Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

We accept your terms. Where do we sign the solution of the Cyprus problem? Unfortunately we both know that while our side would gladly accept such terms, yours would not. And in fact you don't know that our side would not gladly accept such terms in the past since they never gave us the chance. Makarios was the one who proposed independence. But what we were blackmailed to accept with foreign bases and troops, an undemocratic constitution written by foreigners etc had nothing to do with what we can both agree would be a true independence that would benefit all Cypriots without discrimination. Based on the crap we were given can you blame the majority of the population for not loving this "independence" and some of them thinking that enosis would have been better? Both enosis and a true independence were valid options for freedom for the native Cypriots. Since a true independence would satisfy a greater number of Cypriots it would be the best option. But that option was NEVER offered to us.

Yet you clearly do not accept my terms do you Sotos ? From your posts here it seems clear to me you do not accept that GC choosing to act not as Cypriots regardless of their community but acting in ways that are solely defined by their Greekness alone and not any commonality with Cypriots who are not Greek, can not validly do so in the name of a unitary Cypriot people ? That is the whole point I am making. You did not accept this and you do not accept this and thus I am unable to support moving from where we are today directly to a unitary Cyprus as a solution. That is the point I am making that it is because you do not accept this that something 'atypical' is necessary in any solution.

As to this idea that if TC had said to Makarios, we will accept a unitary Cyprus as long as you agree that GC acting in ways that are defined not by their common Cypriotness with us but by their Greekness alone can not impose anything on us against our will, then Makrios would have snapped up such an offer, is to me historical revisionism of monumental proportion. Yes the 60's agreements were 'unfair' but they were unfair because what Makarios sought instead of them was also 'unfair', that is the whole point and the thing you seek to deny. You make out they were unfair because TC are greedy or some such ideas and simply ignore the relationship the unfairness within them had to the unfair desires of your community and how one was a reaction to the other.

Come on erolz. Why should the constitution of our own country be something agreed with foreigners? The fact is that the UK wanted to maintain parts of Cyprus under colonial rule and it used your minority and Turkey with the threat of partition in order to achieve this. Then they blackmailed the Cypriot people into accepting the SBAs and gains for their Turkish partners who helped them defeat the Cypriot revolution.

You sought the union of Cyprus with Greece and then you bemoan that the constitution of Cyprus involved other countries ? The fact is the GC leadership thought they could just transition from British Colonial rule in Cyprus to achieving enosis without having to pay any regard to the wishes of the TC community in their own shared homeland and they were wrong in thinking they could achieve that.

EU is an association of independent countries. If you want to compare apples to apples you need to compare Cyprus with another EU country. Bulgaria is another EU country which also has a Turkish minority created during Ottoman rule. This would be the most similar case to that of Cyprus.

It is either a fundamental principle and requirement of democracy that it is based on one person one vote, or it is not. If one person one vote is a requirement of democracy in some circumstances and not others , then one person one vote can not be a fundamental principle and requirement of democracy. I argue that the RoC having an equal voice and right to veto in the EU on a whole range of issues is in fact not only compatible with the ideals of democracy but is required by them. Understanding why democracy requires such within the EU could help you understand why such can also be true in other situations as well, if you wanted to understand that is. It is all about 'commonality of interest' that defines 'groups' and about protecting such groups of common interest from the 'tyranny of the majority' that do not have commonality with them.

As for Bulgaria being a 'similar case' to Cyprus, did the non Turkish Bulgarians say that Bulgaria would not be ruled by Bulgarians, that it would be ruled by some other place and people than Bulgarains and that this would be imposed on Turkish Bulgarians without any consideration for their wishes as one community of Bulgarians for whom Bulgaria was their homeland ?

[Paphitis]

Mitch, I and many many Cypriots would live next to you and your family and I would risk my life, just as you would do, to protect you from vultures. You too would do the same for me because like me and many many G/Cs above all you are a Cypriot just as I'm.

We lived side by side for many generations until the poisonous pseudo foreign influences dictated our behaviour. RW is a genuine Cypriot, like him there are thousands.

You wouldn't risk your life for anyone.

Furthermore, you are too unbalanced, and completely too obsessive to have any thoughts of selflessness. You are vane, uninspiring, not very bright, too emotional about the most silliest things, and have always sort to ingratiate yourself with charities, animal welfare, but only to make yourself feel good about yourself, and to score popularity points.

Your post is like someone saying they are not racist because they would be happy to have a black friend or a black neighbor!

[repulsewarrior]

...the horror, anyone of us may have to defend any other of us, for a Flag.

Why not?

[miltiades]

Mitch, I and many many Cypriots would live next to you and your family and I would risk my life, just as you would do, to protect you from vultures. You too would do the same for me because like me and many many G/Cs above all you are a Cypriot just as I'm.

We lived side by side for many generations until the poisonous pseudo foreign influences dictated our behaviour. RW is a genuine Cypriot, like him there are thousands.

You wouldn't risk your life for anyone.

Furthermore, you are too unbalanced, and completely too obsessive to have any thoughts of selflessness. You are vane, uninspiring, not very bright, too emotional about the most silliest things, and have always sort to ingratiate yourself with charities, animal welfare, but only to make yourself feel good about yourself, and to score popularity points.

Your post is like someone saying they are not racist because they would be happy to have a black friend or a black neighbor!

RE MALAKA, Have you no shame, your making your self the laughing stock of the forum !! Shall we have a poll asking whether you or I is a ....fucking idiot

[Get Real!]

Yet you clearly do not accept my terms do you Sotos ? From your posts here it seems clear to me you do not accept that GC choosing to act not as Cypriots regardless of their community but acting in ways that are solely defined by their Greekness alone and not any commonality with Cypriots who are not Greek, can not validly do so in the name of a unitary Cypriot people ? That is the whole point I am making.

In those days Greece called the shots… they’d say jump and the uneducated idiots here would ask how high! That’s how daft and blinded our people were.

Lack of education keeps a man down and subservient to whomever bullshits the most to them. In the 20th century Greece bullshited her way through Cyprus like they were the second coming and our fools bought it all and started worshipping!

It’s extremely embarrassing; for some of us, the state our people were in but it needs to be acknowledged to understand how we came to ruin this country and I hold Greece fully responsible for the CyProb debacle.

However, Cypriots have since “rediscovered” themselves and most no longer have subservient tendencies but are well educated with drive and imitative in life.

In fact now they’ve gone down the other end of the scale… now they’re up their arse too much!

[Sotos]

Yet you clearly do not accept my terms do you Sotos ? From your posts here it seems clear to me you do not accept that GC choosing to act not as Cypriots regardless of their community but acting in ways that are solely defined by their Greekness alone and not any commonality with Cypriots who are not Greek, can not validly do so in the name of a unitary Cypriot people ? That is the whole point I am making. You did not accept this and you do not accept this and thus I am unable to support moving from where we are today directly to a unitary Cyprus as a solution. That is the point I am making that it is because you do not accept this that something 'atypical' is necessary in any solution.

As to this idea that if TC had said to Makarios, we will accept a unitary Cyprus as long as you agree that GC acting in ways that are defined not by their common Cypriotness with us but by their Greekness alone can not impose anything on us against our will, then Makrios would have snapped up such an offer, is to me historical revisionism of monumental proportion. Yes the 60's agreements were 'unfair' but they were unfair because what Makarios sought instead of them was also 'unfair', that is the whole point and the thing you seek to deny. You make out they were unfair because TC are greedy or some such ideas and simply ignore the relationship the unfairness within them had to the unfair desires of your community and how one was a reaction to the other.

No erolz, I accept your terms. I would gladly sign what you asked for without any objection, isn't this what accepting your terms means? The same would have been the case with Makarios in the 50s-60s. He would gladly accept such terms and he would never wish for them to change. I remind you again of the historical fact that it was Makarios who proposed that Cyprus could become the only island in the Mediterranean that was independent. Your leadership sought partition, something that involved ethnic cleansing, and they didn't even think of independence. So how can you blame our leadership and not yours? It is like telling me that if I ask for something wrong, you ask for something worst, then the right solution is something that is unfair to me and benefits you on my expense! How does that make any sense? Shouldn't the objective be to find something that is fair for all? Isn't it obvious that if you impose something unfair on a group of people that then those people would be justified to seek the removal of those injustices against them? Unforuntatly it is your oun side that does not accept those terms, and aparently you don't accept them either. You are just trying to put the blame on our side in order to excuse something unfair again.

Come on erolz. Why should the constitution of our own country be something agreed with foreigners? The fact is that the UK wanted to maintain parts of Cyprus under colonial rule and it used your minority and Turkey with the threat of partition in order to achieve this. Then they blackmailed the Cypriot people into accepting the SBAs and gains for their Turkish partners who helped them defeat the Cypriot revolution.

You sought the union of Cyprus with Greece and then you bemoan that the constitution of Cyprus involved other countries ? The fact is the GC leadership thought they could just transition from British Colonial rule in Cyprus to achieving enosis without having to pay any regard to the wishes of the TC community in their own shared homeland and they were wrong in thinking they could achieve that.

So you think that it is the TCs that stopped enosis, and not Britain and Turkey? Really? TCs were merely the excuse for Britain and Turkey so they could keep Cyprus under their control, this is the fact.

EU is an association of independent countries. If you want to compare apples to apples you need to compare Cyprus with another EU country. Bulgaria is another EU country which also has a Turkish minority created during Ottoman rule. This would be the most similar case to that of Cyprus.

It is either a fundamental principle and requirement of democracy that it is based on one person one vote, or it is not. If one person one vote is a requirement of democracy in some circumstances and not others , then one person one vote can not be a fundamental principle and requirement of democracy. I argue that the RoC having an equal voice and right to veto in the EU on a whole range of issues is in fact not only compatible with the ideals of democracy but is required by them. Understanding why democracy requires such within the EU could help you understand why such can also be true in other situations as well, if you wanted to understand that is. It is all about 'commonality of interest' that defines 'groups' and about protecting such groups of common interest from the 'tyranny of the majority' that do not have commonality with them.

The fact that you are trying to compare Cyprus with something that is not a country shows how weak your argument is. A "tall person" can not be compared to a "tall building". An "intelligent dog" is nowhere as smart as an "intelligent human". If we say that for a person to be considered intelligent he needs to have an IQ over 120, this doesn't mean that an "intelligent dog" has such a high IQ. Similarly the EU, if compared with a trully democratic country, is not democratic at all. EU is an association of separate sovereign countries. They enter voluntarily and they can exit whenever they want if they don't like the rules. Individuals and groups of people such as ethnic minorities do not have their own territory to do whatever they want with it. Which is why there are human and minority rights to protect all people, but beyond that decisions are taken democratically, one person, one vote.

As for Bulgaria being a 'similar case' to Cyprus, did the non Turkish Bulgarians say that Bulgaria would not be ruled by Bulgarians, that it would be ruled by some other place and people than Bulgarains and that this would be imposed on Turkish Bulgarians without any consideration for their wishes as one community of Bulgarians for whom Bulgaria was their homeland ?

Yes! Bulgaria did not always have the borders that it has today. Parts of what is now called Bulgaria were not called Bulgaria in the past... they were called Thrace, or Macedonia, or Roumelia etc and different ethnic groups lived and continue to live there. If we follow your logic any small island, city or village that is not inhabited by a homegenous ethnic group should be independent and the concept of "ethnic minority" should not exist. If for example the islet called "Isl" is inhabited by 90% French and 10% Spanish, that islet should not be part of France, but should be an independent state and all its residents should be "just "Islians". Thats great if that is what the "Islians" want (think of Monaco, Lichtenstein etc) but it is obviously not the only valid option. If that was the case we would have 10s of thousands of countries... every little island, city or village inhabited by more than one ethnic group would be a separate country.

[erolz66]

No erolz, I accept your terms. I would gladly sign what you asked for without any objection, isn't this what accepting your terms means?

For me no it does not because you saying you accept 'my terms' is just not credible to me, whatever you may sign, compared to everything else you have said to date. I want a unitary Cyprus where it does not matter what kind of Cypriot you are. So why do I not argue and strive for a direct transition from where we are today to that end goal ? The reason I do not do so, do not argue that we do not need 'atypical' things like bi-zonality, and bi-communality, is because I do not believe that you or indeed a majority of GC accept that the pursuit of enosis was not a valid expression of the right to self determination of a unitary Cypriot people. If I did believe that the majority of GC accepted this then I would argue for and strive for moving directly from where we are today to a unitary Cyprus.

The same would have been the case with Makarios in the 50s-60s. He would gladly accept such terms and he would never wish for them to change.

I do not believe this is credible myself. I do not believe if the only limitation placed on the Cyprus attaining independence was an acceptance that enosis could only happen with the separate consent of the TC community, that Makarios would have gladly accepted that and would never have wished for it to change.

I remind you again of the historical fact that it was Makarios who proposed that Cyprus could become the only island in the Mediterranean that was independent. Your leadership sought partition, something that involved ethnic cleansing, and they didn't even think of independence.

Again for me this is just historical revisionism. Makarios believed that 'unfettered independence' could be a means of achieving enosis without having to pay any regard for the wishes of the TC community once that it became clear there was not route to achieve enosis directly following on from the end of British colonial rule. The assertion that the TC leadership would not even entertain the notion of an independent Cypriot state provided that there were sufficient protections to ensure that it was not just a step on the route to enosis is to clearly not valid as far as I am concerned.

So how can you blame our leadership and not yours? It is like telling me that if I ask for something wrong, you ask for something worst, then the right solution is something that is unfair to me and benefits you on my expense! How does that make any sense? Shouldn't the objective be to find something that is fair for all? Isn't it obvious that if you impose something unfair on a group of people that then those people would be justified to seek the removal of those injustices against them? Unforuntatly it is your oun side that does not accept those terms, and aparently you don't accept them either. You are just trying to put the blame on our side in order to excuse something unfair again.

I am not really talking about blame at all. I am trying to make the point that TC desires for an 'atypical' order in Cyprus were and are directly related to the 'atypical' desire of GC to try and claim that desire for Cyprus to NOT be ruled by Cypriots was a legitimate expression of the right to SELF determination of a unitary Cypriot people.

So you think that it is the TCs that stopped enosis, and not Britain and Turkey? Really? TCs were merely the excuse for Britain and Turkey so they could keep Cyprus under their control, this is the fact.

So you think it was Britain and Turkey alone that stopped enosis do you ? You do know who where the principal architects of the 60's agreements do you not ? You do know who Evangelos Averoff-Tositsas was I presume ? You do know what country he represented do you not ? You do know for what country he first negotiated the 60's agreements for and then 'gladly signed' and accepted them for, complete with the prohibition on enosis and the solemn pledge that Greece would protect the constitutional order laid out in them ?

Individuals and groups of people such as ethnic minorities do not have their own territory to do whatever they want with it.

But ethnic majorities do have 'their own territory' do whatever they like within it, with no regard for the wishes of others groups of people in those territories ? Do you really not understand why the right to self determination applies to peoples and not to territories ?

Which is why there are human and minority rights to protect all people, but beyond that decisions are taken democratically, one person, one vote.

And yet these are not considered sufficient within the EU, between sovereign states. So you maintain 'sovereignty' makes all the difference as to if one person one vote is a fundamental requirement of democracy, whilst skipping over the reality that desire for enosis was all about 'sovereignty' itself, about deciding if the Cypriot people would indeed be 'sovereign' at all or not. If 'sovereignty' determines if 'veto rights' for numerically smaller groups are needed, then you are agreeing that such rights were necessary in the case of TC and enosis because that was all about sovereignty.

Yes! Bulgaria did not always have the borders that it has today......

You still appear to me simply unable to deal with the fundamental paradox within the claim that the desire for enosis, the desire for Cyprus to not be ruled by Cypriots, was a legitimate and valid expression of the right to self determination of Cypriots.

[Sotos]

The revolution against the colonialists happened by the NATIVE Cypriots. Those who were brought to Cyprus by Imperialists (and did not assimilate into the rest of the population) didn't want the Imperialists to go. There is absolutely NOTHING atypical in this. What we cared for was to gain OUR freedom, which was taken from us by foreigners including the Turks. So it was a valid expression of the right to self determination of the NATIVE people... just like it was the case in ALL colonies. You can blame us for ignoring you in the pursue of our freedom, and you would be right. But at the same time you have to accept that you had also ignored our rights, in the eras before, during and after.

Enosis and a true-independence could both provide the freedom WE needed, and we agreed that a true-independence would be the best for all Cypriots. Makarios didn't want enosis as an alternative to a true-independence, he wanted that option open as an alternative to a pseudo-independence that did NOT free the native Cypriot people from those foreign Imperialists and discriminated against the majority of the population.

So you think it was Britain and Turkey alone that stopped enosis do you ? You do know who where the principal architects of the 60's agreements do you not ? You do know who Evangelos Averoff-Tositsas was I presume ? You do know what country he represented do you not ? You do know for what country he first negotiated the 60's agreements for and then 'gladly signed' and accepted them for, complete with the prohibition on enosis and the solemn pledge that Greece would protect the constitutional order laid out in them ?

Greece was forced to compromise to them, just like we did.

But ethnic majorities do have 'their own territory' do whatever they like within it, with no regard for the wishes of others groups of people in those territories ? Do you really not understand why the right to self determination applies to peoples and not to territories ?

Not "ethnic majorities", but the majority of people in a territory. When a referendum took place in Scotland recently they didn't ask ethnic groups separately... all that matters is what the majority of all of them together wanted. Regarding "self-determination" of ethnic minorities we already went through this and agreed this could apply only to certain cultural issues (and most countries don't even give that). A minority can not determine on its own where a territory should or shouldn't belong. But they do get proportional say, which I never refused to you.

And yet these are not considered sufficient within the EU, between sovereign states. So you maintain 'sovereignty' makes all the difference as to if one person one vote is a fundamental requirement of democracy, whilst skipping over the reality that desire for enosis was all about 'sovereignty' itself, about deciding if the Cypriot people would indeed be 'sovereign' at all or not. If 'sovereignty' determines if 'veto rights' for numerically smaller groups are needed, then you are agreeing that such rights were necessary in the case of TC and enosis because that was all about sovereignty.

Scotland belongs first and above all to the Scots, but the Scots do have a right to have their own territory being part of another country. It is no different in the case of Cyprus.

You still appear to me simply unable to deal with the fundamental paradox within the claim that the desire for enosis, the desire for Cyprus to not be ruled by Cypriots, was a legitimate and valid expression of the right to self determination of Cypriots.

Another way to put it: The desire of Greeks to be ruled by Greeks, was a legitimate valid expression of the right to self determination of Greeks (which includes the native people of Cyprus, the native people of Crete, the native people of Rhodes etc etc etc).

Erolz, we've been over this same thing over and over again and there is no point to keep repeating the same arguments. It is clear to me that all you care about is to misappropriate blame on our side in order to excuse something which is even more unfair than what we had before. You are unwilling to step into our shoes and see things from our point of view. You are overly critical of our past choices while you give no weight at all to the even worst choices of your own side. In the end you align yourself with your leadership and the official Turkish position regardless of your previous claims to the contrary. If you truly wanted a unitary state that would promote Cypriotness above all else you would accept that what we had in the past and until now are two separate sides trying to serve their own interests without any regard to the interests of the Cypriot people as a whole. I gladly accepted your terms, not as a compromise but because I agree with them. Unfortunately it seems you do not accept them yourself... they were just some bluff to try to present yourself as different and maybe try to get us to accept a greater share of blame than what actually belongs to us

[Paphitis]

Mitch, I and many many Cypriots would live next to you and your family and I would risk my life, just as you would do, to protect you from vultures. You too would do the same for me because like me and many many G/Cs above all you are a Cypriot just as I'm.

We lived side by side for many generations until the poisonous pseudo foreign influences dictated our behaviour. RW is a genuine Cypriot, like him there are thousands.

You wouldn't risk your life for anyone.

Furthermore, you are too unbalanced, and completely too obsessive to have any thoughts of selflessness. You are vane, uninspiring, not very bright, too emotional about the most silliest things, and have always sort to ingratiate yourself with charities, animal welfare, but only to make yourself feel good about yourself, and to score popularity points.

Your post is like someone saying they are not racist because they would be happy to have a black friend or a black neighbor!

RE MALAKA, Have you no shame, your making your self the laughing stock of the forum !! Shall we have a poll asking whether you or I is a ....fucking idiot

You would definitely lose that one aim afraid!

[Paphitis]

Yet you clearly do not accept my terms do you Sotos ? From your posts here it seems clear to me you do not accept that GC choosing to act not as Cypriots regardless of their community but acting in ways that are solely defined by their Greekness alone and not any commonality with Cypriots who are not Greek, can not validly do so in the name of a unitary Cypriot people ? That is the whole point I am making.

In those days Greece called the shots… they’d say jump and the uneducated idiots here would ask how high! That’s how daft and blinded our people were.

Lack of education keeps a man down and subservient to whomever bullshits the most to them. In the 20th century Greece bullshited her way through Cyprus like they were the second coming and our fools bought it all and started worshipping!

It’s extremely embarrassing; for some of us, the state our people were in but it needs to be acknowledged to understand how we came to ruin this country and I hold Greece fully responsible for the CyProb debacle.

However, Cypriots have since “rediscovered” themselves and most no longer have subservient tendencies but are well educated with drive and imitative in life.

In fact now they’ve gone down the other end of the scale… now they’re up their arse too much!

Hallelujah!

All of it is so true, even the last bit.