish demand and then tried to justify this by saying that it was not their idea - and even more outrageously, they present this is as a SUCCESS i.e. the fact that we are bending over and accepting Turkish demands is PROGRESS.

A big bombshell was dropped in the studio by another Anastassiades adviser – former New Horizons deputy Christos Clerides. With the settlement, he said, Turkey wanted, at all costs, to dissolve our state and govern us Greeks through the Turkish Cypriot vice-president.

Nobody appears to have informed Clerides that Turkey has two army divisions in Cyprus that could crush us within a few hours – and they will continue to have them for as long as the legions of fool oppose a settlement. In short, if Ankara wanted to dissolve our state, it could do so much more effectively with the occupation army rather than through a Turkish Cypriot vice-president.

If Turkey COULD do this, then it would have done it. Let them try to invade EU land and see what happens. As things stand right now, the ONLY way in which Turkey can gain control of all of Cyprus is through GCs granting them the right. And if geniuses like Charalambous had it their way, this would happen tomorrow.

[YFred]

Mr Charalambous is a bitter man who fought hard to "sell" the Annan plan to GCs in 2004 and still cannot digest it that 76% of GCs rejected his views. He obviously considers those people as "fools".

His article is full of intentional alterations of the participants' views. Addressing the substance of his points:

One of the guests, Christos Triantafyllides, considered it an outrage to have improved a provision included in the Annan plan. His reasoning was that, as the plan had been rejected, an improvement of one of its provision was totally out of order.

In other words, any settlement plan must be brand new. Even the use of words found in the 9,000 pages of that plan must be prohibited. Perhaps we should invent a new alphabet for writing the new settlement deal, because if we use the traditional alphabet the agreement would stink.

The point Triantafillides made was that the STARTING POINT was the AP (i.e. they STARTED with the AP provision and then there was some give & take which got us to the final position). Tsielepis himself effectively stated this and anyone who watched the discussion knows this.

This may be fine for the Turks and for dear Loucas but Christofias's contract with those who elected him is clearly violated by this.

The fact that just a year after the referendum, then President Tassos Papadopoulos drafted a list of 12 changes he wanted made to the Annan plan in order to accept it in its entirety, seems to be of no significance to Triantafyllides.

The later 8th July agreement clearly superseded the above list (ownership of which was rejected by Tassos). This agreement was buried by Christofias, despite his written commitments to the opposite - this opened the door for the negotiation of the AP (i.e. "cementing the Yes").

A young lawyer by the name of Giorgos Christodoulou, who was also a guest on the show, for unknown reasons, made an astonishing revelation. Rotating presidency was not a proposal made by Christofias: it was made by the Turks. He repeated the phrase ‘proposal of the Turks’ about 10 times.

In other words, for this ambitious legal-eagle, a peace agreement, that would have to be accepted by the Turkish Cypriots, as it would determine their future as well, cannot include a provision that is based on their proposal. Is this, such a crime? Was he suggesting that all the provisions of the deal must be dictated by the Greek Cypriots, because we are smarter?

Tsielepis was arguing that the idea for the rotating presidency belonged to other presidents (Tasos, Clerides etc). The point made was that Christofias/ Tsielepis accepted an outrageous long-standing Turkish demand and then tried to justify this by saying that it was not their idea - and even more outrageously, they present this is as a SUCCESS i.e. the fact that we are bending over and accepting Turkish demands is PROGRESS.

A big bombshell was dropped in the studio by another Anastassiades adviser – former New Horizons deputy Christos Clerides. With the settlement, he said, Turkey wanted, at all costs, to dissolve our state and govern us Greeks through the Turkish Cypriot vice-president.

Nobody appears to have informed Clerides that Turkey has two army divisions in Cyprus that could crush us within a few hours – and they will continue to have them for as long as the legions of fool oppose a settlement. In short, if Ankara wanted to dissolve our state, it could do so much more effectively with the occupation army rather than through a Turkish Cypriot vice-president.

If Turkey COULD do this, then it would have done it. Let them try to invade EU land and see what happens. As things stand right now, the ONLY way in which Turkey can gain control of all of Cyprus is through GCs granting them the right. And if geniuses like Charalambous had it their way, this would happen tomorrow.

He repeated the phrase ‘proposal of the Turks’ about 10 times.

The point made was that Christofias/ Tsielepis accepted an outrageous long-standing Turkish demand and then tried to justify this by saying that it was not their idea - and even more outrageously, they present this is as a SUCCESS

These two points are not the same. In any case so you don't think that TCs giving up the veto of the VP is that much of a give, so we'll take it back and keep the Veto and you can have the whole of the presidency.

You really have no hope in life, to see a good thing when it hits never mind to be able to search and find it.

[Bananiot]

Is the EU a military alliance? Are you really serious or do you just listen to nice slogans of the ex president's supporters. Do you also think that the EU will come to the aid of Greece if Turkey declares war? Do you also believe that we are the innocent ones and Turkey the villain? Its a pity others (those that matter) at least apportion blame more evently.

Tony, time works against us. In another few years there will be no Cyprus problem to solve. This is our last chance for a fair settlement as Turkey is pushing hard for EU accession. The best we can hope for is compromise and I think that asking for maximum gains is tantamoun to treason (just to use a term cretins easy use in this forum) because we have the benefit of hindsight. Every time we went for the desirable we ended crying over ruins. The European Union is not the vehicle to achieve our maximum aims. In fact, our partners have adviced us many times, in a friendly way, against this.

The above is also an answer to the simplistic question of Piratis. What is worth fighting for, he pompously asks? Of course he spares no effort to tell what a moral fighter he is, probably from the comfort of his arm chair. My "fight" is a humble one, to see Cyprus united again and its people happy and prosperous. This can happen if we manage to get rid of our nationalism, our phobias and our conservatism. I have held these view for all my adult life and if we could, prior to 1974, show a little bit of magnanimity to the Turkish Cypriots, we would have never arrived at this sorry state. Playing the patriotic hand today may sound okay, but it can only mean more pain for us and all peace-loving Cypriots.

[Tony-4497]

In any case so you don't think that TCs giving up the veto of the VP is that much of a give, so we'll take it back and keep the Veto and you can have the whole of the presidency.

You really have no hope in life, to see a good thing when it hits never mind to be able to search and find it.

You can have your veto back at ANY time, but with it you have to have back ALL of the 1960 agreements i.e. unitary state, everyone goes back to their properties, colonisers and troops (beyong those allowed) p*ss off back to Turkey etc.

There is NOTHING stopping you from doing this even tomorrow - and with Cyprus being part of the EU, no militarty junta ruling Greece and continuation of Turkish guarantees, you cannot claim that safety/ security is a problem is doing so (not with a straight face, anyway).

What's stopping you from doing this then? Is it perhaps that you quite like the idea of the brutal theft and prefer to just keep the stolen goods?

[Get Real!]

You can have your veto back at ANY time, but with it you have to have back ALL of the 1960 agreements...

I don't think so...

The Turkish Cypriots were the first to violate the 1959 agreements and also declare them null & void! Subsequently, Greece, Turkey, and Britain violated them too in that order. There is no going back.

[Tony-4497]

Is the EU a military alliance? Are you really serious or do you just listen to nice slogans of the ex president's supporters. Do you also think that the EU will come to the aid of Greece if Turkey declares war? Do you also believe that we are the innocent ones and Turkey the villain? Its a pity others (those that matter) at least apportion blame more evently.

Tony, time works against us. In another few years there will be no Cyprus problem to solve. This is our last chance for a fair settlement as Turkey is pushing hard for EU accession. The best we can hope for is compromise and I think that asking for maximum gains is tantamoun to treason (just to use a term cretins easy use in this forum) because we have the benefit of hindsight. Every time we went for the desirable we ended crying over ruins. The European Union is not the vehicle to achieve our maximum aims. In fact, our partners have adviced us many times, in a friendly way, against this.

- I did not suggest that the EU would send troops to protect us (although under the right circumstances, some countries might). However, if Turkey tried such a thing, the political consequences would be very hard to overcome. I believe war could actually happen, if in the long term Turkey is rejected by the EU and no longer cares at all about its image, law etc. In such a case, however, we would not be more "protected" if prior to this we had acceped an Annan type solution (in fact we would be more exposed as we will have lost the RoC).

- As for timing, maximum gains etc: I believe my position is more realistic than yours. I suggested that for a BBF to have ANY realistic chance of succeeding at a GC referendum, it should be as painless as possible for GCs. A BBF grants Turks their main objectives but is already a huge compromise for GCs and is unikely to pass in any case. For it to have ANY chance, the fundamental human rights, starting with private property, need to be protected. Your position i.e. sending a slightly revised Annan Plan to referendum is doomed to fail. Who is the realist here?

[Get Real!]

Tony, time works against us.

You can say that again!

[Tony-4497]

You can have your veto back at ANY time, but with it you have to have back ALL of the 1960 agreements...

I don't think so...

The Turkish Cypriots were the first to violate the 1959 agreements and also declare them null & void! Subsequently, Greece, Turkey, and Britain violated them too in that order. There is no going back.

If Turks restored order, the RoC would be unable to reject a return to the 1960 status - i.e. the 1963 amendmends could no longer be justified, politically or before international or EU courts.