These are estimated numbers from people who wrote books saying they had 1500 dead and 2000 wounded.
This link however says they had 498 dead and 1200 wounded
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ ... _of_CyprusAnd this that the Turkish Military had only 309 dead.
https://cyprusscene.com/2013/11/13/cypr ... e-tragedy/The CIA docs link that I had (doesn't work anymore) agrees with the last number.
Sotos wrote:Those articles come from a minority of Yes men/women who are trying to mislead people. And yes, we can reject any new similar plan. What is to stop me from voting "no" like last time? Yes, there might be consequences, but not even close enough to the consequences of accepting such a disastrous solution. Anastasiades knows this, which is why there will be no referendum again for any such solution
What’s your evidence that they are trying to mislead people??
Do you have any study proving the opposite?
And what makes you think it’s going to be similar to the Anan Plan? It has to be different or else it won’t be accepted. Plain simple. The Annan plan was disguised partition on the first place.
As things stand it seems it’s going to be much better than the Annan on the political and safety aspect and probably worse on the property and settlers issue.
Talk for yourself in saying "yes,
we can reject any new similar plan".
I imply to you that
we won’t and
we will be given full explanation as to why by those who will serve it to us. Unless of course you expect to ever receive a plan that will set the Tcs at minority status in a unitary state.
You as an individual may do as you wish, but don’t give me the heroic bullshit that
we will say no again and at the same time bear the consequences.
I have no idea what Anastasiades knows what his people will do, but be sure he won’t miss the chance to pass us a new plan as described above.
wrote: It is called democracy and by specifying that "political equality" does not equal "numerical equality" the UN clarifies that, with some exceptions, standard democratic rules apply. In a democracy you don't always get what serves the interests of your own group, but what is best for the overall population. By this I don't mean any decision will violate the rights of TCs, but "rights" and "interests" are two completely different things.
It’s called democracy in a
Federal state. Not democracy in a Unitary state. It’s obvious you can’t distinguish between the two. However you are still avoiding the question.
I repeat:
Explain to me in what way you think the political equality (as defined and clarified by the UN) could ever be applied in a way that would not empower the GC community to force the TC community to accept measures against their interests.As for the exceptions that’s something you invented yourself .The UN is very clear that there won’t be ANY exceptions in saying:
… effective participation in ALL organs and decisions of the Federal Government to safeguard in ensuring that the Federal Government will not be empowered to adopt measures against the interests of ONE community.
Also your trying to distinguish their "rights" from their "interests" is another invention of yours.
The UN has never distinguished between the two, it has in fact been very clear on both.
a)the rights--> effective participation in ALL organs…
b) their interests---> in ensuring that the Federal Government will not be empowered to adopt measures against the interests of ONE community