Cyprus-Forum.com

[Bananiot]

Yes, but your claim is not ... substantiated. By the way, has it occurred to you that Denktash may have acted under the influence of frustration and dismay? In fact I am sure that Jack the Ripper can also be excused, for the same reasons, at least for the first six of his murders.

[NeverSayGoodbye]

My question is since the akritas plan according to some was a plan to exterminate the T/C and since according to some again the G/C were well equipped and outnumbered the T/C.
What actually stopped them?
And was the invasion a way to stop the Akritas plan being brought back in action? Or was the invasion just an act of revenge?

[Bananiot]

Well, Turkey for a start. In 1959 we signed an agreement for an independent Cyprus, run by two equal partners. EOKA failed to deliver and Makarios tried a different path to enosis. If our enemy were just the Turkish Cypriots we would have no problem routing them. If they were by themselves, on the other hand, they would have probably succumbed to their fate without a struggle.

The invasion was not a mere result of our stupidity, as some like to claim quite conveniently, but an inevitable act for a problem that remained for a long time unsolved. We tried to solve it in a similar fashion, if we want to be honest, when we brought in a fully armed division of the Greek army. From 1963 we rejected a number of plans for an honourable solution to our problem and made enemies among powerful circles that had huge interests in the area. I am not saying that the invasion is justified, I am just trying to see things from a clear perspective, putting my self into the shoes of an outsider.

Now, 32 years after the invasion, and having already rejected a number of plans, I just wonder whether a final solution will be enforced on us, since, on top of everything else, the world has more pressing issues to attend to.

[Alexis]

Now, 32 years after the invasion, and having already rejected a number of plans, I just wonder whether a final solution will be enforced on us, since, on top of everything else, the world has more pressing issues to attend to.

I thought we'd only rejected the one plan? When I say we, I mean the Cypriot people, at referendum, this has only happened the one time. You can't play the 32 years game when in fact it is only 2 years. If we had rejected plan after plan over 32 years at referendum I would understand what you are saying. I think that some perspective should also be exercised over the result of the Annan Plan. We should put it's 'rejection' at the back of our minds and move on. The UN certainly dioes not want to force a solution on the Cypriots but would like to remind them that the continued lack of solution is to no-one's benefit and as such we should all get a move on and get together to find one. There is nothing however that points towards the UN forcing a solution on us or for that matter recognising the TRNC.

As for the Akritas Plan, the question we need to ask is how complicit the GC community as a whole was in this whole affair. To claim that the plan (not akritas but the aims of the GC community as a whole) was genocide all along and not just Enosis is a big claim and must be substantiated with facts. I think NeverSayGoodbye asks some important questions regarding the Akritas Plan. I think most peoiple agree that both sides trying to solve the problem through force was not a good thing and this is confirmed by having a read of the UN resolutions of the time as well as those post 1974.

[Kifeas]

My question is since the akritas plan according to some was a plan to exterminate the T/C and since according to some again the G/C were well equipped and outnumbered the T/C.
What actually stopped them?
And was the invasion a way to stop the Akritas plan being brought back in action? Or was the invasion just an act of revenge?

Well, unlike the above traitor (Bananiot) who essentially began his above twisted little account from the implied premise that the Akritas plan was indeed a plan to exterminate the T/Cs, I will not imply anything but I will first ask you to read the plan yourself, and before placing your hypothetical question of what stopped the G/Cs from exterminating the T/Cs, to indeed reach and tell us your own conclusion (not the "conclusion" of some others,) as to whether it was indeed a plan that aimed to the extermination of the T/Cs.

The full text of the Akritas plan is at the bigining of this thread, and I am looking forward to reading your conclusions.

[Socrates]

Actually the Anan plan and all the previous plans is still at the table and if we want a solution we must understand the whole situation and I disagree what there is no issue of recognizing the TRNC and we can’t speak only for hope when actually there are true events that make the situation worst every day.

We can’t keep pretending what they are not existing. The 2 years after the rejection of the plan they have build 55 000 houses!!! They building casinos the new las Vegas now a Brazilian soccer team will build a 29 floors sport center this situation will make the solution unreachable and actually there is legal windows for them to achieve independence, if the situation with the commission continues for some years with out a solution then this is the solution, we’ll loose every legal right on their territory and it really not counts if we would go or not to that commission because as long this commission exist we loosing our rights to make prosecutions to the real estate agents or to soccer teams...

The UN have said to us what while this situation exist there is the legal window of the Montenegro were they can vote for their right to live in a separate state and as long we are loosing our rights on their territory this seems to be the solution and we get a cucumber and do not forget what all this investments are made from Jews and British.

[Kifeas]

Actually the Anan plan and all the previous plans is still at the table

If it is on the “table,” in which way is it? Can you explain to us what you mean by saying that it “is still at the table?”

and actually there is legal windows for them to achieve independence,

Which one is the legal window that will allow them “to achieve independence?”

if the situation with the commission continues for some years with out a solution then this is the solution, we’ll loose every legal right on their territory

You said we will loose every legal right on their territory. Which one is their territory? If it is their territory, how do we have any legal right on anything that belongs to them (their territory,) which we will loose?

and it really not counts if we would go or not to that commission because as long this commission exist we loosing our rights to make prosecutions to the real estate agents or to soccer teams...

How do we loose our rights to make prosecutions against the real estate agents or to soccer teams? Why the existence of the commission will make us loose such a right to make individual prosecutions against individual violators of our properties? Based on what logic, or based on what law, will we loose such a right?

The UN have said to us what while this situation exist there is the legal window of the Montenegro were they can vote for their right to live in a separate state

When did the UN say to us that “while this situation exists, there is the legal window of the Montenegro, were they can vote for their right to live in a separate state?” When did this happen and where did you hear or read this it from? Something like this never happened. Can you prove it with undisputed evidence?

What relation does in your opinion the Montenegro case has with Cyprus?

In my opinion there is absolutely no relationship between Cyprus and Montenegro.

Can you tell us what commonalities do exist between the two cases, which implies a potentially similar handling, because I see only differences between Cyprus and Montenegro cases?

For example, is the current population of Montenegro that voted in the independence referendum, one that was formed after an ethnic cleansing and a stealing of the properties of the vast majority of the legal inhabitants of the Montenegro area, after an illegal foreign invasion, like it is the case in Cyprus?

Is the population of the Montenegro that voted for its self determination and independence, one that was formed after half of this population was transferred illegally from another country (the country that invaded and ethnically cleansed the legal inhabitants) and was illegally given the properties of the people that were previously ethnically cleansed, like it is the case of Cyprus?

Is the current population of Montenegro, one that was formed based on all the above illegalities, and therefore a population illegally controlling the country called Montenegro -like it is the case of Cyprus; or it is the legal, indigenous people and the natural and historical owner of this area of the world?

If the answer to the above is no, Montenegro’s population, unlike in the case of Cyprus, is the legal and natural inhabitants and owners of this country, and therefore they also have a right of self-determination; then how on earth does such a case constitute a legal precedent (window) for the case of Cyprus?

Please answer me all the above questions one by one, and please do not claim this time again that your English is not so good and therefore you cannot answer them –like you did the previous time.

[Bananiot]

This traitor reminds all of Papadopoulos letter to the American ambassador in Nicosia in August 1964. He threatens to destroy all the Turkish Cypriots "we have the Plan and the means to do so in 75 minutes" he boasted.

Whom should we believe now, super patriot Kifeas or Papadopoulos.

[Kifeas]

This traitor reminds all of Papadopoulos letter to the American ambassador in Nicosia in August 1964. He threatens to destroy all the Turkish Cypriots "we have the Plan and the means to do so in 75 minutes" he boasted.

Whom should we believe now, super patriot Kifeas or Papadopoulos.

When a country and a population as small as Cyprus, faces such an immanent threat and danger of being destroyed and fragmented, and its population to be potentially wiped out from a forthcoming invasion by a country 100 times bigger to it (Turkey) and with the most advanced weapons of the time in its possession -freely and amply donated to it by its American ally, it has every right to use all the very few means in its possession to avert such a danger, and a mere threatening bluff towards this direction, such as the one the above traitor described, is a perfectly legitimate mean to that end!

The above traitor “knows” only the bluffing threats of Papadopoulos and Makarios, which were made in order to stop the already started Turkish invasion from the air, but buries entirely under the carpet the already committed atrocities against tens of GC innocent civilians which were already at the time getting burned alive with prohibited by the Geneva convention napalm bombs that Turkey was dropping on their heads in August 1964!

[Socrates]

Kifeas because you are ridiculous bring me all the previous questions (there is not) and I’ll answer you in everything.