Cyprus-Forum.com

[ELLAS H TEFRA!]

What did you do to (with) them?

Have you met the guy who betrayed Afxentiou? Was he an Akelite?

P.S. Throughout Greek history, it is never admitted that the Greeks lost a battle or a war because the opponents were better. Always, we look for persons that betrayed the cause and duly we find them and of course they shoulder the blame.

Why would I want to do anything to them??

I am suggesting that enough enough. The ease by which people are labeled as traitors is phenomenal. Papadopoulos is following the same instict and has labeled all those that voted "yes" traitors while the learned bishop of Paphos has reserved a place for us in hell since now it is out of fashion to shoot the traitors (we are europeans ...).

What does the current president have to do with those who betrayed the EOKA fighters 50 years ago!?

PS: the BBC has "miles" of footage with hooded GreekCypriots, and TurkishCypriots, fingerpointing EOKA followers, supporters, and active members! Have you never seen any of them!

[Kifeas]

We've now come to a point that TC community accept most everything that former GC leaderships demanded and have said "Yes" to the UN plan, which is also a yes to returning land and some GCs returning to the north.

Sadik, I do not quite agree that the TC community came to a point of accepting everything that former GC leaderships demanded. Do not forget that all former GC leaderships demanded that nearly all GC properties should be re-instate and that all GC refugees should have the right to return to their former residences and villages if they so wished, with fully respected human and political rights in their places of residence, and it is for this reason that it was always willing to accepted a substantially larger territorial ration to be under the TC constituent state. If in the end it would have been the way that the A-plan suggested it to be, then the GC leadership might as well had insisted that the TC constituent state should and /or could not be more that 22%-23%, instead of 29%, because that is how it works out mathematically. Furthermore, they demanded that all settlers except those married with TCs, should be repatriated and all foreign troops and intervention rights should be removed. On the Federal political level, no GC leadership ever suggested or gave signal that it could or would accept any such notions that the A-plan introduced, namely an almost completely levelling notion of political equality with a 50:50 purely “ethnic” and separately elected senate and a rotating presidency of a 2:4 ratio.

And this is a big step because prior Denktas policy was that we don't want any kind of solution with GCs, leave alone returning land and allowing refugees back. Now the will of the people is clear and these things are possible in principle.

I fully agree with you that this by itself is a very positive change and shifting regarding the perceptions of the TC community in comparison to their previous approach. However, you have to agree that this is merely a shifting from completely immoral and illegitimate demands and claims, especially if one considers the no return of land approach, down to more logical and fair approaches, although not yet completely fair and logical from an objective point.

However, now we see that the GC leadership is making a 180 degree turn away from BBF and towards a Unitary model.

This is not a correct claim. I would like to hear what evidence or even indications you have that make you believe there such an issue at stake. Of course there are some minor political movements and parties that suggest from time to time such a unitary state approach but this is far from being the official or even unofficial approach of the current GC leadership and all the major political parties.

That however doesn’t rule out the possibility that if we do not have a solution in the next 4-5 years, the then GC leaderships might not consider such an approach. Who knows? Perhaps such a solution might also become more desirable by the TCs as well. Would you rule out such an approach provided that a certain degree of effective TC political representation and effective decision-making participation is provided, along the lines of the 1960 constitution? This is a purely hypothetical exercise and doesn’t suggest anything in relation to the present GC policies and positions.

Do you think the world will wait and insist for another 30 years, keeping the TCs isolated?

I do not think that there is such an issue at stake. Neither the GCs wish and anticipate a non-solution situation lasting anywhere near that long, nor the TCs, to the best of my understanding, do wish or anticipate it either, nor it is in the interest of Turkey to have the Cyprus problem unsolved for that long.

[Othellos]

I am suggesting that enough enough. The ease by which people are labeled as traitors is phenomenal. Papadopoulos is following the same instict and has labeled all those that voted "yes" traitors while the learned bishop of Paphos has reserved a place for us in hell since now it is out of fashion to shoot the traitors (we are europeans ...).

I agree with what you say about Papadopoulos, Bananiot. Considering where he comes from, his behavior should not surprise anyone. The "traitor" label has always been used here in Cyprus: first it was against the leftists during the EOKA era. After 1960 it was still used against the leftists as well as those who did not support makarios. After 1974 it was time to use it against Clerides and his supporters. In year 2004 it is being used against those who dare to challenge Papadopoulos and his "wisdom". But Afxentiou's sacrifice has nothing to do with any of these. Do you really have doubts as to whether Afxentiou was betrayed or not?

O.

[Piratis]

Othellos, it all depends on how you define "treason".

I don't think that Papadopoulos ever said that the people that voted "yes" are traitors!

What he said is that some people should respect the democratic will of the great majority of GCs. Those that not only do not respect the will of the great majority but also assist some foreigners to force on us something we clearly said we do not want are, according to me, traitors.

If they disagree with our "no" then they should present their arguments and convince us that we were wrong. And when they do that and after they win the elections then they can go to those foreigners and ask them to bring back the Annan plan.

[Othellos]

Othellos, it all depends on how you define "treason".

I don't think that Papadopoulos ever said that the people that voted "yes" are traitors!

In August 2004, Papadopoulos (who cannot handle criticism very well) referred to a crowd that was jeering at Nikos Cleanthous in Dherynia as "Nenekides". "Fainetai oti yparxoun polloi nenekides" he said. You probably know that Nenekos was a traitor in the Greek Revolution. Not long after that and on another occasion, Papadopoulos casted empty accusations about Cypriots being funded from abroad to promote foreign agendas in Cyprus. He was never able to specify his accusations and provide evidence, despite the nunerous times he was asked to do so. My question is what kind of a President talks and behaves like this?

....And when they do that and after they win the elections then they can go to those foreigners and ask them to bring back the Annan plan.

But wasn't it Papadopoulos himself who said on a number of occasions that the Annan plan is still on the table and the basis of the solution?

O.

[Piratis]

In August 2004, Papadopoulos (who cannot handle criticism very well) referred to a crowd that was jeering at Nikos Cleanthous in Dherynia as "Nenekides". "Fainetai oti yparxoun polloi nenekides" he said.

So what he said is "There are many Nainaikides", which might be translated as "There are many traitors" but definitely does not equate that "All people that voted yes are traitors".

Not long after that and on another occasion, Papadopoulos casted empty accusations about Cypriots being funded from abroad to promote foreign agendas in Cyprus.

Empty accusations? Come on Othello. I understand you do not agree with the "promote foreign agendas" part, but it is a fact that many were funded from abroad. I don't think you can deny this.
Now why didn't those foreigners fund Papadopoulos instead? Obviously they funded the ones who their actions served their own interests. And those foreign interests were as it was proven against the interests of the great majority of Greek Cypriots.

The only thing that can be considered an accusation is the word "to". If the phrase was "funded from abroad because they promote foreign agendas in Cyprus", then that would be perfectly accurate.

However if you compare that with the kind of empty accusations that go against him, then his response was a drop in the ocean. I think his opponents are simply trying to find some more excuses to accuse him. Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on things that matter instead?

But wasn't it Papadopoulos himself who said on a number of occasions that the Annan plan is still on the table and the basis of the solution?

He said is on the table and the basis for new negotiations. He also said that there are several important things that need to change. Those things are the minimum required to achieve a "yes' vote.

On the other hand Papapetrou and his party clearly say that they want the Annan plan back more or less as it is. The same with Disi, although Disi does this more quietly now.

[ManoWAR]

Othellos, it all depends on how you define "treason".

I don't think that Papadopoulos ever said that the people that voted "yes" are traitors!

In August 2004, Papadopoulos (who cannot handle criticism very well) referred to a crowd that was jeering at Nikos Cleanthous in Dherynia as "Nenekides". "Fainetai oti yparxoun polloi nenekides" he said. You probably know that Nenekos was a traitor in the Greek Revolution.

Historical lessons:
Ibrahim, after resting his troops at Methoni and Koroni, advanced towards Gastouni and assaulted the castle of Helmoutzi, near Glaretza (modern Kullini). The Greek defenders, without provisions and water, capitulated on 5 May 1827. Most of them were sold as slaves in Egypt. Ibrahim continued his destructive project of burning all the villages on his way to Patras, where he arrived on 25 May. The villagers were in desperate condition and had escaped to the mountains, where the shortage of food was enormous. So many Greeks turned in (proskunisan) and signed papers proskunitoharta, where they swore their obeisance to the Sultan. Their leader was Nenekos from Sageika, a village near Patras. The majority of villagers at Patras, Gastouni, Vostitsa and Pyrgos signed those papers and were not harmed by Egyprians. Nenekos with his armed men fought against his compatriotes, with fanatism and hatred. Theodoros Kolokotronis said: "I have never in my life feared enemy or hunger or cold. I have never feared Dramalis or Ibrahim. Today with those traitors I fear for the outcome of our struggle". He was again the only one who could face the situation. He organized the resistance and harassed the Egyptian troops. He managed to send a man and kill the traitor and threatened anyone who would surrender to the enemy: Fotia kai tsekouri stous proskunimenous - Fire and axe to the judas".

[Bananiot]

Othellos, I hope you learn your lesson. Its always extremely difficult to impossible to reason with the super patriots the pavement patriots that have historically led their country to humiliation and immense hardship. I will just mention one historical example: In 1896 these "patriots" litterally forced a war between Greece and Turkey and the Turkish army reached Athens only for the Tsar to intervene and reason with the Sultan to hold the advance his army. Greece, a poor country then, was made to pay huge war fines but the humiliation for Greek pride was unprecidented.

Regarding the fundings by UNOPS it has been established beyond doubt that most of the money went to the "NO" campaign and in fact only about 14K dollars went to organisations supporting the solution. The hoteliers and other business interests who saw the (any) solution as a threat to their interests, poured millions of dollars to the "NO" campaign. I do not expect Piratis to have the open mindness to digest all these but the truth must be said and must surface, because, as the great Dionisios Solomos said, the truth and only the truth, serves the national interests.

[ManoWAR]

Bananiot, your problem is that you haven’t understood (and probably you will never understand) the real reasons why GCs voted NO!

[Piratis]

Bananiot, so the Hotelliers poured millions of dollars to the "NO" campaign through UNOPS ... ok

ManoWAR, it is not that he does not understand the reasons. He simply lives in denial. He is arrogant by thinking that only him can have an opinion, and the 76% of Greek Cypriots were simply idiots that were fooled. This doesn't only show no respect to that 76%, it shows no respect to democracy either.

With the same kind of mentality those people can dismiss the results of any kind of elections, which they believe gives them the right for coups, dictatorships, treason etc.