Cyprus-Forum.com

[boulio]

more then you im afraid.

[Piratis]

Oh my God Bulio! If you were a Turk you would tell me "mutually accepted does not mean accepting greek demands and red lines". Have you any idea what we are talking about here?

Piratis

Furthermore, the EU is clear about which is the legal side in Cyprus. If the TCs have demands which make a mutually acceptable solution impossible then they are the ones who will continue facing the consequences of their illegalities.

Really, that simple! Then why did Papadopoulos signed the document telling Turkey to continue her positive contribution towards finding a solution?

Did that legalize the "trnc" and the occupation?

[Viewpoint]

Real soon piratis

[Piratis]

Real soon piratis

Tomorrow? this year? next year? next 3 years? When? Can you put a time frame on that "real soon" or you will not dare?

[Viewpoint]

As long as you GCs keep up the Goodyear Work of supporting division

[Bananiot]

If it is illegal (in the way you interpret the term) why the hell do all head of states open the door to Talat and if Turkey is so bad and the villain here, why the hell was she voted a non permanent member of the Security Council of the UN?

[Get Real!]

If it is illegal (in the way you interpret the term) why the hell do all head of states open the door to Talat and if Turkey is so bad and the villain here, why the hell was she voted a non permanent member of the Security Council of the UN?

So why was Turkey voted a non-permanent member of the UN SC Bananiot?

[YFred]

If it is illegal (in the way you interpret the term) why the hell do all head of states open the door to Talat and if Turkey is so bad and the villain here, why the hell was she voted a non permanent member of the Security Council of the UN?

So why was Turkey voted a non-permanent member of the UN SC Bananiot?

Dipstick, what you should be asking is why do we have permanent members in this day and age with every one esle pretending to be democratic. And the second is why is it that the 5 permanent members of the security council of the un are the main suppliers of armamaments to the world, is it because of the word security in their title?

[Kikapu]

Kikapu

What are you saying, Bananiot, that the "Turks" behaved badly in Cyprus since 1571.??

No my friend, I did not say this. I could have said it however, but in this case you know very well, I am sure, that my response was to a baseless theoretical question of DT which had an ulterior motive, just like yours I am afraid, but I get your drift. Just to set your mind to rest, I would have been much happier, just like everybody I guess, if there were no invasions and occupations. However, the history of mankind is one of mass movement and given the legacy of globalisation, things will be no different in the future, simply "occupations" will take many different forms, more subtle perhaps but equally effective (look at poor old Greece).

That is a ridiculous question. It does not befit an answer. You cannot erase historical events. You merely face them rationally. Christ, if it were not the Turks, it could have been the Arabs or some other muscleman of the area. What were the guarantees that they would have behaved better?

But your quote above most definitely implies that the "Turks" behaved badly in Cyprus, only perhaps not as badly as the Arabs or other "muscleman" of the area, had they invaded and occupied instead of the "Turks", as being the one of the latest invaders and occupiers of Cyprus in the chain of Invasions and occupations going back centuries in the history of Cyprus, but since you do not want to rewrite history by imagining what it would have been like under the Arabs and others, then we are only left with history that has been written, which is the invasion and occupation by the "Turks" going back to 1571 and as recently as 1974, which according to your implied answer, they have behaved badly in your above quote. But if you now claim that you did not imply that the "Turks" did in fact behaved badly, are you saying then that the invasion and occupation by the "Turks", be it be in 1571 or 1974, does not constitute as being bad, even though you yourself wished no such invasion and occupation had taken place, even though it may be part of Human Nature to do so, according to your beliefs, and if it's only Human Nature to do so, then you must accept such Invasions & Occupations as not being bad at all, just because it is Human Nature. Is this how you see things, Bananiot.??

If YFred wrote the above quote that you wrote, I would have dismissed it in a second as being a worthless response, but coming from someone as intellectual as yourself, it warranted for me to explore what was it that you were trying to say exactly to DT. I do not have an ulterior motive as you have stated, Bananiot, but only seeking clarification.!

For a moment with your response to DT sounded as if you were in agreement with Piratis, that the "Turks" have behaved badly in Cyprus going back as far as 1571. Now, that would have been an historic event if such agreement between you two did take place.!

[Gregory]

Kikapu

What are you saying, Bananiot, that the "Turks" behaved badly in Cyprus since 1571.??

No my friend, I did not say this. I could have said it however, but in this case you know very well, I am sure, that my response was to a baseless theoretical question of DT which had an ulterior motive, just like yours I am afraid, but I get your drift. Just to set your mind to rest, I would have been much happier, just like everybody I guess, if there were no invasions and occupations. However, the history of mankind is one of mass movement and given the legacy of globalisation, things will be no different in the future, simply "occupations" will take many different forms, more subtle perhaps but equally effective (look at poor old Greece).

That is a ridiculous question. It does not befit an answer. You cannot erase historical events. You merely face them rationally. Christ, if it were not the Turks, it could have been the Arabs or some other muscleman of the area. What were the guarantees that they would have behaved better?

But your quote above most definitely implies that the "Turks" behaved badly in Cyprus, only perhaps not as badly as the Arabs or other "muscleman" of the area, had they invaded and occupied instead of the "Turks", as being the one of the latest invaders and occupiers of Cyprus in the chain of Invasions and occupations going back centuries in the history of Cyprus, but since you do not want to rewrite history by imagining what it would have been like under the Arabs and others, then we are only left with history that has been written, which is the invasion and occupation by the "Turks" going back to 1571 and as recently as 1974, which according to your implied answer, they have behaved badly in your above quote. But if you now claim that you did not imply that the "Turks" did in fact behaved badly, are you saying then that the invasion and occupation by the "Turks", be it be in 1571 or 1974, does not constitute as being bad, even though you yourself wished no such invasion and occupation had taken place, even though it may be part of Human Nature to do so, according to your beliefs, and if it's only Human Nature to do so, then you must accept such Invasions & Occupations as not being bad at all, just because it is Human Nature. Is this how you see things, Bananiot.??

If YFred wrote the above quote that you wrote, I would have dismissed it in a second as being a worthless response, but coming from someone as intellectual as yourself, it warranted for me to explore what was it that you were trying to say exactly to DT. I do not have an ulterior motive as you have stated, Bananiot, but only seeking clarification.!

For a moment with your response to DT sounded as if you were in agreement with Piratis, that the "Turks" have behaved badly in Cyprus going back as far as 1571. Now, that would have been an historic event if such agreement between you two did take place.!

It was a trick question from DT, Bananlot couldn never give a right answer to that.