Cyprus-Forum.com

[Afroasiatis]

Afro, it's for the same reason. The GCs can see the Turkification of the north but are blind to the Greekification of the south that has been going on for over a century.
Talk of turkeys voting for Christmas.

Yes, of course there was a Greekification as well, leading to loss of Cypriot local identity. The difference is perhaps that this process goes on for a much longer period, and so it doesn't need to be so intense and hard as the Turkification of the north. So, for example, there is in the South no need to import greek settlers.
But I'd say, the greater danger today to local Cypriot identity in the South isn't any more so much the Greekification, but the Americanisation.

[Me Ed]

Afro, it's for the same reason. The GCs can see the Turkification of the north but are blind to the Greekification of the south that has been going on for over a century.
Talk of turkeys voting for Christmas.

Yes, of course there was a Greekification as well, leading to loss of Cypriot local identity. The difference is perhaps that this process goes on for a much longer period, and so it doesn't need to be so intense and hard as the Turkification of the north. So, for example, there is in the South no need to import greek settlers.
But I'd say, the greater danger today to local Cypriot identity in the South isn't any more so much the Greekification, but the Americanisation.

You guys are really clutching at straws.

[Piratis]

Democracy is not only Majority rule, but also respect to minority and human rights. You can't have a democracy when any of these 3 principles is missing. (so Turkey is not a real democracy either, but more like Nazi Germany)

There is a difference between "doesn't apply fully" and "doesn't apply at all". In representative democracies it is practically impossible to get one person one vote to apply 100%. Even in Cyprus it doesn't, since for example in Parliamentary elections the votes of those who voted for parties that didn't receive the required amount of votes to get a seat is shared among all the other parties. The point is to get as close to 100% as possible. I wouldn't mind if the TCs, who are about 12% of the population right now, would get say 13% or 15% voting power. But for this small minority to receive 50% of power it totally destroys the principle of one person one vote and the result is something which is not democratic at all.

Ok, if you ask me, not only Turkey isn’t a real democracy, but practically no country that I know of is, not really any EU-country and certainly not the EU itself. But that’s a very long subject.

But it’s good we’re finally getting somewhere regarding this “one man, one vote”- thing. We know that this doesn’t apply fully in the EU, and the difference to what we are discussing is quantitative rather than qualitative. So, people who oppose BBF on the grounds that it violates “one man, one vote”, should stop making Europe into their flag – that’s all I was saying. This doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to be against BBF.

Now, to the core of the subject: the latest numbers on demographics accepted by both sides are 18% for the TCs, so this is the beginning point. You say 50% is too much for 18%, and you’re probably right. Not even the TC negotiators demand so much, although what they want is near to that. From what we know up to now, it seems that the final deal (if there is one, which I doubt) will close to somewhere between 30-40%.

The TCs demand to have the ability to block any significant government decision. That means 50% power.

About other EU countries not being democratic because one person one vote can not apply 100%, you remind me of somebody who is trying to excuse mass murder by claiming that while this might be illegal, it is OK, because everybody does illegalities such as parking illegally or driving a bit above the speed limit.

When we talk about democracy we are not talking about some imaginary Utopian system. We are talking about democracy as it is applied in all other democratic countries.

We never accepted that there is a "TC state", so stop saying lies. What we accepted is that we will negotiate a possible solution that could potentially result in such a "TC state" IF our terms are met as well. When we are talking about Federation, we are not talking about something like Bosnia, we are talking about something like Russia.

Just because we accepted that Federation could be a solution, this doesn't mean this federation should be the way the Turks want it to be. This is DEFINITELY NOT what we accepted. Either the Turks will agree to a kind of federation that is acceptable to us, or there will never be any federation and any "TC State".

The TCs have no right whatsoever for a separate state. The north does not belong to them, they stole it from us. So it is only up to us to decide how much of our rights over our lands we are willing to give up. It is not up to them.

Again, you use some typically correct, but legalist arguments. The GC elites accepted that if there’s going to be a solution, it’s going to be a federation, and that’s the only solution officially under discussion. Federation means that there is going to be at least one TC state – the exact terms of this are still under negotiation. I’m aware that a big part of GC elites may prefer other solutions, nearer to partition, but for the time being, very few of them, if any, have the courage to say it openly. But even this solution implies the existence of a TC state, official or unofficial. So, it’s something we can take for granted. Except if the global socialist revolution comes in the meantime, but I personally have very few hopes for this.

What I am saying is not legalist at all. We accepted that a solution will be a federation IF it is a kind of federation that we can accept. If we don't agree to a BBF solution, then Republic of Cyprus remains the one and only state in Cyprus. Neither the elites neither the GC population wants a BBF, partition or anything of that sort. What we want is a unitary state. So stop confusing what we want what with what we might accept due to be blackmailed.

As to what you say in the last paragraph, it’s difficult for me to see the point in it. You speak as if the acceptance of federation is a gesture of GC good will, which the GC elites did out of generosity and can take back any time they want. But it’s not at all like that. There was an invasion and a military defeat, which created facts and forced the GC elites to accept this solution. They would never have even considered it otherwise.
Right now, there are negotiations on how exactly it will look like. The strong cards of the turkish/TC elites are the geopolitical weight of Turkey, and the created facts plus the time factor. The strong cards of the GC elites are the international legality and the EU-membership. If there is an agreement (as I said, doubtful), it will be a compromise, somewhere in the middle.

I never said that acceptance of federation will be a result of good will. It is clearly a result of blackmail, with the Turks keeping 1/3rd of our land as hostage and trying to blackmail us to accept their terms.

What I said is "So it is only up to us to decide how much of our rights over our lands we are willing to give up. It is not up to them." Clearly they demand from us to give up more rights than we are willing to, and therefore there will be no agreement, and therefore no such thing as a "TC state".

Let me give you an example: Say you stole my car which worths $40.000, but because you are this big Mafia Boss with good connections with a corrupt police I am unable to receive justice and get my car back. If you ask from me to pay you $5000 to return to me the car and agree that I will let you drive the car once a month, then I might agree. If you ask from me to pay you $30.000, just to let me sit in the co-drivers seat of my car and be able to drive nowhere without your approval, then I will tell you to shove this deal up your ass. I am not saying that this is a perfect metaphor for Cyprus (no metaphor is ever perfect). I am just trying to make you understand that it doesn't make any sense at all to agree to the Turkish demands, and therefore this "BBF" thing will never be implemented.

Of course they can't see north (with small n) Cyprus as a tourist destination. Neither can I. And that is because north Cyprus is OURS and not Turkish as you claim. But you want to force us to see north Cyprus as belonging to the Turks, and therefore foreign to us.

When a French freely travels to Spain without showing any ID or passport, is this Frenchman not a a tourist and a foreigner in Spain, just because he entered the country without showing an ID?

We don't want north Cyprus to be to us just another Tourist destination like Spain is for the French.

As always, you are again missing the point with what the problem is with showing IDs at the crossings. The point is that we shouldn't need to show any ID to travel from one part of our country to another part because we do not recognize that there is more than one state in Cyprus. But what you want is to give official recognition to this pseudo state, which is far worst than people showing their IDs at the gates.

You may want to see North Cyprus as foreign or a tourist destination, but it’s neither to me. Neither you nor any turkish military establishments can make me to see it like that. It’s a part of my homecountry. If you feel tourist or not, depends primarily on you.

You are the one who said that north Cyprus belongs to the Turks, isn't it? So it is obvious that you don't mind to visit north Cyprus as just a tourist.

For me, on the other hand, north Cyprus belongs to us, and the Turks are only illegally occupying our lands. Therefore the solution is for our lands to be liberated, not merely to be free to visit north Cyprus as tourists.

As for French in Spain, the truth is that he’s not exactly a foreigner from a legal point of view. He’s an EU-citizen, which gives him far more rights there than what a normal foreigner has. But anyway, a federated Cyprus will have one single sovereignty, so the relationship isn’t going to be exactly the same as between Spain and France.

The French are foreigners in Spain. They might have more rights than other foreigners due to EU, but they are still foreigners.

About the "single sovereignty". Do you know what "sovereignty" means? It is not just a strange word. Here is a definition: "Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory." So would we have any Sovereignty over north Cyprus with the solution you want? Not at all. We will not even have real sovereignty over any part of Cyprus since we will not be independent anymore, and we will not be able to do anything without the approval of the Turks.

Private land can be bought and sold. A nation can neither be bought nor sold (not ours). Today Turkey is responsible to pay compensations to the refugees without us having to give up any of our sovereignty rights over the north part of Cyprus.

With what you propose not only we would lose our rights over north Cyprus, but we (not Turkey or any international organization) will be responsible to pay the compensations of refugees.

You accuse me of telling lies, but what are you doing here now? Find me ONE sentence or phrase, with which I implied that the compensations should be payed by you or me. What I said, is that the refugees shouldn’t only have the right to get compensations, they should actually get them – or have their land returned.

So did you reject the Annan plan? Because with the Annan plan we would be the ones who would have to pay most of the compensations.

Today the Turks can bring 10s of thousands of Settlers who do not get the Cypriot citizenship but are in Cyprus illegally. With the solution you want the Turks will continue to bring to Cyprus 10s of thousands of Settlers that will be in Cyprus illegally. So how exactly is your "solution" going to solve this problem?

There’s always going to be illegal immigration – the only real solution to this problem is the global socialist revolution I mentioned before.
The problem may not be solved, but it will get less intense in a BBF. Today, Turkey or the TC elites have the possibility to use a state apparatus for adding population from Turkey in order to change the demographics. With a BBF, they won’t have this possibility any more, since granting citizenships will need to pass through the federal government. Simple as that.

Are you saying that today there is no settler problem because those settlers do not have the Cypriot citizenship? I repeat: The Settler issue is not about them having the Cyprus citizenship, but about them coming to Cyprus uncontrollably.

The only way to solve the Settler issue is for us to have control over the whole territory of Cyprus and the whole coastline. This way we can prevent the Turks from coming in, and if some of them manage to pass, then we can arrest them and send them back.

The "solution" you want will NOT solve the settler issue. Just like the Turks can come to Cyprus illegally today, they will continue to be able to come to Cyprus illegally after such a "solution", because the Turks will continue to have full control of the north part of the coastline and territory of Cyprus.

I face no problem in my daily life and this is the case for most Cypriots. On the contrary the "solution" you propose will create to me problems in my daily life, and that is again the case for most Cypriots.

That’s your opinion. I don’t know if you are right or wrong, I tend to believe the opposite. But anyway, when and if the time comes, there’s going to be a referendum, Cypriots will weigh what the most important problems in their daily lives are or will be potentially. And will take their decision, if we are going to move in the future together, or will take our separate ways.

The Cypriots have already voted in a referendum. What will happen in the future is that we will liberate our lands from the foreign invaders, either the Turks like it or not. If you think you can force us to accept that the north part of Cyprus is Turkish you are very mistaken. For us north Cyprus will always be ours, and we will take it back when the right time comes.

Therefore you are missing the point yet again. The Cyprus Problem is not just about "daily lives", it is mostly a national issue since the Turks are trying to steal and Turkify a territory that belongs to us.

But don’t you understand that this is the basic difference in the way we see the Cyprus problem? I see it from partly a humanist and partly an all-Cypriot point of view, you see it from a national one. This is seen everywhere: from the way you use “we” and “you” in arguments with TCs, to your reference to TCs as collectively criminals in your last post. As I said, in my opinion it’s exactly this mentality which is the root of the Cyprus problem, and which will also put in danger any kind of re-unification.

The root of the Cyprus problem is people like you who want to divide Cyprus. Your "humanist view" supports the legalization of ethnic cleansing and the violation of the human and democratic rights of the Cypriot people.

Cyprus is indeed our island, no part of Cyprus is Turkish, and we will continue to fight for the Liberation of our island either the invaders like it or not.

[Piratis]

Afro, it's for the same reason. The GCs can see the Turkification of the north but are blind to the Greekification of the south that has been going on for over a century.
Talk of turkeys voting for Christmas.

Yes, of course there was a Greekification as well, leading to loss of Cypriot local identity. The difference is perhaps that this process goes on for a much longer period, and so it doesn't need to be so intense and hard as the Turkification of the north. So, for example, there is in the South no need to import greek settlers.
But I'd say, the greater danger today to local Cypriot identity in the South isn't any more so much the Greekification, but the Americanisation.

So now you are trying to equate the perfectly normal phenomenon of societies gradually changing by copying each other, with the attempt to Turkify the north part of Cyprus by means of murder, ethnic cleansing, importation of Turkish Settlers with the aim to change the demographics, destruction of historical buildings and changing of the names of places to Turkish ones?? Are you serious?

[Get Real!]

But I'd say, the greater danger today to local Cypriot identity in the South isn't any more so much the Greekification, but the Americanisation.

With the exception of McDonalds what else American do you see?

[Viewpoint]

Piratis you are really doomed to waiting for the "swing in power" you keep harping on about to get back the north, your ideas are inflexible and will never see the light of day. If you continue with your Cyprus is Greek methodology you have lost the North forever and we are left with no option but to continue on our path with Turkey and ensure you never get your hands on the north ever again.

[Afroasiatis]

So now you are trying to equate the perfectly normal phenomenon of societies gradually changing by copying each other, with the attempt to Turkify the north part of Cyprus by means of murder, ethnic cleansing, importation of Turkish Settlers with the aim to change the demographics, destruction of historical buildings and changing of the names of places to Turkish ones?? Are you serious?

If you read carefully my post, you'll see that I'm not exactly equating the Greekification with the Turkification, since I point to the differences between them.
However, the Greekification wasn't just a "normal phenomenon of societies gradually changing by copying each other". It was a specific nationalist program of making sure that the Christian Orthodox population of Cyprus get a greek national identity, fighting elements which seemed to be an obstacle to this, above all the greek cypriot dialect.

The TCs demand to have the ability to block any significant government decision. That means 50% power.

About other EU countries not being democratic because one person one vote can not apply 100%, you remind me of somebody who is trying to excuse mass murder by claiming that while this might be illegal, it is OK, because everybody does illegalities such as parking illegally or driving a bit above the speed limit.

When we talk about democracy we are not talking about some imaginary Utopian system. We are talking about democracy as it is applied in all other democratic countries.

What TC elites demand and what they'll get are two different things.

To democracy subject: the reason I don't recognize the EU-countries as democratic isn't simply the "one man, one vote"-thing. Democracy is a greek word with a relatively clear meaning, and if you claim to be that you must be at least somewhere near this meaning. But that's a very big subject, if we have to debate it, it's better to do it on a separate thread.

To your metaphor, I would better express it like this: a mass murderer is a mass murderer, worst than most other murderers. But someone who just murdered once or twice, is still a murderer. Would you take someone seriously if he said "Ok, I killed 2-3 people, but that doesn't make me a murderer"?

What I am saying is not legalist at all. We accepted that a solution will be a federation IF it is a kind of federation that we can accept. If we don't agree to a BBF solution, then Republic of Cyprus remains the one and only state in Cyprus. Neither the elites neither the GC population wants a BBF, partition or anything of that sort. What we want is a unitary state. So stop confusing what we want what with what we might accept due to be blackmailed.

I don't claim that a BBF is what the GC elites would really want. But it is the basis on which they negotiate. What they or the GC population are dreaming about, is a another story. There is no "we" here, different section would want different things.

I never said that acceptance of federation will be a result of good will. It is clearly a result of blackmail, with the Turks keeping 1/3rd of our land as hostage and trying to blackmail us to accept their terms.

What I said is "So it is only up to us to decide how much of our rights over our lands we are willing to give up. It is not up to them." Clearly they demand from us to give up more rights than we are willing to, and therefore there will be no agreement, and therefore no such thing as a "TC state".

Let me give you an example: Say you stole my car which worths $40.000, but because you are this big Mafia Boss with good connections with a corrupt police I am unable to receive justice and get my car back. If you ask from me to pay you $5000 to return to me the car and agree that I will let you drive the car once a month, then I might agree. If you ask from me to pay you $30.000, just to let me sit in the co-drivers seat of my car and be able to drive nowhere without your approval, then I will tell you to shove this deal up your ass. I am not saying that this is a perfect metaphor for Cyprus (no metaphor is ever perfect). I am just trying to make you understand that it doesn't make any sense at all to agree to the Turkish demands, and therefore this "BBF" thing will never be implemented.

You understand of course that I disagree that a BBF is something near to the demands of the Mafia-boss you describe in your metaphor.

But let's just continue on this metaphor: In that case, if you think the terms of the Mafia-boss are unacceptable, there are two things you could do. Either you get a gun, go and kill the Mafia-boss and get your car back, taking all risks that come with it, or you just accept the fact that you won't get the car back and buy a new one. Simply stand there and crying that the car is yours and how unfair the world is, is not a healthy thing to do. If you simply do nothing, just in the hope that at one point in the distant future the police may not be so corrupt, or the Mafia-boss won't be that strong any more, even if this moment comes, it's possible that the car will be too old to be of any use to you.

You are the one who said that north Cyprus belongs to the Turks, isn't it? So it is obvious that you don't mind to visit north Cyprus as just a tourist.

For me, on the other hand, north Cyprus belongs to us, and the Turks are only illegally occupying our lands. Therefore the solution is for our lands to be liberated, not merely to be free to visit north Cyprus as tourists.

When did I say that North Cyprus belongs to Turks? I don't remember that.

And as for the tourist-thing, as I said, neither you nor Denktash or Eroglu or any turkish general can make me feel more of a tourist in North Nicosia than in Limassol.

The French are foreigners in Spain. They might have more rights than other foreigners due to EU, but they are still foreigners.

Typically, yes. But practically, they are perhaps nearer to the Spanish people than to the non-EU foreigners. Having lived in Germany under both statuses, that of an EU- and that of a non-EU-foreigner, I can say this.

About the "single sovereignty". Do you know what "sovereignty" means? It is not just a strange word. Here is a definition: "Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory." So would we have any Sovereignty over north Cyprus with the solution you want? Not at all. We will not even have real sovereignty over any part of Cyprus since we will not be independent anymore, and we will not be able to do anything without the approval of the Turks.

Look, officially there is going to be only one sovereignty in federated Cyprus, that of the Cypriot people. Of course, in the reality things will be different (anyway, there is no such thing as a real independence). But it won't be like that you describe. Some things will be able to be done without approval of TCs and some others not, and some things will be able to be imposed on north Cyprus from the federal government and others not.

So did you reject the Annan plan? Because with the Annan plan we would be the ones who would have to pay most of the compensations.

During the referendum I was living in Germany. Since the outcome was clear and I myself was very confused on the issue, I didn't even come to vote and didn't study the plan in detail. If I were in Cyprus, I would either vote "Yes" or boycott the referendum, I don't know - in any case, I wouldn't vote "No" since in my opinion this is just a contribution to the partition of Cyprus.

I'm curious though, can you quote for me the paragraph in the Annan-Plan stating that the compensations to refugees are to be payed by other GCs? If there is such a paragraph, then obviously it's a big disadvantage of the specific plan - but still, I can't see what this has to do with what I'm saying.

Are you saying that today there is no settler problem because those settlers do not have the Cypriot citizenship? I repeat: The Settler issue is not about them having the Cyprus citizenship, but about them coming to Cyprus uncontrollably.

The only way to solve the Settler issue is for us to have control over the whole territory of Cyprus and the whole coastline. This way we can prevent the Turks from coming in, and if some of them manage to pass, then we can arrest them and send them back.

The "solution" you want will NOT solve the settler issue. Just like the Turks can come to Cyprus illegally today, they will continue to be able to come to Cyprus illegally after such a "solution", because the Turks will continue to have full control of the north part of the coastline and territory of Cyprus.

The demographics a country changes, for what matters, when citizenships are given. Illegal immigrants aren't the same as citizens of the country - all border countries of the EU face the problem of illegal immigration, and as I said, there is only one real solution to it.

The Cypriots have already voted in a referendum. What will happen in the future is that we will liberate our lands from the foreign invaders, either the Turks like it or not. If you think you can force us to accept that the north part of Cyprus is Turkish you are very mistaken. For us north Cyprus will always be ours, and we will take it back when the right time comes.

No worries, I don't intend to force you to accept anything, and as I said, I have only very few hopes left for a re-unification of my homecountry. But I hope it's just clear to you, that in my opinion what you do with your attitude is exactly making sure that the north part of Cyprus will be Turkish for many years to come.

[Afroasiatis]

But I'd say, the greater danger today to local Cypriot identity in the South isn't any more so much the Greekification, but the Americanisation.

With the exception of McDonalds what else American do you see?

Well, I've never been in the USA to be able to judge this correctly, it's only a comparison with a picture of US I have in my mind. But my feeling is, practically anything, eating habits, language, way of moving around, shopping, human relationships, change through influence from the American model. This is happening of course everywhere in the world, but I feel that in Cyprus is stronger than average.

That's of course not always negative, but it is somehow sad..

[Piratis]

So now you are trying to equate the perfectly normal phenomenon of societies gradually changing by copying each other, with the attempt to Turkify the north part of Cyprus by means of murder, ethnic cleansing, importation of Turkish Settlers with the aim to change the demographics, destruction of historical buildings and changing of the names of places to Turkish ones?? Are you serious?

If you read carefully my post, you'll see that I'm not exactly equating the Greekification with the Turkification, since I point to the differences between them.
However, the Greekification wasn't just a "normal phenomenon of societies gradually changing by copying each other". It was a specific nationalist program of making sure that the Christian Orthodox population of Cyprus get a greek national identity, fighting elements which seemed to be an obstacle to this, above all the greek cypriot dialect.

The Cypriot people have been Greek long before they became Christian Orthodox. It is the foreign invaders that tried to destroy our identity, but they failed. The Greek Cypriot dialect is, as the name implies, a dialect of the Greek language, like the many other dialects that exist within Greece (or the many German dialects that exist within Germany). Therefore the Greek Cypriot dialect was never something that was in any conflict with our Greek identity, but on the contrary it was yet another element of our Greek identity that goes back 1000s of years.

The TCs demand to have the ability to block any significant government decision. That means 50% power.

About other EU countries not being democratic because one person one vote can not apply 100%, you remind me of somebody who is trying to excuse mass murder by claiming that while this might be illegal, it is OK, because everybody does illegalities such as parking illegally or driving a bit above the speed limit.

When we talk about democracy we are not talking about some imaginary Utopian system. We are talking about democracy as it is applied in all other democratic countries.

What TC elites demand and what they'll get are two different things.

To democracy subject: the reason I don't recognize the EU-countries as democratic isn't simply the "one man, one vote"-thing. Democracy is a greek word with a relatively clear meaning, and if you claim to be that you must be at least somewhere near this meaning. But that's a very big subject, if we have to debate it, it's better to do it on a separate thread.

To your metaphor, I would better express it like this: a mass murderer is a mass murderer, worst than most other murderers. But someone who just murdered once or twice, is still a murderer. Would you take someone seriously if he said "Ok, I killed 2-3 people, but that doesn't make me a murderer"?

As I said no metaphor is precise, but the one you gave is totally wrong. A more correct one is the one I gave: A mass murderer VS somebody who drives a bit beyond the speed limit.

All EU countries are democratic countries. We are not talking about some "perfect" Utopian kind of democracy, but about a realistically possible kind of democracy. Just because we can't have an unrealistically perfect democracy this is no excuse to abandon democracy all together.

What I am saying is not legalist at all. We accepted that a solution will be a federation IF it is a kind of federation that we can accept. If we don't agree to a BBF solution, then Republic of Cyprus remains the one and only state in Cyprus. Neither the elites neither the GC population wants a BBF, partition or anything of that sort. What we want is a unitary state. So stop confusing what we want what with what we might accept due to be blackmailed.

I don't claim that a BBF is what the GC elites would really want. But it is the basis on which they negotiate. What they or the GC population are dreaming about, is a another story. There is no "we" here, different section would want different things.

Therefore you should not say that our "elites" want BBF or supposedly some of them want partition. What most of us (including GC "elites") want, is a unitary state.

I never said that acceptance of federation will be a result of good will. It is clearly a result of blackmail, with the Turks keeping 1/3rd of our land as hostage and trying to blackmail us to accept their terms.

What I said is "So it is only up to us to decide how much of our rights over our lands we are willing to give up. It is not up to them." Clearly they demand from us to give up more rights than we are willing to, and therefore there will be no agreement, and therefore no such thing as a "TC state".

Let me give you an example: Say you stole my car which worths $40.000, but because you are this big Mafia Boss with good connections with a corrupt police I am unable to receive justice and get my car back. If you ask from me to pay you $5000 to return to me the car and agree that I will let you drive the car once a month, then I might agree. If you ask from me to pay you $30.000, just to let me sit in the co-drivers seat of my car and be able to drive nowhere without your approval, then I will tell you to shove this deal up your ass. I am not saying that this is a perfect metaphor for Cyprus (no metaphor is ever perfect). I am just trying to make you understand that it doesn't make any sense at all to agree to the Turkish demands, and therefore this "BBF" thing will never be implemented.

You understand of course that I disagree that a BBF is something near to the demands of the Mafia-boss you describe in your metaphor.

But let's just continue on this metaphor: In that case, if you think the terms of the Mafia-boss are unacceptable, there are two things you could do. Either you get a gun, go and kill the Mafia-boss and get your car back, taking all risks that come with it, or you just accept the fact that you won't get the car back and buy a new one. Simply stand there and crying that the car is yours and how unfair the world is, is not a healthy thing to do. If you simply do nothing, just in the hope that at one point in the distant future the police may not be so corrupt, or the Mafia-boss won't be that strong any more, even if this moment comes, it's possible that the car will be too old to be of any use to you.

I don't think we "simply stand there and cry". We have progressed and our standards of living are much higher than those of the Mafia-Boss, even if he stole from us our most valuable belongings.

Just because we currently can not get our belongings back this doesn't mean we should stop having any claim on what is ours and let the Mafia Boss to fully enjoy what he stole from us. The Mafia Boss should continue to have some problems due to the crime he committed, and when the balance of power changes we will have every right to take back what is ours (a right we wouldn't have if we made a contract and singed our belongings to the Mafia Boss).

And land, unlike a car, never gets too old. If anything lands gets more valuable as time passes.

You are the one who said that north Cyprus belongs to the Turks, isn't it? So it is obvious that you don't mind to visit north Cyprus as just a tourist.

For me, on the other hand, north Cyprus belongs to us, and the Turks are only illegally occupying our lands. Therefore the solution is for our lands to be liberated, not merely to be free to visit north Cyprus as tourists.

When did I say that North Cyprus belongs to Turks? I don't remember that.

And as for the tourist-thing, as I said, neither you nor Denktash or Eroglu or any turkish general can make me feel more of a tourist in North Nicosia than in Limassol.

You always talk about "North Cyprus" (with capital N), about TRNC (without quotes) and in general you seem to accept the Turkish position that Cyprus belongs to them. Do you deny this?

The how you feel is not what matters. What matters is what you will really be. If we accept that north Cyprus belongs to the Turks, that would mean that we would accept the ethnic cleansing that was committed against us and that the north part of Cyprus does not belong to us, and therefore we would visit there only as tourists.

The French are foreigners in Spain. They might have more rights than other foreigners due to EU, but they are still foreigners.

Typically, yes. But practically, they are perhaps nearer to the Spanish people than to the non-EU foreigners. Having lived in Germany under both statuses, that of an EU- and that of a non-EU-foreigner, I can say this.

They might have more rights that other foreigners but they are still foreigners. The north part of Cyprus is to us what Lion is to the French, not what Madrid is to them. There is a huge difference.

About the "single sovereignty". Do you know what "sovereignty" means? It is not just a strange word. Here is a definition: "Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory." So would we have any Sovereignty over north Cyprus with the solution you want? Not at all. We will not even have real sovereignty over any part of Cyprus since we will not be independent anymore, and we will not be able to do anything without the approval of the Turks.

Look, officially there is going to be only one sovereignty in federated Cyprus, that of the Cypriot people. Of course, in the reality things will be different (anyway, there is no such thing as a real independence). But it won't be like that you describe. Some things will be able to be done without approval of TCs and some others not, and some things will be able to be imposed on north Cyprus from the federal government and others not.

We will be able to impose absolutely nothing to north Cyprus since the TCs will be able to block the federal government from taking any decision that they don't agree to.

So did you reject the Annan plan? Because with the Annan plan we would be the ones who would have to pay most of the compensations.

During the referendum I was living in Germany. Since the outcome was clear and I myself was very confused on the issue, I didn't even come to vote and didn't study the plan in detail. If I were in Cyprus, I would either vote "Yes" or boycott the referendum, I don't know - in any case, I wouldn't vote "No" since in my opinion this is just a contribution to the partition of Cyprus.

I'm curious though, can you quote for me the paragraph in the Annan-Plan stating that the compensations to refugees are to be payed by other GCs? If there is such a paragraph, then obviously it's a big disadvantage of the specific plan - but still, I can't see what this has to do with what I'm saying.

I don't have the Annan plan in front of me now to quote you things from it. But that is how it is. Turkey would be off the hook completely and some donors would give a promise for some money which are peanuts compared to the amounts needed for compensations. So who would pay the compensations if not us? The only other possibility is that nobody would pay any compensations and therefore those entitled to compensation will not get any.

Are you saying that today there is no settler problem because those settlers do not have the Cypriot citizenship? I repeat: The Settler issue is not about them having the Cyprus citizenship, but about them coming to Cyprus uncontrollably.

The only way to solve the Settler issue is for us to have control over the whole territory of Cyprus and the whole coastline. This way we can prevent the Turks from coming in, and if some of them manage to pass, then we can arrest them and send them back.

The "solution" you want will NOT solve the settler issue. Just like the Turks can come to Cyprus illegally today, they will continue to be able to come to Cyprus illegally after such a "solution", because the Turks will continue to have full control of the north part of the coastline and territory of Cyprus.

The demographics a country changes, for what matters, when citizenships are given. Illegal immigrants aren't the same as citizens of the country - all border countries of the EU face the problem of illegal immigration, and as I said, there is only one real solution to it.

Earlier you claimed that BBF would supposedly solve the Settler issue. Today Settlers come to Cyprus illegally (but they don't get the Cypriot citizenship). After the "solution" you propose Settlers will still be able to come to Cyprus illegally and we would have no way to stop them or deport them since we would have no control over the north part of Cyprus. So how is that "solution" going to solve the Settler issue?

The Cypriots have already voted in a referendum. What will happen in the future is that we will liberate our lands from the foreign invaders, either the Turks like it or not. If you think you can force us to accept that the north part of Cyprus is Turkish you are very mistaken. For us north Cyprus will always be ours, and we will take it back when the right time comes.

No worries, I don't intend to force you to accept anything, and as I said, I have only very few hopes left for a re-unification of my homecountry. But I hope it's just clear to you, that in my opinion what you do with your attitude is exactly making sure that the north part of Cyprus will be Turkish for many years to come.

The north part of Cyprus is not Turkish (yet again you claim it is Turkish and then you claim that you never said such thing!). The north part of Cyprus is under illegal Turkish occupation. Yes, the illegal Turkish occupation might continue for many more years, but that is not as bad as making north Cyprus officially Turkish which is what will happen if we accept your "solution".

[B25]

Pirati, Afrodisiac, is either a tuk or just a turk sympathyiser. Using pathetic arguments to justify invasion, mass murder and rape and occupation.

No point discussing with this type as they are set in stone what their demands are.

They steal our land and want us to share the rest! How can you negotiate with terrorists??

Good luck and bravo to your postings. You ought to run for President, in place of the current jackass.