Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

thank god we dont speak face to face.

no need for the history lesson. and no need to repeat ou fair demands.

the argument, above was not to justify the war. the argument was concerned with an aim to have 80% of cyprus for us both on land and political respect. therefore i apologise if i insulted you or hurt your feelings. it was just part of the specific discussion.

unless ofcource u also believe that this is possible, you may proceed. the 80% party is about to realise..

Pezo, it doesn't matter at all under which circumstances and within which context you used the specific argument. The argument alone and by itself was a pathetic and a provocative one, and doesn't characterize a free sprit and resistance to injustice, but a quitter! You need to do some moral boosting! If it was all a matter of submitting to the wishes and desires of the bigger and stronger, we better do not live our lives at all! After all, the minimum we should defend in this world as humans is our dignity and the dignity of those around us, and nothing else! Without it, better we do not live at all!

if we dont want to accept that we lost a war... no problem. we can call it the unjust barbaric expanding invation from turkey. hope you are satisfied. would you then say that the unjust barbaric imperialistic invation from turkey is going to have an influence on the solution?
thats all i want to hear.

It is one thing to say that we are trying to avert or minimize the consequences of an injustice in the best and most realistic way, and another think to say "we lost the war, tough luck, suck it and get ready to submit!" The one shows a will to struggle for the better and the fairer, the other shows submissiveness and fatalism!

[cypezokyli]

What I want to hear is what YOU call the invasion.

invasion

[Piratis]

Let us not joke with ourselves, Turkey cannot become a member of the EU even with maximal concessions on Cyprus. Should Turkey make any political concessions over a lost cause?

Go tell this to Erdogan to enlighten him. You really think he doesn't know? Turkey asks for lots (full accession) so in the end they will manage to get as many as they can (e.g. some sort of association that Germany proposed).

Just the accession process is a huge deal for Turkey. If tomorrow this process stops then the Turkish economy will go downhill, foreign investments will be halved and Turkey could be pushed into instability.

Turkey is a torn country with no identity. Her future is very uncertain and the shift in the balance of power I am talking about is something very possible.

[cypezokyli]

kifeas how do you find the proposals of the 80% -party?
and what do you think would be the concequences of 80% on land and political power, or we dont talk?

[Kifeas]

kifeas how do you find the proposals of the 80% -party?
and what do you think would be the concequences of 80% on land and political power, or we dont talk?

Go back to all my postings in this thread and you will find your answer!

[Tony-4497]

upon who the pressure is going to fall, is matter of personal prediction.

That is PRECISELY why we must NOW tell Turkey, the EU and the UN that we will only discuss plans that have 80% under GC rule AND that we will block Turkey's accession unless she agrees to a fair solution within a reasonable time frame.

Turkey's accession should never be allowed to reach the very final approval stage without a solution. The acceptance of such a solution needs to be gradually effected during, and tied to, Turkey's accession process.

This will be the strategy of The 80% Party!

[Piratis]

Slaves!? Is that what they teach you in history books?
A slave is someone who does not own himself, and thus cannot own property either. Were you like that?

A slave is one who doesn't have his freedom. This was the case with Greek Cypriots during the Ottomans. If you disagree then I guess you wouldn't have a problem if TCs are treated in the same way that GCs were treated during the Ottomans?

[cypezokyli]

i am not going to answer any more tony

i will leave that job to others...

[Tony-4497]

and what do you think would be the concequences of 80% on land and political power, or we dont talk?

Just to clarify - The 80% Party does not require 80% of political power for GCs, whatever that means. It does require that ANY plan has 80% of LAND under GC rule, on the basis of the population and land owneship percentages.

[Simon]

cypezokyli have you ran out of excuses for TCs.

All I am demanding is that for negotiations to start, there is one pre-condition -proportionality! Why is that so unreasonable? Why should that be negotiated away? JUSTICE IS NON-NEGOTIABLE!

In fact, 'The 80% Party' is being generous, because really we should be demanding 82%. cypezokyli, forget the 1960 agreements for a moment, we don't want an 18% minority community to be able to veto everything and overrule us, the 82% majority. That system will not work. It will fail and do you know why, because 99% of GCs will feel the injustice. That system itself will create divide, the BBF is just a form of stealth partition anyway. I would accept a BBF, if again it was on the grounds of 80/20. Why is it that this view is so unreasonable to you. Please don't say that because we lost the war, because that really will crack me up.