Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

Go ahead feel free but it wont be in your lifetime or mine, So now you are saying the 1960 agreements were not a fresh start yet you agree that they are legally binding and have to adhere to them??? The root of all evil was your enosis dream, the Turkish intervention was just the result.....you reaped what you sowed.

[erolz66]

What Sotos wants

Fuck me you have turned into Bill C. What is it with this referring to yourself in the third person ?

is freedom

The freedom you want for yourself is one without any limitation for the consideration of others. You want the kind of freedom that says you can play loud music in your own home at 3am regardless of it removing the freedom of your neighbours to be able to sleep at 3am in their own homes.

and a usual democracy...

You want a singular means to democracy that means whenever your community wants something different to mine yours always gets what it wants and mine never does and that is WHY you ONLY want that singular and specific means to democracy and refuse to consider any other means - BECAUSE it would ensure your community would always get what it wants and ours never any time those wants diverge. You do not want this singular means to democracy because it best meets the objectives of democracy in our situation or because it is 'normal' or because it is the only means - you want it and only it BECAUSE it means you always get what you want and we never do if what we want differs based on what community we are part of.

At the end of colonialism asking for a referendum to decide where your own island should belong is NOT "shitting" on anybody.

Asking for a referendum to decide where the island you share with others, who you yourself admit and say were a separate and different people to you, should belong and then demanding that the results of your referendum are applied not just to you and your people but also to ours as a, by your own words, people separate from you IS to try and shit on us I am afraid. The right to self determination of PEOPLES is clear an unambiguous. It applies to PEOPLES and equally. The only way we would not have a separate and equal right to self determination to you is if we were of the same people - and you yourself claim we were not , are not and never have been. The only ambiguity in the right to self determination of peoples is in what constitutes a people - but you removed that ambiguity in our case by stating directly that as far as you were concerned we were not the same peoples. Saying we had no right to separate and equal self determination even when you chose to define yourselves as a different peoples to us would be no different to Britain saying the Scots can have no right to a referendum on Scottish independence outside of a referendum of all the people of the UK. Telling them they have no right to a referendum on independence as an expression of their right to self determination as they are just an 'ethnic minority' no different from any other in other countries. Try telling that to a Scottish nationalist and then tell him you are NOT shitting on him.

"Shitting" is when in the mid 20th century you have foreigners writing your constitution and imposing it on you

You do know do you not Sotos that the primary drafters of the 60's agreements were Turkey AND GREECE ? That would be the same Greece that you have claimed GC can never be 'foreigners' too. Britain was a secondary party in the sense that beyond securing its interests via the SBA it had little other input.

Maybe it is inconsiderate to your minority and I accept that... but it is neither a genocide, neither ethnic cleansing, neither invasion of foreign lands... none of the kind of shit you have been giving to us. But you are trying to present that event as the "Grant Shit" just to shift the blame on us!

It was 'maybe' inconsiderate. LOL. So when Polycarpos Georgadjis , then interior minister of the RoC set up illegal ethnic militia in Cyprus and ordered them to kill innocent TC, he was just being 'inconsiderate' was he ? When my uncle was taken in broad day light from his place of work by known armed thugs, murdered and dumped in a well, this was GC just being 'inconsiderate' to TC was it ? I could go and on , but just as it is blatantly and totally untrue that all the GC leadership tried to do in this period was 'propose' changes to the 60's agreements (another of your claims), so to is it blatantly and totally untrue that all you did to us in the period 63-74 was 'maybe be inconsiderate' to our community. You used illegal violence and terror against us in the pursuit of imposing your communal will on us that you had previously agreed not to do. Did we also use illegal violence against you in this period in the pursuit of things we had agreed to not pursue ? yes we did and I do not deny it. Is what we suffered as a result of your illegal violence against us in the period 63-74 comparable to what GC suffered under ottoman rule, no it is not. Is it comparable to what you suffered as a result of the events of 74 ? No it is not. Does any of that mean what you did to us did not in fact happen ? That it happened but was and is inconsequential to what happened after and what may happen in the future or that it happened but was justified and not illegal ? No it does not. Yet this is what you try and maintain - whilst at the same time accusing ME of seeking to merely 'shift blame'. The sheer irony of your claims would be amusing if they were not so depressing.

[repulsewarrior]

...indeed, the intent was to split the island. it was Makarios who would not relent, as a Cypriot he became a leader who resisted the forces against him "Greek", and "Turkish". whatever can be said against his leadership, in the end he died for Cyprus, and not the dream of ENOSIS. was he less Greek for that?

[erolz66]

...indeed, the intent was to split the island. it was Makarios who would not relent, as a Cypriot he became a leader who resisted the forces against him "Greek", and "Turkish". whatever can be said against his leadership, in the end he died for Cyprus, and not the dream of ENOSIS. was he less Greek for that?

I am afraid RW to me Makrios was nothing other than an archetypal Cypriot politician (ours included), interested first and foremost in the securing, maintain and increasing of his own personal power. When Enosis seemed like the best route for him to meet these objectives he was the primary and most ardent sponsor and supporter of enosis. As enosis ceased to be the best route to these objectives and indeed threatened them, then he became an ardent supporter of an independent unitary Cyprus. I personally believe this change of his position had little or nothing to do with what was best for all Cypriots and everything to do with what was best for Makarios in terms of maintaining his own personal power. A little harsh and unfair a judgment of the man ? Maybe but it is my personal view.

[Sotos]

The freedom I want for myself is the kind of freedom that all other EU citizens enjoy in their own countries ... the freedom that foreign invaders want to deny from us, now and in the past! It is not about "my community" it is about me as a citizen. And if in certain issues it so happens that groups have totally different views it is still not an excuse to deny democracy and majority rule. That is how democracy works EVERYWHERE. In no normal democracy they ask ethnic groups for separate approval! As Churchill said "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." No matter how much you repeat it you DO NOT have any more rights than any other minority in any other country, and that includes not having the right to determine on your own where Cyprus should or shouldn't belong.

In the inter-communal conflict the fighting went both ways and I do not justify any killings of any innocents. But there would be no conflict if it was agreed to make our choices democratically. the British could have accepted that a referendum would be made in a year ... and during that time we could all debate the pros and cons of the various options peacefully. That never happened! And once you deny to people democracy then what other means are left to make choices? Brute force! And so the "brute force" way that was used during Ottoman rule and British rule continued with brute forcing the 1960 constitution and ever since... and we had to play that game as well because the option of democracy was excluded! The only thing that can stop the "brute force" way of taking decisions is to accept democracy.

[erolz66]

The freedom I want for myself is the kind of freedom that all other EU citizens enjoy in their own countries ...

The above is simply not true. Belgium is a European country. Its political systems are complex but the bottom line is that the numerically dominant Flemish community can NOT impose its community will on the two other constitutionally recognised communities without any regard for their communal wishes on the basis they are 'ethnic minorities' within Belgium. There are a whole series of checks and balances to ensure that they can NOT do this and no one considers Belgium to be undemocratic.

I say again you CHOSE a singular MEANS to achieve democracy in Cyprus BECAUSE such would grant your community the ability to always get its wishes and ours to never get ours any time we have divergent desires as communities and for no other reason than that.

It is not about "my community" it is about me as a citizen.

A citizens of where ? Cyprus or Greece ?

And if in certain issues it so happens that groups have totally different views it is still not an excuse to deny democracy and majority rule.

Actually if the REASON we have different views is because of our differences on an unchanging characteristic like our own perceived ethnicity, then that is exactly when and why yopu need some forms of checks and blances to straight majority rule, if the intent and purpose of democracy is to not be undermined by a 'tyranny of the majority'.

That is how democracy works EVERYWHERE.

It absolutely is NOT how democracy works everywhere. It is not how democracy works within the EU itself between members, where the RoC can, with a population of under 1 million, not just vote equally with other states to say block Turkish accession to the EU but could in fact veto such on its own, even if all the other member states with populations totally around 740 Million were to support it. A form of 'blackmail through deadlock' I might add that played a massive part in the RoC's own EU accession, when Greece threatened to block any new member accession unless the RoC was admitted. No one considers the EU to be undemocratic. So now having shown that you assertion above that 'that is how democracy works EVERYWHERE' is patently and obviously not true, you will modify it to 'That is how democracy works EVERYWHERE within nation states'. This is also simply not true. Belgium is one example that totally undermines your (now revised) argument.

In no normal democracy they ask ethnic groups for separate approval!

In Belgium they do in essence do exactly that.

No matter how much you repeat it you DO NOT have any more rights than any other minority in any other country, and that includes not having the right to determine on your own where Cyprus should or shouldn't belong.

Your ability to twist what I actually say is seemingly inexhaustible. Where I have EVER said that TC as a community , or minority community has the right to determine ON ITS OWN where Cyprus should or should not belong ? YOU are the one that claims your community ON ITS OWN has such a right and mine no rights to ANY say in such a decision. Really Sotos is that the best you can do ? Defeat my 'arguments' by defeating arguments I have NEVER even made ?
Go to Glasgow and tell a Scottish nationalist there, they have no right to a referendum on independence, they are just an ethnic minority with no more rights than ethnic minorities any where else in the world and see how long it takes before you get to discover the delights of a Glaswegian kiss.

In the inter-communal conflict the fighting went both ways and I do not justify any killings of any innocents.

But you do seek to classify what your community did to mine as no more than 'being inconsiderate'.

But there would be no conflict if it was agreed to make our choices democratically.

You mean there would have been no conflict if we agreed that choices would be made via your singular MEANS to achieve democracy, that just happens to also result in your community always getting what it wants and mine always getting shat on, any time we want something different in our own shared homeland as communities.

And once you deny to people democracy then what other means are left to make choices? Brute force! And so the "brute force" way that was used during Ottoman rule and British rule continued with brute forcing the 1960 constitution and ever since... and we had to play that game as well because the option of democracy was excluded! The only thing that can stop the "brute force" way of taking decisions is to accept democracy.

When you refuse to consider any democratic system other than the singular one that gives your community the right to everything it wants forever any time it wants something different from mine in our own shared homeland then yes the choice pretty much comes down to your singular system of democracy or brute force - and that is pretty much what happened in Cyprus. Whilst you continue to only offer your singular system of democracy that grants your community its wishes always and without any limit any time it wants something different from mine the chances are the status in Cyprus will remain one predominantly defined by the results of brute force, a situation you were happy with when you were on the 'giving end' of the brute force, I might add but are no longer happy with now you are living with the results of being on the 'receiving end' of it.

[boulio]

belgium erol is a terrible example,they had and have political deadlock numorus times in the last years and if it were not that brussels is the eu capital we may have been witnessing a civil war in the heart of europe.the eu is also a bad example because its not a country or a federation(yet)

[erolz66]

belgium erol is a terrible example,they had and have political deadlock numorus times in the last years and if it were not that brussels is the eu capital we may have been witnessing a civil war in the heart of europe.

Yes they have had at times political deadlock since they chose to move from a unitary state to a federal one and no one has killed anyone and they have not had the kind of disasters Cyprus has had since Independence. The idea that they would have had a civil war in Belgium were it not for Brussels being the EU capital is bollocks. The fact is with their system, deadlocks and all, they have NOT had a civil war, have not had community using illegal violence against community and we HAVE had those things and more, yet you claim it is a bad model compared to the one that GC historically tried to impose (against all legality) and Sotos STILL advocates today? Are you serious ? Are you REALLY trying to say that if you could turn back the clock and give Cypriots the kind of existence Belgians have had since 1960, you in fact chose instead to give them the existence they actually did have ?

In any case this is all distraction. The claim was that NO EU country has limits on the numerical dominant communities ability to impose its will on numerically smaller ones without limit or any consideration for their communal will and it is just a FACT that this claim is NOT TRUE.

the eu is also a bad example because its not a country or a federation(yet)

It is not a bad example when the claim is (as it was) "That is how democracy works EVERYWHERE." The claim was not "this is how democracy works everywhere within a state" - which in and of itself is not true in any case. What you should be trying to do, rather than trying to dismiss the points I am making on the most spurious of grounds (like Belgium is on the verge of civil war), is actually take a minute to consider WHY the kind of protections that allow the RoC at less than million people to veto something potentially desired by 740 million other people exists at all in the democratic EU. If you can start to comprehend the why, you may be able to then comprehend why the kind of structures that exist in Belgium exist there and are not just compatible with a free and democratic state but required in order for it to be such. Finally you might be able to understand how and why the insistence that there can only be one singular means to achieve democracy in Cyprus and the attempt to achieve such using illegal means and ethnic based violence, after agreeing to not have such a singular means previously, not only played a massive part in getting us to where we are today but the same insistence today plays a massive part in stopping us find a settlement for the future.

Of course the above assumes that you are not posting merely to find excuses as to why there can only be a singular means to achieving democracy in Cyprus simply BECAUSE it would allow your community to have its wishes without any limit whatsoever and mine to have no effective say in its own future in its own homeland at all, which in your case Boulio and based on the impression I have of you from your posts here, would not be a safe assumption.

[Sotos]

Belgium is the exception that proves the rule. As Boulio said if not for Brussels Belgium would have been history by now. So basically what you want is what exists in an EXCEPTION that barely holds together while what I want is a democracy as it exists as a RULE in all normal democratic countries. And you want to IMPOSE the exception and then you are just using a ton of excuses to argue against a NORMAL democracy. Or maybe it is "tyranny of the majority" in the other 26 EU countries (and Turkey)?

Your ability to twist what I actually say is seemingly inexhaustible. Where I have EVER said that TC as a community , or minority community has the right to determine ON ITS OWN where Cyprus should or should not belong ? YOU are the one that claims your community ON ITS OWN has such a right and mine no rights to ANY say in such a decision. Really Sotos is that the best you can do ? Defeat my 'arguments' by defeating arguments I have NEVER even made ?
Go to Glasgow and tell a Scottish nationalist there, they have no right to a referendum on independence, they are just an ethnic minority with no more rights than ethnic minorities any where else in the world and see how long it takes before you get to discover the delights of a Glaswegian kiss.

What I say is NOT that GCs on their own can decide where Cyprus should belong!! What I say is that in such cases there should be a referendum where EVERYBODY votes. Great example about Scotland! In Scotland the referendum will be ONE PERSON ONE VOTE to decide if Scotland should or shouldn't belong to the UK. Which is EXACTLY what I say would be the FAIR thing to do in Cyprus also (for enosis in the 50s or EU integration or any other kind of union in the future)

But you do seek to classify what your community did to mine as no more than 'being inconsiderate'.

That was referring SPECIFICALLY to asking for enosis. And if there was a referendum as we asked then there wouldn't be any violence from you against us or from us against you.

You mean there would have been no conflict if we agreed that choices would be made via your singular MEANS to achieve democracy, that just happens to also result in your community always getting what it wants and mine always getting shat on, any time we want something different in our own shared homeland as communities.

NO. I mean there would be no conflict if you would allow the NORMAL kind of democracy that would give Cypriots their freedom... either with enosis or a REAL independence. I repeat that I understand your objection on enosis but don't tell me that we always got what we want when the Turks ruled Cyprus for 3+ centuries and they were followed by the British!!

When you refuse to consider any democratic system other than the singular one that gives your community the right to everything it wants forever any time it wants something different from mine in our own shared homeland then yes the choice pretty much comes down to your singular system of democracy or brute force - and that is pretty much what happened in Cyprus. Whilst you continue to only offer your singular system of democracy that grants your community its wishes always and without any limit any time it wants something different from mine the chances are the status in Cyprus will remain one predominantly defined by the results of brute force

Well it seems we finally came to an agreement of what happened! You couldn't stand the NORMAL kind of democracy and you used brute force to impose what you wanted! And then you blackmail us saying that we have to give up our right for a NORMAL democracy or else you will continue to use brute force.

a situation you were happy with when you were on the 'giving end' of the brute force, I might add but are no longer happy with now you are living with the results of being on the 'receiving end' of it.

Here you are wrong because at NO time would we reject a NORMAL democracy and choose brute force instead. On the contrary we tried to implement a NORMAL democracy and it is you who choose brute force because a NORMAL democracy isn't good enough for you.

[erolz66]

Sotos you make it absolutely clear that what you want is a form of democracy that gives your community the right to dominate ours in our own shared homeland without any let or hindrance at all any time you want. You claim you want this and nothing else not because it would allow your community to dominate ours but because it is 'normal', a claim that is bullshit. You want it BECAUSE it would allow your community the ability to dominate ours and that is what you want and have always wanted. As I have said from the beginning, this insitance is at the heart of why Cyprus is in the mess it is today and why the chances of a settlement (other than agreed partition) remains remote. If you had been willing to accept that actually you do not have a right to a system that allows you to dominate us without any let or hindrance then we would not be in shit we are today.

What I say is that in such cases there should be a referendum where EVERYBODY votes. Great example about Scotland! In Scotland the referendum will be ONE PERSON ONE VOTE to decide if Scotland should or shouldn't belong to the UK. Which is EXACTLY what I say would be the FAIR thing to do in Cyprus also (for enosis in the 50s or EU integration or any other kind of union in the future)

No your version of what should happen in Scotland is everyone in the UK would vote to decide if the Scots can have independence. Your version would basically say that the English as a numerical majority will effectively decide if the Scots have independence. Your argument is that any time the English want something different to the Scots because they are English and not Scottish, then the English should always get their wishes and the scots never get theirs, because this is 'normal'. That is your argument and its a stupid applied to the UK as it is to Cyprus.