Bananiot wrote:KikapuBut 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.!
I do not what is the state of your mood these days Kikapu, I suppose you are just using this as an opportunity to do some mental exercising. I can understand this and I take no offense. However, I am sure that you are simply attempting to cheat reason while appealing to reason. I hope you agree with this because otherwise you would have me worrying.
Hello Bananiot,
I don't think I have ever offended you in the past, and nor do I have any intentions of offending you now. Just for the record, you too have never offended me with any of your posts directed at me personally. As for my mental state, well, it is the same as ever, always going beyond the surface of statements made to see what lies behind that statement and to try and bring it to the surface.!
It was very difficult to not to have responded to your post to DT, just because it contradicts with some of your stance regarding the Cyprus issues. Lets take this quote you made for instance.
"What were the guarantees that they (Arabs and other muscleman) would have behaved better?"
meaning that the "Turks" have behaved badly in Cyprus, only not as bad as others would have, and yet, you are willing to hand over guarantees and intervention rights to Turkey for the future of Cyprus, when you are very clearly implying that the "Turks" have behaved badly in Cyprus, even though you wished no such invasions and occupation had taken place.!
The above contradiction is just one of other contradictions you stand on, Bananiot. For example, your signature states that;
“Agreed partition is tantamount to high treason”
and yet, you supported the Annan Plan back in 2004 and pretty much support it today, after knowing all there is to know of the AP being nothing but a Confederation Partition Plan. Excuse my ignorance Bananiot, but something just does not add up here. Your above contradicting stances is on the same parallels as allowing an alcoholic to work in a Pub, or a compulsive gambler to work at a Casino, or a sex addict to work in a Brothel or a child molester to work as a Scout leader.!
