Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

You were an Eoka B supporter too Bananiot. The same way Koutsou was while he was a student at Panteios in Greece.

[cypezokyli]

[Pyrpolizer]

It means impossible.Concentrate on "the same way".
Koutsou is one of Sener Levents best friends. How could it be possible to have been an Eoka B?
Bananiot is an expert in slander.

[Pyrpolizer]

And by the way I know the man personally.His wife is Soulla, and he has 2 adopted children.A son called Demitris and a daughter can't recall her name. Koutsou is the FIRST in Cyprus yeeears ago who established the FIRST Cyprus THINK TANK. It was called KYKEM (Kypriako Kentro Meleton/Cyprus Studies Centre), organising meetings studies and sceminars inviting academics from all over the world including TCs.
This was happening almost 20+ years ago. Koutsou is the one who insisted and managed to have the few TC academics at the University, specifically Mr Ozgur

[cypezokyli]

nobody claimed that he was a member. but he was a supporter. and he also supported grivas return to cyprus. he even made public speeches. and above all, he supported or believed in people who "as a matter of fact" betrayed cyprus (with some of them receiving some nice US$$$ ). concequently, (and using the neo-cypriot way of thinking) since he believed in those enosis ideas, then it is obvious that he received money from the americans since "polla synagontai ap ti symperrifora , alla apo ti perireousa atmosfaira". take care because discrediting the above argument as slander, you are discrediting your presidents way of thinking

dont you find it interesting that koutsou is (conviniently ) not interested in the only real betrayal of cyprus ?

the family members of koutsou are really irrelevant. i honestly dont know why you mention them. he might be a very nice person and an honorable family man. we only care about koutsou as a politician, and as such we judge him.

and as a politician i already posted letters from people who he has presented their names in the parliamentary committee, despite the fact that they were rejected financing from UNOPS!
and then you want me to take this man seriously. honestly, i used to have more respect of him (whom i always considered way more clever than his supporters...they cannot hide their fascist sentiments) , but now he has fallen to the koulias-level.

[Pyrpolizer]

First show me the public speaches Koutsou is alledged to have made in support of what you said.
Second the 3 articles you posted only talk of people who INDEED applied for Finance. Some where rejected some got it. The list of Koutsou is nothing but a preliminary investigation. It is not a final document it is not a statement.

But anyway I already clarified my position that whatever finance the Anan Plan got, it proved totally irrelevant as to the final vote at least between the GCs.

I would also like to mention that I am not interested to discuss GC internal Politics in this Forum. This guy Bananiot always drags us in this direction unfortunately.It seems his only scope is just to harm the President thinking that this is the best way to have a solution of the type he wants.

[Bananiot]

100 000 people voted the way I did. You, along with the rest, voted for the Turkish army to stay forever in Cyprus and for the partition of Cyprus. Koutsou was an EOKA B man. You might know him personally but this only sheds a cloud over your haste to clear his name Pyrpolyser. I would'n be surprised if you are of the same convictions.

[Kifeas]

100 000 people voted the way I did. You, along with the rest, voted for the Turkish army to stay forever in Cyprus and for the partition of Cyprus.

This is nonsense, and you know it!
You voted for the plan, either because you did not read it thoroughly or evaluate it comprehensively, or because the minimum standards you have said for a solution were lower than the majority, or because you became tired of the problem and wanted to see a solution (any solution) as soon as possible.

You may have voted for what you thought would have provided for the withdrawal of the Turkish army from Cyprus, and this is even debatable, but at the same time you voted for the institutionalized consolidation of the division of Cyprus into two national /ethnic, sovereignly based entities. For many things Papadopoulos was right in his pre-referendum A-plan evaluation speech (as well as been wrong in some,) but for one thing he was the most right, that this solution enhances, deepens and widens the partition of Cyprus. The 1960 London and Zurich agreements institutionalized and consolidated the division of the people of Cyprus by vertically splitting them into two separate ethnically based entities. The Annan plan attempted to enhance and deepened this division further, by institutionalizing and consolidating it into a territorial one, on the basis of the above two separate people entities in Cyprus.

We made the mistake (actually forced) to put our signatures under the first type of separation. Thanks god we did not do so for the second type, on top of the first one.

It is a joke for one to claim that the Annan plan provided for the unification of Cyprus into one country. Perhaps, and again this is debatable, it would have been so in the eyes of the foreigners. For the people of Cyprus however, it would have almost been two separate countries (nation /states,) the relationship of each to the other almost similar to the relationship between two different EU member states. In some areas this relationship would have been slightly stronger, and in some areas even weaker than that among EU member states to each other!

If such an idea was absolutely essential (something which I do not accept,) then I could possibly have been able to digest it if it was on the basis of the population ratios (say 80:20.) However, this was on the basis of 70:30 of the area of Cyprus (if one subtracts the British bases area,) and on the basis of 50:50 of the coastlines.
.

[Kifeas]

Any other costs, imbalances or injustices that the GC side may or will inevitably have to sustain by /from a solution, might have been able to gradually become corrected, minimized, absorbed or alleviated in the future. The only things that would have never ever been corrected, no matter how conditions of trust and cooperation would have improved in the future, would have been the institutionalized formalization of the splitting of Cyprus into two separate, internally "ethnically" sovereign geographical areas (sub-nation/states,) as well as the unilateral intervention rights of foreign countries.

[Bananiot]

Well, in my book nonsense is to believe Papadopoulos that a hugely political issue can be solved on the basis of legalistic machinations. Then, complete nonsense is to believe that the 1960 constitution laid the basis for separation (this nonsense was the excuse used by Makarios et al when trying to achieve enosis from the back door). They were forced on us because we lost out, because we did not evaluate our possibilities properly and believed the bigots at the time that enosis was possible.

Kifeas, you and your type, think that we have a buffet of solutions and we can take our pick. I too would pick the one that says "unitary state" but, as you probably know, we have worked our hardest to make this "dish" unavailable to us.