The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Do you trust that Millett his telling the truth? I don't ..

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Postby Piratis » Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:23 pm

As far as the map you showed with the “No Girlfriend?” website promotion underneath it… it means nothing within the context of this discussion (given that it is even true).


That website is the one that hosts the attached photos in the forum.

That map is described in a document written by Kucuk. You can find it here:


http://library.sas.ac.uk/search/t?SEARC ... chscope=17

And of course is relevant, since it shows from how early the Turks were planning for the partition of Cyprus.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby Murataga » Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:34 am

Piratis-

About TCs being the "founding fathers" and being a minority the two things are totally IRRELEVANT. I am one of the "founding fathers" of a company and I have 5% of it. There is another partner that has 70%. Can I say my shares are not minority shares because I was a "founding father"? So stop confusing irrelevant things.
If you are or not a minority depends on the numbers and not on anything else.


You argument is flawed mainly for two reasons:

(1) the administration of countries and companies is SOMEWHAT(!) different and rely on totally seperate principles. What share you have in which company in what amount and how you handle it is not analogous to what we are talking about. International relations doesen`t work that way.

(2) Nevertheless, if I was to downscale the conversation to your flawed example I would have to point out something to you regarding corporate adminstration rules. Given the necessary cridentials and satisfying exclusive and unique circumstances, let aside 5%, you may aswell be the CEO or a member of the executive board of a company even with shares less than 1%. Certainly granting some or every say in the administration and the future of your company. So your creative, yet desperate and illusive example is neither relevant nor pertinent.

Other than this I didn`t find anything in your messages that make a contribution hence deserve a reply.

To sum it all up:

We are not a minority, we are founding partners of Cyprus.
We will continue to strive for our legal rights in the administration of RoC as its founding partners under a partnership state of Cyprus.
User avatar
Murataga
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:32 pm

Postby humanist » Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:55 am

We are not a minority, we are founding partners of Cyprus.
We will continue to strive for our legal rights in the administration of RoC as its founding partners under a partnership state of Cyprus.



This is the most commandable sentence I have read in the entire forum since the day I joint. Thank you Marataga
User avatar
humanist
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6585
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:46 am

Postby Murataga » Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:26 pm

humanist - Thank you for commending my message. Of course, I am assuming that you have a clear definition of what I am implying with a "Partnership State of Cyprus" and that we are not a minority...

We want a “Partnership State of Cyprus” where the equal status and legitimacy of its co-founding parties is explicitly recognized and respected and that under it, neither side is allowed, directly or implicitly, to extend its will, legitimacy or sovereignty over the other. The principles of bi-communality, political equality and bi-zonality are the key parameters for a settlement in Cyprus that have also been endorsed by the U.N. Security Council.

We want to live in Cyprus with GCs as our friends and neighbors but not as our administrators.
User avatar
Murataga
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:32 pm

Postby Piratis » Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:01 pm

Murataga wrote:Piratis-

About TCs being the "founding fathers" and being a minority the two things are totally IRRELEVANT. I am one of the "founding fathers" of a company and I have 5% of it. There is another partner that has 70%. Can I say my shares are not minority shares because I was a "founding father"? So stop confusing irrelevant things.
If you are or not a minority depends on the numbers and not on anything else.


You argument is flawed mainly for two reasons:

(1) the administration of countries and companies is SOMEWHAT(!) different and rely on totally seperate principles. What share you have in which company in what amount and how you handle it is not analogous to what we are talking about. International relations doesen`t work that way.

(2) Nevertheless, if I was to downscale the conversation to your flawed example I would have to point out something to you regarding corporate adminstration rules. Given the necessary cridentials and satisfying exclusive and unique circumstances, let aside 5%, you may aswell be the CEO or a member of the executive board of a company even with shares less than 1%. Certainly granting some or every say in the administration and the future of your company. So your creative, yet desperate and illusive example is neither relevant nor pertinent.

Other than this I didn`t find anything in your messages that make a contribution hence deserve a reply.

To sum it all up:

We are not a minority, we are founding partners of Cyprus.
We will continue to strive for our legal rights in the administration of RoC as its founding partners under a partnership state of Cyprus.


My friend, your theory was flowed right from the beginning as in the constitution it makes no references about "founding fathers" and all that.

Furthermore as I told you it is IRRELEVANT since being a minority is a matter of numbers and nothing more.
GCs are the 82%, TCs the 18%. Therefore TCs are a minority. Add "founding fathers", onion rings, and anything else you want to add in the mix, it does not change this very simple fact.

In any case words such as "minority", "founding fathers" etc are just words. What your and our rights are according to the RoC constitution are written very specifically and you should have the 100% of them as long as you allow as to have the 100% of ours.
Your rights do not include neither a separate country nor a separate federal/confederal state, and in fact partition is explicitly prohibited by the constitution.

So give us our rights, take yours, and then call yourselves "majority", "founding fathers", "world rulers" or whatever else you want. I really don't care what you label yourself as long as you do not commit crimes and illegalities that stop me from enjoying my rights.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby Viewpoint » Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:35 pm

Piratis wrote:
Murataga wrote:Piratis-

About TCs being the "founding fathers" and being a minority the two things are totally IRRELEVANT. I am one of the "founding fathers" of a company and I have 5% of it. There is another partner that has 70%. Can I say my shares are not minority shares because I was a "founding father"? So stop confusing irrelevant things.
If you are or not a minority depends on the numbers and not on anything else.


You argument is flawed mainly for two reasons:

(1) the administration of countries and companies is SOMEWHAT(!) different and rely on totally seperate principles. What share you have in which company in what amount and how you handle it is not analogous to what we are talking about. International relations doesen`t work that way.

(2) Nevertheless, if I was to downscale the conversation to your flawed example I would have to point out something to you regarding corporate adminstration rules. Given the necessary cridentials and satisfying exclusive and unique circumstances, let aside 5%, you may aswell be the CEO or a member of the executive board of a company even with shares less than 1%. Certainly granting some or every say in the administration and the future of your company. So your creative, yet desperate and illusive example is neither relevant nor pertinent.

Other than this I didn`t find anything in your messages that make a contribution hence deserve a reply.

To sum it all up:

We are not a minority, we are founding partners of Cyprus.
We will continue to strive for our legal rights in the administration of RoC as its founding partners under a partnership state of Cyprus.


My friend, your theory was flowed right from the beginning as in the constitution it makes no references about "founding fathers" and all that.

Furthermore as I told you it is IRRELEVANT since being a minority is a matter of numbers and nothing more.
GCs are the 82%, TCs the 18%. Therefore TCs are a minority. Add "founding fathers", onion rings, and anything else you want to add in the mix, it does not change this very simple fact.

In any case words such as "minority", "founding fathers" etc are just words. What your and our rights are according to the RoC constitution are written very specifically and you should have the 100% of them as long as you allow as to have the 100% of ours.
Your rights do not include neither a separate country nor a separate federal/confederal state, and in fact partition is explicitly prohibited by the constitution.

So give us our rights, take yours, and then call yourselves "majority", "founding fathers", "world rulers" or whatever else you want. I really don't care what you label yourself as long as you do not commit crimes and illegalities that stop me from enjoying my rights.


If a 30% stake and a vice president veto isn't a partnership then you need to re-examine your understanding of partnerships work. How long do you think it would take the GC partner if we were to return to the 1960 agreements to start objecting to the EU in the hope of producing Akritas 2 and removing TC rights? You yourself admit that you were forced to sign these agreements, yet have clinged onto them so dearly as long as the TC elements is missing and you have full control then everything appears to be rosy, if the TCs were to return how long before you start to lodge your standard objections?? 2 weeks? month? year?
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25214
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Postby Murataga » Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:39 pm

Piratis-

My friend, your theory was flowed right from the beginning as in the constitution it makes no references about "founding fathers" and all that.

http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/Treaties%20-1959-60.htm

If you read this carefully, you will see that the the post of the vice-president is assigned to a Turk and that the president on matters of administration (including security) have to rule in agreement with the vice-president.

TCs being smaller in number does not make them your minority. The 1959 agreements acknowledge this and is constructed according to this principle. Minorities are not granted vice-president posts where the president must rule in agreement with...

What your and our rights are according to the RoC constitution are written very specifically and you should have the 100% of them as long as you allow as to have the 100% of ours.

Is this according to the Constitution which GCs breached by kicking the TCs out in 1963 or a new one that you have been working on since 1963 in a House of Representatives with no TCs? 8)

Your rights do not include neither a separate country nor a separate federal/confederal state, and in fact partition is explicitly prohibited by the constitution.

I agree with you that the 1959 agreements were not based on a federal state. However, the unfortunate developments in the Cyprus conflict throughou the years mandate the principals of bi-communality, political equality and bi-zonality. This was agreed upon by the GC administration and the U.N. Security Council. Like it or not, it is how the Cyprus problem will be solved (if ever solved).

TCs are the legal partners of Cyprus under the principals of bi-communality, political equality and bi-zonality.
User avatar
Murataga
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:32 pm

Postby Viewpoint » Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:42 pm

Murataga wrote:Piratis-

My friend, your theory was flowed right from the beginning as in the constitution it makes no references about "founding fathers" and all that.

http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/Treaties%20-1959-60.htm

If you read this carefully, you will see that the the post of the vice-president is assigned to a Turk and that the president on matters of administration (including security) have to rule in agreement with the vice-president.

TCs being smaller in number does not make them your minority. The 1959 agreements acknowledge this and is constructed according to this principle. Minorities are not granted vice-president posts where the president must rule in agreement with...

What your and our rights are according to the RoC constitution are written very specifically and you should have the 100% of them as long as you allow as to have the 100% of ours.

Is this according to the Constitution which GCs breached by kicking the TCs out in 1963 or a new one that you have been working on since 1963 in a House of Representatives with no TCs? 8)

Your rights do not include neither a separate country nor a separate federal/confederal state, and in fact partition is explicitly prohibited by the constitution.

I agree with you that the 1959 agreements were not based on a federal state. However, the unfortunate developments in the Cyprus conflict throughou the years mandate the principals of bi-communality, political equality and bi-zonality. This was agreed upon by the GC administration and the U.N. Security Council. Like it or not, it is how the Cyprus problem will be solved (if ever solved).

TCs are the legal partners of Cyprus under the principals of bi-communality, political equality and bi-zonality.


Great posts Murat keep them up.
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25214
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Postby Piratis » Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:41 pm

The "partners" are all Cypriot citizens, part of which are the minority of TCs. So if you insist on the word "partner" no problem with that, but remember it is a minority partner as maybe TCs have the vice president but GCs have the President. President is higher than the vice president if you didn't know, and their powers are not equal.

As I explained already "partnerships" and "founding fathers" are irrelevant when it comes to determine if an ethnic group is a minority or not. So stop mixing up irrelevant things.


Is this according to the Constitution which GCs breached by kicking the TCs out in 1963 or a new one that you have been working on since 1963 in a House of Representatives with no TCs?


The TCs were never kicked. Just like it is today, they simply left the parliament and refused to cooperate and instead they pursued their dream of partition. You have always been welcomed to come back to your positions in RoC as long as you abandon the efforts to partition Cyprus.


I agree with you that the 1959 agreements were not based on a federal state. However, the unfortunate developments in the Cyprus conflict throughou the years mandate the principals of bi-communality, political equality and bi-zonality. This was agreed upon by the GC administration and the U.N. Security Council. Like it or not, it is how the Cyprus problem will be solved (if ever solved).


I disagree. The only agreements that all sides are legally obligated to obey are those of 1960. You have no right to force anything else on us without our agreement, and just like the Annan plan, we have every right to reject anything else which then becomes null and void.

TCs are the legal partners of Cyprus under the principals of bi-communality, political equality and bi-zonality.

Show me where in the constitution it talks about "bi-zonality" and all the other crap that you have absolutely no right to demand and enforce.

The conclusion is that Turkey along with TCs are illegally occupying 1/3rd of Cyprus. End the occupation get your rights back, give us our rights and lands back, and then we talk if and what changes can be made. We are not going to discuss anything while you illegally keep hostage 1/3rd of our country and you are trying to blackmail us to accept things that you have no right for.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby BirKibrisli » Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:47 pm

Welcome back,Viewpoint!!!
According to my logic,if you couldn't stay away from the forum that proved you were an individual,albeit an addict to Cyprus-Forum... :)
I can only hope my logic was correct! :wink:
Personally i have nothing against Viewpoint ,the individual.
If we all agreed on everything there would be no need for forums like this.
User avatar
BirKibrisli
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests