RegisterRegister   Log inLog in   AlbumAlbum   Home Portal PageHome  

Repulsewarrior's concept of a post-solution government
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Author Message
DigenisAkritas
Currently banned

Senior Villager
Senior Villager


Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 140
Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

erolz wrote:
DigenisAkritas wrote:
They wanted to bring the Government to a standstill so they could begin process of taksim.


That is your assertion / belief. Mine is they wanted the agreements already made and signed to be honored - which had not happened on a number of issues.

For Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot leadership the 60's agreements (had they been implemented) were a 'good result'. It was in fact the Greek Cypriot leadership that from the moment they were signed were deriding the agreements and calling them unfair and claiming they were signed under duress.

If it is true that the Turkish Cypriot protests were 'false' and used as an 'excuse' to force breakdown and lead to Taksim, then the sensible strategy from the Greek Cypriot leadership would have been to have removed the 'excuse' (ie implemented those things already agreed) and exposed any future 'blocking' by the Turkish Cypriot community for what it really was. What they actually did was continue to refuse to implement that already agreed (in the process ignoring Republic of Cyprus consitiutional court rulings - itself illegal) and then propose 'ammendments' that would have removed just about EVERY right the Turkish Cypriot community had secured in the 60's agreements , even whilst some of that agreed had not been implemented.

The thesis that Turkish Cypriot were trying to force a break down of the 60's agreements against a Greek Cypriot leadership doing all it it could to make them work is so obviously a flawed thesis that defies all common sense and logic and plainly ignores the actuality of how the Greek Cypriot leadership behaved in the period 60-63.


No, its not, you assume a kind of ceteris parabus as far as the greek cypriot side goes, this is plainly untrue, you know how high tensions were and the issues the the native cypriots had with the constitution, the turks proved it to be unworkable simply because of their obstinancy in government. They WANTED the government to break down and they succesfully broke it down USING the 1960 constitution which over-represented a minority of the population. I will repeat again for the record erolz, that you may claim Greek Cypriots view the history of Cyprus as starting in 1974, but Turkish Cypriots begin in 1960, for them taksim was totally a reactionary thing - if you have an ounce of intelligence, you know full well that this is simply not the case, Kucuk wanted Taksim well before independence from Britain, remember his 'Cyprus is Turkish' party?
Back to top
erolz

Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4212
Location: Kyrenia / Girne

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DigenisAkritas wrote:

No, its not, you assume a kind of ceteris parabus as far as the greek cypriot side goes, this is plainly untrue, you know how high tensions were and the issues the the native cypriots had with the constitution, the turks proved it to be unworkable simply because of their obstinancy in government. They WANTED the government to break down and they succesfully broke it down USING the 1960 constitution which over-represented a minority of the population. I will repeat again for the record erolz, that you may claim Greek Cypriots view the history of Cyprus as starting in 1974, but Turkish Cypriots begin in 1960, for them taksim was totally a reactionary thing - if you have an ounce of intelligence, you know full well that this is simply not the case, Kucuk wanted Taksim well before independence from Britain, remember his 'Cyprus is Turkish' party?


You characterise Greek Cypriot as native cypriots and Turkish Cypriot as Turks. Turkish Cypriot were and are as 'native' cypriots as Greek Cypriot. Genetically Turkish Cypriot are a mix of ethnic groups and backgrounds as are Greek Cypriot and that mix is almost the same in both groups - to the degree that each is closer to each other than either Turkey of Greece. Culturally Turkish Cypriots get their Turkishness from 'outside' Cyprus just as culturally Greek Cypriot get their Greeknees from 'outside' Cyprus. Before the Greek cultural invasion of Cyprus there were Cypriots here and they had a a language (not greek not turkish) and they had a culture (not greek and not turkish). If you argue that Greek Cypriot are natives of cyprus then Turkish Cypriot are too - and neither of them are the indigenous people of cyprus at least in a cultural sense for their greek or turkish parts of their cutures come from outside cyprus and thus by definition are not indigenous.

On the actual point we were discussing (and I use that term very loosely) - the fact remains that we no idea of knowing how the Turkish Cypriot community would have behaved if the 60's constitution had of been implemented , for it is a historical fact that the dominant Greek Cypriot leadership refused from day one to implement key parts of it. It is also a historical fact that from the moment Makarios signed the 60's agreements he publicly derided them. It is a historical fact that he just refused to accept the Republic of Cyprus's own constitutional court rulings over municipalities - in blatant disregard for legality.

What there was , was a signed agreement. Makarios refused to implement key parts of it. Turkish Cypriot took the issue to the supreme court and Makarios refused to recognise its ruling (leading to the resignation of the independent head of the constitutional court). The Turkish Cypriot retaliated to this blatant illegal and unconstitutional act by Makarios by using their legal and constitutional rights to not ratify the annual budget.

It is also a fact that both Taksim and double enosis as concepts within the Turkish Cypriot community were reactions to ENOSIS within the Greek Cypriot community. Independence of Cyprus with a degree of political equality between the two communities in cyprus was an acceptable future for Turkish Cypriot post British rule. It was not an acceptable future to the Greek Cypriot leadership of that time, yet they signed agreements that established this and then refused to implement elements of those agreements whilst at the same time seeking to amend the agreements in a way that fundamentally changed the very nature of them - and with illegality deception and the use of force where necessary.

That Kucuk formed a ''Cyprus is Turkish" party before 1960 and in reaction to Greek Cypriot demands for enosis is not proof that he wanted and worked towards the 60's agreements breaking down after they were agreed and signed. What is proof is how each side behaved after the agreements were signed. The Greek Cypriot side refused to implement key (to the Turkish Cypriot) parts of the agreements. Is that the act of an entity that was seeking to make the 60's agreements work ? They acted illegally in refusing the constitutional courts rulings. Is that the act of an entity that was seeking to make the 60's agreements work ? Then whilst doing this they proposed 'amendments' to the 60's agreements (parts of which they had never even implemented) and at the same time drew up their secret plans for how to illegally steal the Turkish Cypriot communities rights using deception illegality and where necessary violence. Is that the act of an entity that was seeking to make the 60's agreements work ?

The fact is there were elements on both sides that wanted to see the agreements break down. However the Greek Cypriot leadership had the greatest ability to avoid this outcome and to not empower those that wished to see the breakdown. Unfortunately that same leadership was one of the elements that wanted, planned for and pursued such a breakdown and the element with the most power to achieve or avoid such a breakdown. As the Akritas plan details the Greek Cypriot leadership could achieve this aim by 'not doing things' (ie just not implementing things already agreed) and force the Turkish Cypriot to react and then blame them for the reaction. This was all laid out in the Akritas plan and you are still trying to do it today.
Back to top
DigenisAkritas
Currently banned

Senior Villager
Senior Villager


Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 140
Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="erolz"]
DigenisAkritas wrote:

No, its not, you assume a kind of ceteris parabus as far as the greek cypriot side goes, this is plainly untrue, you know how high tensions were and the issues the the native cypriots had with the constitution, the turks proved it to be unworkable simply because of their obstinancy in government. They WANTED the government to break down and they succesfully broke it down USING the 1960 constitution which over-represented a minority of the population. I will repeat again for the record erolz, that you may claim Greek Cypriots view the history of Cyprus as starting in 1974, but Turkish Cypriots begin in 1960, for them taksim was totally a reactionary thing - if you have an ounce of intelligence, you know full well that this is simply not the case, Kucuk wanted Taksim well before independence from Britain, remember his 'Cyprus is Turkish' party?


Quote:
You characterise Greek Cypriot as native cypriots and Turkish Cypriot as Turks. Turkish Cypriot were and are as 'native' cypriots as Greek Cypriot. Genetically Turkish Cypriot are a mix of ethnic groups and backgrounds as are Greek Cypriot and that mix is almost the same in both groups - to the degree that each is closer to each other than either Turkey of Greece. Culturally Turkish Cypriots get their Turkishness from 'outside' Cyprus just as culturally Greek Cypriot get their Greeknees from 'outside' Cyprus. Before the Greek cultural invasion of Cyprus there were Cypriots here and they had a a language (not greek not turkish) and they had a culture (not greek and not turkish). If you argue that Greek Cypriot are natives of cyprus then Turkish Cypriot are too - and neither of them are the indigenous people of cyprus at least in a cultural sense for their greek or turkish parts of their cutures come from outside cyprus and thus by definition are not indigenous.


The Greek culture of the island of Cyprus is quite readily discernable in everything from general attitudes of the population to the architecture (Byzantine styles, Ancient Ruins, Neo-Byzantine, Neo-Byzantine mixed with Classical which is also evident in Greece). It is evident in the dominant language, it is evident in the literature of the island, stretching back to Sappho (and probably perhaps before, but our knowledge of Linear B is very, very poor and as such any Mycaenean scripts we uncover are relatively useless unless they are pretty simply things like inventories). The Art of the island, charecterized by Classical sculpture, Byzantine iconography and the Modern Greek 'Greco's Style' (formed by Greek painters in art schools in Vienna and Paris). The island's cuisine is Greek, we can even find references to things like Feta in Ancient Texts, e.g. The Story of the Cyclops). Certainly there are external influences like the Turkish one, but what really was Turco-Ottoman culture? In my opinion, based upon it's architecture, it's art, it's more populist literature and so on, I believe it was simply an extension of Byzantine culture with Islamic influences (and obviously Persian influence due to the Persian-Seljuk war). So, in short, the Greek culture of the island is the dominant culture - Sure, these cultures have intermixed, but its a mistake to say that the island was ever 'Ottomanized' as some Turks claim, because the similarities between Greek and Turkish culture are nothing new, they began in 1071 when the Turks began to conquer Anatolia and adopted Byzantine culture.

Quote:
On the actual point we were discussing (and I use that term very loosely) - the fact remains that we no idea of knowing how the Turkish Cypriot community would have behaved if the 60's constitution had of been implemented , for it is a historical fact that the dominant Greek Cypriot leadership refused from day one to implement key parts of it. It is also a historical fact that from the moment Makarios signed the 60's agreements he publicly derided them. It is a historical fact that he just refused to accept the Republic of Cyprus's own constitutional court rulings over municipalities - in blatant disregard for legality.


I won't bother to paraphrase because it will be too similar to my source materials, my response is thus:

Another divisive aspect of the 1960 constitution was the unworkable minority vetoes and parliamentary quotas which did not reflect the composition of the population but allowed the Muslims to be counted as double their actual number furthered the divisiveness and the minority Muslims were used a pawns by Turkey in order to bring the processes of government to into deadlock a complete standstill by 1963 where the budget and crucial legislation were prevented from being enacted. President Makarios was then forced to recommend 13 democratic amendments in order to bring the constitution in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Turkey in order to prevent true democracy for being realised and its destabilising manipulation of Cyprus politics from being ended responded by illegally attacking and invading Cyprus territory and terrorising its people and was condemned by the United Nations Security Council which set up a peace keeping force in 1964.

http://www.argyrosargyrou.fsnet.co.uk/annanplan/english/FoundationAgreementi.htm

Quote:
What there was , was a signed agreement. Makarios refused to implement key parts of it. Turkish Cypriot took the issue to the supreme court and Makarios refused to recognise its ruling (leading to the resignation of the independent head of the constitutional court). The Turkish Cypriot retaliated to this blatant illegal and unconstitutional act by Makarios by using their legal and constitutional rights to not ratify the annual budget.


What relationship did the budget have to the Constitutional Court's ruling? None. None whatsoever. No one is denying the Greeks made mistakes, but to place the sole responsibility for the conflict in the hands of the natives of Cyprus is stupidity Erolz, and you know it, your history starts with 1960, the fact that the seeds of Taksim were sown much earlier, and that the Turks had no intention of living in either an Independent or Greek Cyprus (as evidenced by their support of the British during the EOKA struggle) is stupid.

Quote:
It is also a fact that both Taksim and double enosis as concepts within the Turkish Cypriot community were reactions to ENOSIS within the Greek Cypriot community. Independence of Cyprus with a degree of political equality between the two communities in cyprus was an acceptable future for Turkish Cypriot post British rule. It was not an acceptable future to the Greek Cypriot leadership of that time, yet they signed agreements that established this and then refused to implement elements of those agreements whilst at the same time seeking to amend the agreements in a way that fundamentally changed the very nature of them - and with illegality deception and the use of force where necessary.

That Kucuk formed a ''Cyprus is Turkish" party before 1960 and in reaction to Greek Cypriot demands for enosis is not proof that he wanted and worked towards the 60's agreements breaking down after they were agreed and signed. What is proof is how each side behaved after the agreements were signed. The Greek Cypriot side refused to implement key (to the Turkish Cypriot) parts of the agreements. Is that the act of an entity that was seeking to make the 60's agreements work ? They acted illegally in refusing the constitutional courts rulings. Is that the act of an entity that was seeking to make the 60's agreements work ? Then whilst doing this they proposed 'amendments' to the 60's agreements (parts of which they had never even implemented) and at the same time drew up their secret plans for how to illegally steal the Turkish Cypriot communities rights using deception illegality and where necessary violence. Is that the act of an entity that was seeking to make the 60's agreements work ?


Rubbish, absolute rubbish, the idea of Taksim, as many have explained, stretches back to Crete's union with Greece. This enraged many Turks because the Turkish occupiers of Crete (who now refer to themselves as 'Cretan Turks'), were forced out and the island became fully Greek again. Taksim was developed after this in Cyprus, as Hitchens explains in his book - Therefore to claim it was reactionary to what was going on in Cyprus is totally absurd. There was always tension between the two parties though, no one denies this, just like you shouldn't keep on denying the agent provocateur actions engineered by your heroes in the TMT that resulted in massive and ever repeating circles of violence. The Crete problem did result in one major change in terms of Government policy though, this was that the authorities in Ankara were prepared to go to any lengths to secure strategic points such as Cyprus should they go into Greek hands, as a result, the likes of Kucuk always maintained strong links with elements in Turkish security forces.

To claim that Turkish Cypriots never wanted taksim until the evil big bad greeks started EOKA is stupidity at it's heigth, Muslim secessionist forces at that time existed everywhere, from the Phillipines to the Balkans - They simply refused to live as part of a single entity with Christians (you have to remember this was a time, the late 19th century, when Muslim feelings still ran strong among many Turks). They were vehmently opposed to it, if you dont believe me, read some of the diaries from Turkish soldiers at Gallipoli, their writings are FULL of religious fervour, and this was 1917. As George Horton explains:

This description of the condition of Asia Minor as the result of the capture of Constantinople continued down to the ultimate complete destruction of the Christians by the Turks. Nothing changed in the nearly five centuries that have passed. The Turk has not altered either in his character or his methods. The scenes described by Pears as following the taking of the Queen City, the massacres and violation of women, were duplicated at Smyrna, with the added horror of the sufferings of the Christians on the quay.

After Constantinople, Smyrna, “Ghiaour Smyrna,” became the last stronghold of Christianity and Greek culture in the Near East. It had its great and valuable libraries, its learned men, its famous schools. The Greeks and Armenians could at any time have attained safety by abjuring their faith. Yet, though there have been apostates, they have, in general, kept the faith and have suffered.

The only civilization that has existed in Turkey since that black year, 1453, has been that supplied to it by the Christian remnant of the old Byzantine Empire. For that reason the work of the American and other missionaries took on a great importance. They went out originally to Turkey to convert Moslems. They found that they could not do this, but that their real mission was with the Christians, who were eager to be uplifted and enlightened. The recent rapid development of the latter in advanced agriculture, industries, commerce, education, was restoring Christianity in the Orient and reknitting the wasted and torn fabric of the old Byzantine Empire. To the great Christian Powers was given a tardy and last opportunity of repairing the wrong that was done the world when St. Sophia, the Temple of the Eternal Wisdom, fell into the hand of the Turk.


Quote:
The fact is there were elements on both sides that wanted to see the agreements break down. However the Greek Cypriot leadership had the greatest ability to avoid this outcome and to not empower those that wished to see the breakdown. Unfortunately that same leadership was one of the elements that wanted, planned for and pursued such a breakdown and the element with the most power to achieve or avoid such a breakdown. As the Akritas plan details the Greek Cypriot leadership could achieve this aim by 'not doing things' (ie just not implementing things already agreed) and force the Turkish Cypriot to react and then blame them for the reaction. This was all laid out in the Akritas plan and you are still trying to do it today.


The Akritas Plan was perfect for Cyprus, you are insane if you believe it was not, you are also insane if you believe that the 1960 constitution was workable, as I have explained, it was simply not workable in the provisions it laid out for vetoing pieces of legislation. The Akritas plan aimed to deal with this, it didn't actually aim to stamp out the veto entirely, just on certain areas such as fiscal policy - which was what led to whole budget debacle in the first place.
Back to top
cypezokyli

Ministerial
Ministerial


Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 2344

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ok , lets accept that the Turkish Cypriots had as aim to bring the goverment to a standstill.

why did we then give them an excuse by not fully applying parts of the agreement ?
Back to top
erolz

Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4212
Location: Kyrenia / Girne

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DigenisAkritas wrote:
The Greek culture of the island of Cyprus is quite readily discernable ... n


Your argument, as far as it can be called such, is that Greek Cypriot are the 'natives' of Cyprus and Turkish Cypriot are not 'natives' of Cyprus. I am not refuting that Greek culture is the dominant culture in Cyprus and has been for a considerable period. I am just point out to you that it , by definition, is a culture that came from 'outside' of cyprus and replaced / subsumed and existing, non greek, cypriot culture. It was a cultural invasion. The same is true of Turkish culture in the degree to which it exists in Cyprus. Given these realities I do not understand on what basis it is that you claim Greek Cypriot are native Cypriots and Turkish Cypriot are not.

DigenisAkritas wrote:

[i]Another divisive aspect of the 1960 constitution was the unworkable minority vetoes ....

http://www.argyrosargyrou.fsnet.co.uk/annanplan/english/FoundationAgreementi.htm


Yes this is classic Greek Cypriot propaganda. If minority vetos make a system unworkable then the EU is unworkable (and indeed any federal system). It was not political power disproportionate to numerical numbers that made the 60's agreements unworkable, but more than any other factor (and there were others) it was the Greek Cypriot leaderships determination to undermine the agreements they signed , by fair means or foul, and refusal to accept the very basis of those agreements - namely political equality of the communities as communities.

DigenisAkritas wrote:

What relationship did the budget have to the Constitutional Court's ruling? None. None whatsoever.


Blocking the budget was a legal and valid means of protest against the Greek Cypriot leaderships illegal refusal to implement agreements it had signed and it's illegal refusal to accept constitutional court rulings. Such things go on in political systems around the world , where support for one issue is dependent on resolving of another. There is nothing unusual about such political and wholly legal tactics. The Turkish Cypriot leadership were faced with the problem that the dominant Greek Cypriot leadership was refusing to implement things it had previously agreed to, against all legality. There response to this was not to resort to violence, but firstly to resort to the constitutional court. When this proved ineffective in the face of the Greek Cypriot leaderships illegal refusal to accept the courts rulings they resorted to the legal and constitutional approach of blocking the budget approval, in protest. In a sensible and mature political environment this would have lead to both sides finding a way forward on both issues. But the Greek Cypriot leadership had a 'better idea' - namely the Akritas plan or variants of it , where they were to use illegality and deception and violence in order to get everything they wanted whilst giving up nothing. The disaterous consequences of this appraoch for all cypriots can be seen today, yet you still have the timerity to hail this plan / appraoch that brought nothing but disater to cypriots 'as perfect to Cyprus'. This just showsto me that you have learnt nothing from the past and reinforce in me the need for the Turkish Cypriot community to have a degree of real poltical equality in any future settlement.

DigenisAkritas wrote:

No one is denying the Greeks made mistakes, but to place the sole responsibility for the conflict in the hands of the natives of Cyprus is stupidity Erolz, and you know it, your history starts with 1960, the fact that the seeds of Taksim were sown much earlier, and that the Turks had no intention of living in either an Independent or Greek Cyprus (as evidenced by their support of the British during the EOKA struggle) is stupid.


I do not put sole responsibility for the conflict in on the Greek Cypriot community / leadership and never have done. I do believe that they bear a great share of the responsibility for what happend in Cyprus in the period 60-74 because to me the facts support such a conclusion.

You may continue to equate Greek Cypriot with 'native' cypriots and Turkish Cypriot with 'turks' but again doing so just shows your ture colours and reinforces the reasons why in any united cyprus the Turkish Cypriot community needs and must have some form of political equality as a community to protect itself in its own homeland from biggots like yourself. It is a mindset that clearly shows why poltical equality was necessary in the 60's agreements and why it still is today.

You claim that 'turks' (meaning Turkish Cypriot) never had any intention of living in an indpendant cyprus. The fact is Turkish Cypriot would not accept having their fate and that of their (shared) country decided soley by Greek Cypriot - many of whom had the same kind of view of them that you do. The red line for the Turkish Cypriot community then and now was that they had a valid say in what happened to their (shared) country and community in the future along with those that they shared it with. This is what they negotiated for and secured in the 60's agreements. In the face of determined Greek Cypriot efforts to refuse to accept that both communites had a valid right to have say in their shared countires future and that only Greek Cypriot could decide the future and fate of both Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot, support for taksim could only ever grow

DigenisAkritas wrote:

To claim that Turkish Cypriots never wanted taksim ....


What the Turkish Cypriot community in Cyprus wanted and still want is to have a valid say over ther their own future. If this could not be achieved by sharing Cyprus with Greek Cypriot in a system where neither community could impose it 's will on the other then taksim was the only other way of achieveing this.

DigenisAkritas wrote:

The Akritas Plan was perfect for Cyprus, you are insane if you believe it was not, you are also insane if you believe that the 1960 constitution was workable, as I have explained, it was simply not workable in the provisions it laid out for vetoing pieces of legislation. The Akritas plan aimed to deal with this, it didn't actually aim to stamp out the veto entirely, just on certain areas such as fiscal policy - which was what led to whole budget debacle in the first place.


You have not explained that the 60's constitution was unworkable. You have stated it but have not explained it. The reality of what made it unworkable and will make any future agreement unworkable is actually your world view that says that Greek Cypriot are 'real' (native) Cypriots and Turkish Cypriot are not and thus Greek Cypriot have a right to impose their will on Turkish Cypriot community with no regard for the Turkish Cypriot communities wishes and Turkish Cypriot have to just accept this and accept that they have no right to determine their own future of that of Cyprus at all - because they are not Cypriots but just Turks living in Cyprus.
That political power disproportionate to numerical numbers and 'blocking powers' are not an explanation of breakdown is clearly shown by the hundreds if not thousands of working political systems where such things exist - with the EU itself as a clear example.
What has plagued Cyprus since the end of British rule and brought so much pain and suffering to innocent cypriots Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot alike, and is a core assumption within the Akritas plan and a core of your own position, is this idea that Cyprus is greek and that only Greek Cypriot have a right to determine its future and the future of the Turkish Cypriot community in Cyprus and that Turkish Cypriot have no right as a community to any say in such matters. We have resisted such oppression as a community in the past and with the aid of Turkey , at much cost for all Cypriots and will continue to resist it in the future. Until people like you can accept that Turkish Cypriot are cypriots and that as a community they have as much right in determining their own future as a community and the future of Cyprus as the Greek Cypriot community does it is hard to sse any future for a untied Cyprus. You are the cyprus problem.
Back to top
DigenisAkritas
Currently banned

Senior Villager
Senior Villager


Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 140
Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

erolz wrote:

Your argument, as far as it can be called such, is that Greek Cypriot are the 'natives' of Cyprus and Turkish Cypriot are not 'natives' of Cyprus. I am not refuting that Greek culture is the dominant culture in Cyprus and has been for a considerable period. I am just point out to you that it , by definition, is a culture that came from 'outside' of cyprus and replaced / subsumed and existing, non greek, cypriot culture. It was a cultural invasion. The same is true of Turkish culture in the degree to which it exists in Cyprus. Given these realities I do not understand on what basis it is that you claim Greek Cypriot are native Cypriots and Turkish Cypriot are not.


Erolz, you have invented a strawman because you couldn't answer my points. I have already explained why the Turkish Cypriots are not native inhabitants to the island of Cyprus and why the Greek Cypriots are, but for your benefit, I will run over it again, hopefully for the last time.

Most nations are charecterized by a degree of ethnic, geographical (proximity to a certain area), linguistic, cultural and religious continuity. For all of it's history the dominant culture of the island has been Greek, it's architecture has been either Classical, Byzantine or a mix of both, it's art has been as well, the majority of the people have always been Greek Orthodox, except when they were pagan, but even the link between Paganism and Christianity is charecterized by a high degree of continuity, the dances for example that were danced on the Ides of every month were adopted by the church in the early Byzantine period to have a special spiritual significance, the art is also Greek, as I explained before. The Turks were latecomers to the island, they are not Greek speaking, they are not Greek Orthodox, their architecture, despite being inspired by Byzantine architecture, is effectively an Islamized form of it rather than any real continous and progressive architectural development. The Turks self-identifying as Cypriot is a relatively new thing, the whole concept of a 'Cypriot' in fact is a relatively modern construct, in Byzantine and Ottoman times you were either Romioi (Roman/Greek) or a Muslim. Muslims certainly occupied first class status within the Empire, and there was massive institutional discrimination against non-Muslims, which many times degenerated into simple ethnic cleansing - So naturally some Greeks converted to Islam for hope of a better life (which is why I suspect a lot of Turkish Cypriots aren't really that Islamic). But these people are not native, even if we base it on ethnicity alone they fall short because even there there exists a genetic difference between Greek and Turkish Cypriots, once factoring in Culture and History however, it follows that Turkish Cypriots can hardly be 'Cypriot'.

Greek History is certainly tumultous, and Greeks throughout History were known as different names, but to the modern and intelligent historian self-identification through a simple name means little, to talk of 'ownership' of something, ie. Cyprus being a 'Greek' island, one must demonstrate that there is, as already mentioned, there is a certain contiguity to a people. It begins with the Proto-Greek Minoans and Mycaeneans (whose beliefs were the basis of the Ancient Greek Pantheon and languages were the basis of Ancient Greek and it's many dialects - they also invented the Inverted Column and plumbing techniques that would be passed down), but Prehistory is always the run up to the real thing so ill skip past it. Greeks from the 8th to 2nd centuries BC always had a clear understanding of 'their world' which Strabo lays out in some detail, charecterized by competing city states, this was forcibly united under Alexander and then came the Greek movement into the far East and the development of the successor kingdoms, this charecteristic of Greek History, one that transcends its modern borders, is a common theme. Roman rule never changed the Greek identity, the Greeks by the late 4th century considered themselves Roman, but this was because of the massive rise in Christianity in the East as opposed to the West (and you have to remember that the East had always been a 'Greek' Roman world as opposed to a 'Latin' one in the Western half), and the increasing synonimity of 'Hellene' with the term 'Pagan' (this is why the great Greek historian of the later Roman Empire, and General in the Army, Ammianus Marcellinus refers to himself as a 'Hellene' even post-Constantine, because he was referring to his pagan Greek roots rather than his Christian Greek roots), Byzantium saw the steady Hellenization of an Empire in which the Greeks (after Constantine moved the Capitol to Constantinople), could no longer view the Government as 'foreign', it was now 'Greek' roman, run by a 'Greek' roman civil service, judiciary, army and aristocracy (with Hellenized Armenian influence), this culiminated under Heraclius of course but I won't bore you with the details, suffice to say, there is clear contiguity between the Mycaeneans and end of Byzantine rule on Cyprus, during the Tourkokratia a foreign element was introduced into the island, some joined them and adopted their cultural traits and customs, therefore losing their own identity, they do not represent a 'native' people because their sub-culture was injected into the island forcibly and grew out of institutionalized discrimination of Christians. There has been some foreign influence on the native culture, no one could deny that, but no one is, it is the turks who deny the fact that Byzantium effectively provided the base for their own culture.

And, I am not saying that Turks should all be deported or something as extreme as that, I am simply saying that the Greek people are the native inhabitants of the island, the Turks certainly contributed culturally, but they are not native to Cyprus and to say so goes against all historical logic.

Quote:

Yes this is classic Greek Cypriot propaganda. If minority vetos make a system unworkable then the EU is unworkable (and indeed any federal system). It was not political power disproportionate to numerical numbers that made the 60's agreements unworkable, but more than any other factor (and there were others) it was the Greek Cypriot leaderships determination to undermine the agreements they signed , by fair means or foul, and refusal to accept the very basis of those agreements - namely political equality of the communities as communities.


The EU is unworkable at many levels, but you seek to present it as entirely Intergovernmental, which it is not, it has a supranational core in the European Commission which is exactly why it works anyway (without it the squabbles would simply break it down). The recent European failures, in regards to Balkan expansion of the Union and the Constitution itself owe themselves more to an over-reliance on Intergovernmentalism in decision making than anything else. Decision making in the Parliament and EC is always far quicker than anything discused at the long drawn out summits of the Council of Ministers, precisely because they put national interests before European interests. It is exactly WHY Europhiles want to encourage deeper ‘political integration’ (i.e. pool their sovereignty in Brussels).

DigenisAkritas wrote:

Blocking the budget was a legal and valid means of protest against the Greek Cypriot leaderships illegal refusal to implement agreements it had signed and it's illegal refusal to accept constitutional court rulings. Such things go on in political systems around the world , where support for one issue is dependent on resolving of another. There is nothing unusual about such political and wholly legal tactics. The Turkish Cypriot leadership were faced with the problem that the dominant Greek Cypriot leadership was refusing to implement things it had previously agreed to, against all legality. There response to this was not to resort to violence, but firstly to resort to the constitutional court. When this proved ineffective in the face of the Greek Cypriot leaderships illegal refusal to accept the courts rulings they resorted to the legal and constitutional approach of blocking the budget approval, in protest. In a sensible and mature political environment this would have lead to both sides finding a way forward on both issues. But the Greek Cypriot leadership had a 'better idea' - namely the Akritas plan or variants of it , where they were to use illegality and deception and violence in order to get everything they wanted whilst giving up nothing. The disaterous consequences of this appraoch for all cypriots can be seen today, yet you still have the timerity to hail this plan / appraoch that brought nothing but disater to cypriots 'as perfect to Cyprus'. This just showsto me that you have learnt nothing from the past and reinforce in me the need for the Turkish Cypriot community to have a degree of real poltical equality in any future settlement.


Akritas Plan this, Akritas plan that....

The Akritas plan was actually pretty fair, it called for a ban on vetoes from both the President and the Vice President, a conciliatory gesture by Makarios which he didnt have to do, but did so to try and placate those who were so desperate to begin Taksim. The Judicial reforms were also badly needed, again read Hitchens, the provision of Greek courts trying Greek defendents and likewise with Turks for Turkish defendents meant there were bias in cases involving Greeks vs. Turks, the Akritas plan would have actually laid the groundwork for a mixed Judicial system covering ALL cases. The financial system too would have allowed Turkish councillors complete freedom to do as they wished with the financial funds allocated proportionally to their municipalities on a local level. The police also, were massively divided and heavily involved in both Greek and Turkish paramilitary organizations, I am not saying the Akritas Plan’s provision for abolishment of Police and Gendamerie was necessarily right, but something needed to be done, as Makarios stated:

This is an unworkable provision because, even if the President and the Vice-President agree to increase the numerical strength of the Security Forces, such agreement will be completely ineffectual unless the House of Representatives approves the resulting increase in budgetary expenditure. Under the Constitution the President and the Vice-President cannot, by agreeing to increase the Security Forces, create a charge on the Consolidated Fund.

The Akritas plan also only changed the composition of upper management in that one Greek and one Turk would hold either the Head of Police Force and Vice Head at any one time. The establishment of Unified Municipalities, based on the fact that something had to be done to prevent Ghettoization, was also a good proposition, in fact, one of the main problems stemmed simply from the fact that in many places Greeks and Turks lived together in such close proximity it was simply impossible to divide municipalities anyway. The communal chambers were to be abolished simply because separate governance of education was leading to even greater ghettoization, but, although Makarios guaranteed the dismemberment of the Greek communal assembly, he stated that “should the Turkish community, however, desire to retain its Chamber, in the new system, such a course is open to it.”

DigenisAkritas wrote:

You may continue to equate Greek Cypriot with 'native' cypriots and Turkish Cypriot with 'turks' but again doing so just shows your ture colours and reinforces the reasons why in any united cyprus the Turkish Cypriot community needs and must have some form of political equality as a community to protect itself in its own homeland from biggots like yourself. It is a mindset that clearly shows why poltical equality was necessary in the 60's agreements and why it still is today.


Political equality is usually guaranteed by a bill of rights, not a grossly disproportionate legislature.

Quote:
You claim that 'turks' (meaning Turkish Cypriot) never had any intention of living in an indpendant cyprus. The fact is Turkish Cypriot would not accept having their fate and that of their (shared) country decided soley by Greek Cypriot - many of whom had the same kind of view of them that you do. The red line for the Turkish Cypriot community then and now was that they had a valid say in what happened to their (shared) country and community in the future along with those that they shared it with. This is what they negotiated for and secured in the 60's agreements. In the face of determined Greek Cypriot efforts to refuse to accept that both communites had a valid right to have say in their shared countires future and that only Greek Cypriot could decide the future and fate of both Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot, support for taksim could only ever grow


The 60’s agreements were only the beginning, Kucuk in my opinion knew full well what they would lead to and happily danced the tune to them.

DigenisAkritas wrote:

What the Turkish Cypriot community in Cyprus wanted and still want is to have a valid say over ther their own future. If this could not be achieved by sharing Cyprus with Greek Cypriot in a system where neither community could impose it 's will on the other then taksim was the only other way of achieveing this.


No, this is rhetoric. Self-Determination may be an inalienable right, but it cannot simply override 200,000 people, their property and THEIR basic human rights. The Turkish position, has and always will be over-representation and a belief that their rights should supercede the rights of Greek Cypriots, who wouldn’t even be able to purchase property in this newly ‘free’ country. As far as property rights go, a Norwegian would have more rights than the average Greek Cypriot. This is something a Greek cannot accept Erolz, I want to be able to at least bury my father in his hometown when he dies, and I am not going to put up with this bullshit about how i might pose a 'threat' to turkish cypriots. You ask us, every day on this forum, 'what have the greeks offered us to prove they are genuine'? Well, I tell you now Erolz, I am prepared to accept a 25% Turkish share in a unicameral parliament, complete removal of Greek troops, diarmament of half of the national guard with the Vice President post reserved for a Turkish Cypriot and certain degree of autonomy afforded to the currently occupied areas. If you were in charge of the occupied areas, what would YOU offer to US in return? We are prepared to make hard concessions, painful ones, for their to a solution, you must do this too. This is a solution that requires input from both sides, not just one.

Quote:

You have not explained that the 60's constitution was unworkable. You have stated it but have not explained it. The reality of what made it unworkable and will make any future agreement unworkable is actually your world view that says that Greek Cypriot are 'real' (native) Cypriots and Turkish Cypriot are not and thus Greek Cypriot have a right to impose their will on Turkish Cypriot community with no regard for the Turkish Cypriot communities wishes and Turkish Cypriot have to just accept this and accept that they have no right to determine their own future of that of Cyprus at all - because they are not Cypriots but just Turks living in Cyprus.


I never stated I had ‘no regard’ for the Turkish community, I just do not believe they are native to Cyprus, this doesn't mean I don't believe they should not have equal rights, you are putting words in my mouth.

Quote:
That political power disproportionate to numerical numbers and 'blocking powers' are not an explanation of breakdown is clearly shown by the hundreds if not thousands of working political systems where such things exist - with the EU itself as a clear example.


We’ve been through the European Union example in my reply above, its flaws stem from exactly what you are talking about and its strengths come from Supranationalism. The examples provided and the effect to which they were used, i.e. in a disproportionate manner, are exactly what caused the problems of the 60’s in the first place.

Quote:
What has plagued Cyprus since the end of British rule and brought so much pain and suffering to innocent cypriots Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot alike, and is a core assumption within the Akritas plan and a core of your own position, is this idea that Cyprus is greek and that only Greek Cypriot have a right to determine its future and the future of the Turkish Cypriot community in Cyprus and that Turkish Cypriot have no right as a community to any say in such matters. We have resisted such oppression as a community in the past and with the aid of Turkey , at much cost for all Cypriots and will continue to resist it in the future. Until people like you can accept that Turkish Cypriot are cypriots and that as a community they have as much right in determining their own future as a community and the future of Cyprus as the Greek Cypriot community does it is hard to sse any future for a untied Cyprus. You are the cyprus problem.


Now you just abandon any pretense of rational debate and resort to name-calling, I expected better Erolz, and I actually mean that. Also Erolz, for the record, do you still believe that your Aunt’s house in Kyrenia is ‘compensation’ for what happened to the Turkish Cypriot community (a point you mentioned to me back in the old days on the Cyprus Forums)? I am just inquiring because this idea seems to follow a pattern of what would legally be termed as ‘collective punishment’? Do you believe therefore, that in the event of a settlement Turks should suffer in the same way for the events of 1974?
Back to top
erolz

Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4212
Location: Kyrenia / Girne

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DigenisAkritas wrote:
For all of it's history the dominant culture of the island has been Greek,


There is evidence of settlements in Cyprus dating back 9000 BC. Greek culture arrived in Cyprus from OUTSIDE cyprus - as a foreign culture (thats why its called Greek and not cypriot). There were non greek indigenous Cypriots in Cyprus before any Greek cultural influence arrived. Greek culture in Cyprus was an external one just as Turkish culture in Cyprus was. Despite all you verbiage all you are really saying is Greek culture was here for longer and in greater number so Cyprus is Greek. My father was born in Cyprus , his parent were born in Cyprus and their parentS before them. He is as native a cypriot as any other. You belief that Cyprus is Greek and anything not Greek is not and can not be Cypriot is the core of the cyprus problem. It is founded on a faulty version of history and faulty and inconsistent logic.

DigenisAkritas wrote:

And, I am not saying that Turks should all be deported or something as extreme as that, I am simply saying that the Greek people are the native inhabitants of the island, the Turks certainly contributed culturally, but they are not native to Cyprus and to say so goes against all historical logic.


You can say it all you like it does not make it any more true or any less the cause of so much of the cyprus problem.

DigenisAkritas wrote:

The EU is unworkable at many levels, but you seek to present it as entirely Intergovernmental, which it is not, it has a supranational core in the European Commission which is exactly why it works anyway (without it the squabbles would simply break it down). The recent European failures, in regards to Balkan expansion of the Union and the Constitution itself owe themselves more to an over-reliance on Intergovernmentalism in decision making than anything else. Decision making in the Parliament and EC is always far quicker than anything discused at the long drawn out summits of the Council of Ministers, precisely because they put national interests before European interests. It is exactly WHY Europhiles want to encourage deeper ‘political integration’ (i.e. pool their sovereignty in Brussels).


The EU is unworkable - so does that mean any member state can unilaterally seek to ignore its courts rulings and arbitrarily change the constitution by any means legal or illegal, for that is what you claim justifed such acts by the Greek Cypriot leadership of the 60's.

The EU council sets policy. The EU comission finds ways to implement policy. The EU parliament oversees. The Republic of Cyprus and Republic of Cyprus citizens have representation in all 3 bodies disproportionate to their numerical numbers compared with a state like the UK or a UK citizen. This is fact - yet the EU did not break down into violence within 3 years. There are countless other political systems that have such disporprtionate represntation to numerical number that are not 'unworkable'.

You claim to be a 'student' of socrates so I will put this in a classically socratic form for you (borrowed heavily from Alain de Botton book the consolatons of philosophy)

The socratic method of thinking

1. Locate a statement confidently described as common sense.

Acting courageously involves not retreating in battle.

A political system with disproportionate representation to numerical numbers is unworkable and will breakdown.

2. Imagine for a moment that , despite the confidence of the person proposing it, the statement is false. Search for situations or contexts where the statement would not be true.

Could one ever be courageous and yet retreat in battle

Are their political system with disproportionate political representation to numerical numbers that do work and have no broken down

3. If an exception is found , the definition must be false or at least imprecise.

I will not go further than this for you fall at point 2, for there are countless such political systems that invalidate your initial assertion.

DigenisAkritas wrote:

The Akritas plan was actually pretty fair, it called for a ban on vetoes from both the President and the Vice President, a conciliatory gesture by Makarios which he didnt have to do, but did so to try and placate those who were so desperate to begin Taksim.


What nonsense. Apart from the fact that Akritas plan makes no reference to removing the presidents veto, a numerically dominant entity has no need of a veto to secure its wishes over those of a numerically smaller entity and be able to impose its will on others against their will in a purely unitary system. So giving up the Greek Cypriot communities veto in exchange for a unitary system is giving up exactly nothing

If the Akritas plan was such a great and fair plan then why did it REQUIRE absolute secrecy and specific deception at home and abroad of its true aims ?

DigenisAkritas wrote:
Political equality is usually guaranteed by a bill of rights, not a grossly disproportionate legislature.


Rights apply to individuals AND to groups of individuals (peoples / communities). One without the other is meaningless as the UN declarations on human rights make explicitly clear. Even if one accepts that Turkish Cypriot under Greek Cypriot domination / enosis rights as individuals would have been respected (dubious indeed given how Greece treated contemporary Greek Turks in Greece) this does not mean that Turkish Cypriot as a community have no rights in Cyprus and only the Greek Cypriot community has such in all effect.

DigenisAkritas wrote:
No, this is rhetoric. Self-Determination may be an inalienable right, but it cannot simply override 200,000 people, their property and THEIR basic human rights.


No one is saying it does. However in the real world if you treat others rights with scorn and contempt do not be surprised if they do likewise back to you.

DigenisAkritas wrote:

The Turkish position, has and always will be over-representation and a belief that their rights should supercede the rights of Greek Cypriots, who wouldn’t even be able to purchase property in this newly ‘free’ country. As far as property rights go, a Norwegian would have more rights than the average Greek Cypriot. This is something a Greek cannot accept Erolz, I want to be able to at least bury my father in his hometown when he dies, and I am not going to put up with this bullshit about how i might pose a 'threat' to turkish cypriots.


As individuals we are equal. As communities we are equal. You want a senario where at best as individuals we are equal but as communities your community has a right to determine our communal future and we have no effective say as a community in our future. This is not acceptable. Not then and not now.

The whole stuff of Greek Cypriot not being able to buy property in the north and having less rights than a non cypriot EU citizens is just utter nonsense. It was not the case under the annan plan or indeed under any proposed plan.

DigenisAkritas wrote:

You ask us, every day on this forum, 'what have the greeks offered us to prove they are genuine'?


No I do not.

DigenisAkritas wrote:

Well, I tell you now Erolz, I am prepared to accept a 25% Turkish share in a unicameral parliament,


No I am not. On issues that affect the two communities differently I require separate consent of each community. Your proposal would not have protected the Turkish Cypriot community from having enosis imposed on them in the 60's - totally against their communal will and thus to me is clearly insufficient to protect the Turkish Cypriot community from domination and imposition by a Greek Cypriot community (some of whom like yourself do not even consider us Cypriots in any case)

DigenisAkritas wrote:

We are prepared to make hard concessions, painful ones, for their to a solution, you must do this too. This is a solution that requires input from both sides, not just one.


We have as a community shown with our yes vote to the annan plan a level of concession we were prepared to accept in the pursuit of reunifying Cyprus. The Greek Cypriot community has made no such show.

DigenisAkritas wrote:
I never stated I had ‘no regard’ for the Turkish community, I just do not believe they are native to Cyprus, this doesn't mean I don't believe they should not have equal rights, you are putting words in my mouth.


The question is do you believe as a community they have as much right to determine their own communal future as the Greek Cypriot have to determine thiers, or do you believe that when the Greek Cypriot community as a community wants something that is incompatible with the Turkish Cypriot communities wishes, the the Greek Cypriot community should always get what it wants as a community at the expense of the Turkish Cypriot community , either because it is larger or because it represnts 'true cypriots' and Turkish Cypriot community does not?

DigenisAkritas wrote:

Now you just abandon any pretense of rational debate and resort to name-calling, I expected better Erolz, and I actually mean that.


I have not resorted to name calling at all. However I have seen from you exactly what I expected which is why I will no longer be spending any of my time or effort in replying to your posts.
Back to top
DigenisAkritas
Currently banned

Senior Villager
Senior Villager


Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 140
Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

erolz wrote:

There is evidence of settlements in Cyprus dating back 9000 BC. Greek culture arrived in Cyprus from OUTSIDE cyprus - as a foreign culture (thats why its called Greek and not cypriot). There were non greek indigenous Cypriots in Cyprus before any Greek cultural influence arrived. Greek culture in Cyprus was an external one just as Turkish culture in Cyprus was. Despite all you verbiage all you are really saying is Greek culture was here for longer and in greater number so Cyprus is Greek. My father was born in Cyprus , his parent were born in Cyprus and their parentS before them. He is as native a cypriot as any other. You belief that Cyprus is Greek and anything not Greek is not and can not be Cypriot is the core of the cyprus problem. It is founded on a faulty version of history and faulty and inconsistent logic.


Again, you failed to answer my points. Cyprus was indeed a trading post for civilizations such as the Phoenicians who operated around the Fertile Crescent at the time, but it was never inhabited in any great numbers, nor was there any distinct culture owing to it's relatively insignificant position in the Stone Age world (it was little more than a stopping off point to more powerful commercial hubs in Egypt). Another point, Stone Age cultures themselves were pretty much the same everywhere (there was nothing really distinct about them because they were so basic – why do you think no nation considers it’s stone age history canonically part of it’s peoples history? The only real cultural trait there was was that Stone Age peoples had learnt relatively advanced methods (for the time) of cultivation of the seed. Then again, as far as the Bronze Age goes there is no evidence of the Phoenicians using Cyprus as a base for agriculture anyway, one of the key components of the fundamentals of building a culture because you can build a society around it. To be honest I’ve heard this pseudo historical rubbish far too many times for me to be affected by it, when Turks bring up the fact that the Phoenicians inhabited Cyprus for a time it strikes me very much of clutching at straws. A bit like the Gay Wolf theory that the Minoans were ‘Ancient Turks’ right?

Quote:

You can say it all you like it does not make it any more true or any less the cause of so much of the cyprus problem.


It does actually ‘make it [more] true’, I have stated I have no problem with Turks and their contributions to the overwhelmingly Greek Character of the island. What I am not prepared to accept is what people like you want, that is, two states disguised as one.

Quote:
The EU is unworkable - so does that mean any member state can unilaterally seek to ignore its courts rulings and arbitrarily change the constitution by any means legal or illegal, for that is what you claim justifed such acts by the Greek Cypriot leadership of the 60's.


Can you say; Non Sequitur?

Quote:
The EU council sets policy. The EU comission finds ways to implement policy. The EU parliament oversees. The Republic of Cyprus and Republic of Cyprus citizens have representation in all 3 bodies disproportionate to their numerical numbers compared with a state like the UK or a UK citizen. This is fact - yet the EU did not break down into violence within 3 years. There are countless other political systems that have such disporprtionate represntation to numerical number that are not 'unworkable'.


Yes, it is unworkable, the Republic of Cyprus’ equality should stem solely from the Council of Ministers and should impact on veto level solely on big European issues like Constitutional Amendment and Enlargement. By the way, it’s not strictly true about the Commission. Commission members are supposed to have no loyalty through bias to their own country while serving as a commissioner, they swear an oath of allegiance to Europe and the Union to serve as a European Commissioner in what is basically the Executive branch of the Union. As for the Parliament, I’d like you to explain to me, seriously, how Cyprus is significantly over-represented? The Parliament is another Supra-National body and is based upon population of the country involved. And your point is actually quite true at the end, there are plenty of systems where disproportionate representation is involved, but nowhere to the same extent as the 1960 constitution in Cyprus. Having a Guarantee of say, 25-30%... Fine, but 50%? Get real man.

Quote:
You claim to be a 'student' of socrates so I will put this in a classically socratic form for you (borrowed heavily from Alain de Botton book the consolatons of philosophy)

The socratic method of thinking

1. Locate a statement confidently described as common sense.

Acting courageously involves not retreating in battle.

A political system with disproportionate representation to numerical numbers is unworkable and will breakdown.

2. Imagine for a moment that , despite the confidence of the person proposing it, the statement is false. Search for situations or contexts where the statement would not be true.

Could one ever be courageous and yet retreat in battle

Are their political system with disproportionate political representation to numerical numbers that do work and have no broken down

3. If an exception is found , the definition must be false or at least imprecise.

I will not go further than this for you fall at point 2, for there are countless such political systems that invalidate your initial assertion.


No, because you base that logic on hypothetical assumptions and seem to draw quite blatant non-sequiturs from my points as I have already mentioned. My logic is based on what happened during the reform of the 1960 constitution itself, and the constitution in action, so there is ample empirical evidence for my claim. By the way, I never claimed I was a ‘student of Socrates’, Socrates left no written work, we rely on dialogues from Aristotle and Plato for our knowledge of him. Despite the fact I admire him I am not his ‘student’.

Quote:

What nonsense. Apart from the fact that Akritas plan makes no reference to removing the presidents veto, a numerically dominant entity has no need of a veto to secure its wishes over those of a numerically smaller entity and be able to impose its will on others against their will in a purely unitary system. So giving up the Greek Cypriot communities veto in exchange for a unitary system is giving up exactly nothing


Yes it was, here is Makarios’ point:
The right of veto of the President and the Vice-President of the Republic to be abandoned. The right of veto given under the Constitution of the Republic to the President and the Vice-President can be exercised separately by each one of them against: (a) laws or decisions of the House of Representatives concerning foreign affairs, defence and security; and (b) decisions of the Council of Ministers concerning foreign affairs, defence and security. It is a right of final veto and, therefore, different from any other measure provided in certain Constitutions whereby the President of the country has a right of limited veto in the sense that he is entitled not to promulgate a law immediately, but to return it for reconsideration. Provisions for the return of laws and decisions for reconsideration exist in the Cyprus Constitution independently from the provision of final veto. The Constitution of Cyprus has been based on the doctrine of separation of powers between the Executive and the Legislature. The balance between them must be carefully maintained and friction avoided, if it is to work. The right of veto cuts right across the principles involved and could bring the President and Vice-President into direct conflict with the Legislature. The exercise of the right of veto is a negative power in the sense that it does not enable the President or the Vice-President to take decisions, but it gives them the power to prevent a decision of the Council of Ministers or the House of Representatives on matters of foreign policy, defence, or security from taking effect. It is obvious that it cannot be considered as a power which affords the President or the Vice- President the opportunity to deal with an existing situation in a constructive manner. More difficulties are encountered because of the fact that the right of veto is not vested only in one person but in two persons, the President and the Vice-President of the Republic, thus increasing the occasions when a deadlock may occur. An example in point is the use of veto by the Vice-President on the subject of the composition of the units of the Army of the Republic. Under the Constitution the Army of the Republic must consist of 60% Greeks and 40% Turks. The Council of Ministers, by majority, decided that the organisational structure of the Army should be based throughout on mixed units comprising both Greeks and Turks. The Vice-President, who wanted the structure to be based on separate units of Greeks and Turks, exercised his right of veto against the above decision of the Council, with the result that there is no decision on this mat- ter and the Army has remained ineffective. In the case of the Army, no great harm has resulted, since it is doubtful whether the Republic can really afford its expansion to 2,000 men at present and cope simultaneously with her heavy financial bur- dens of economic development and expansion of educational and social services. But it is easy to envisage situations where exercise of the veto could result in more far-reaching and damaging repercussions. Therefore, the right of veto should be abandoned and reliance placed instead on the provisions for the return of laws and decisions for reconsideration, and the various other relevant safeguards.
All explained above.

Quote:
If the Akritas plan was such a great and fair plan then why did it REQUIRE absolute secrecy and specific deception at home and abroad of its true aims ?


Because it could have been misinterpreted and led to even greater communal strife, this was at a time when the media in Cyprus was incredibly polarized, some local papers produced by parties printing presses were encouraging extremism on both sides, besides, and again read Hitchens, originally the guarantor powers had no problems with the plan.

DigenisAkritas wrote:

Rights apply to individuals AND to groups of individuals (peoples / communities). One without the other is meaningless as the UN declarations on human rights make explicitly clear. Even if one accepts that Turkish Cypriot under Greek Cypriot domination / enosis rights as individuals would have been respected (dubious indeed given how Greece treated contemporary Greek Turks in Greece) this does not mean that Turkish Cypriot as a community have no rights in Cyprus and only the Greek Cypriot community has such in all effect.


Rights may well apply to groups, these rights are well documented, freedom of assembly, freedom to form a political party, freedom of protest and so on. However, the rights as laid down in the UNDHR as far as ethnic groups are very, very hazy and you know this well because of what specifically constitutes a differing ethnic group. I see you bring up the issue of the Muslims in Thrace, the Muslims in Thrace can nominate their own leaders for the heads of their communities, they have an MP in the Vouli, they have Government funded Mosques and ‘Cultural Centers’. I find it quite astonishing that you dare to bring this up given the acts of genocide committed against the Pontian Greeks, the events of 1955 (fully supported by your proud crypto-nazi Kemalist Government and your crypto-fascist press):

[img] http://www.greece.org/genocide/books/miracle/turkishpaper.jpg[/img]

I quote from the Economist which I feel deals quite briefly and promptly with Turkish claims about the Thracian situation:

"Turkish charges that the Moslem population in Western Thrace is harried by the Greek authorities are gross exaggerations. In 1923 there were 300,000 Greeks living in Constantinople and 110,000 Turks living in Thrace. Today, there are 15,000 Greeks living in Istanbul and 120,000 Turks in Thrace. The Greeks ask, with some justification, which country has been putting the pressure on which minority.”


Quote:
As individuals we are equal. As communities we are equal. You want a senario where at best as individuals we are equal but as communities your community has a right to determine our communal future and we have no effective say as a community in our future. This is not acceptable. Not then and not now.

The whole stuff of Greek Cypriot not being able to buy property in the north and having less rights than a non cypriot EU citizens is just utter nonsense. It was not the case under the annan plan or indeed under any proposed plan.


Communities are the sum of their parts Erolz, they are not living breathing entities, in this they must take into account population size. This is what you seem to forget. Greeks were NOT allowed to buy property in the North, this is a well known fact.

DigenisAkritas wrote:

You ask us, every day on this forum, 'what have the greeks offered us to prove they are genuine'?


No I do not.

Quote:
No I am not. On issues that affect the two communities differently I require separate consent of each community. Your proposal would not have protected the Turkish Cypriot community from having enosis imposed on them in the 60's - totally against their communal will and thus to me is clearly insufficient to protect the Turkish Cypriot community from domination and imposition by a Greek Cypriot community (some of whom like yourself do not even consider us Cypriots in any case)


I do not consider you Cypriot, but you are living in denial yourself, do YOU consider yourself Cypriot? You want to live in an enclave pampered with Greek Cypriot subsidies, surrounded by other Turks and not having to live in a 5 mile radius of other Greeks while your Turkish troops were allowed to remain flying their crescent flag above our holy places.

Quote:
We have as a community shown with our yes vote to the annan plan a level of concession we were prepared to accept in the pursuit of reunifying Cyprus. The Greek Cypriot community has made no such show.


That’s not a concession, as Yeniduzen, a Turkish Cypriot newspaper claimed after negotiations and on the eve of the plan:

“We got what we wanted.”

You have still failed to answer me, for you, living with Greek Cypriots is a concession, if this is the case, I don’t want to have anything to do with the likes of you. So, if you have the balls, answer me Erolz. What did you offer in the course of the Annan Plan? Hell! Not even all Turkish troops would have been obligated to leave.

DigenisAkritas wrote:
I
The question is do you believe as a community they have as much right to determine their own communal future as the Greek Cypriot have to determine thiers, or do you believe that when the Greek Cypriot community as a community wants something that is incompatible with the Turkish Cypriot communities wishes, the the Greek Cypriot community should always get what it wants as a community at the expense of the Turkish Cypriot community , either because it is larger or because it represnts 'true cypriots' and Turkish Cypriot community does not?


The Turkish Cypriot community is the sum of its parts, it cannot overrule the majority community.

DigenisAkritas wrote:

I have not resorted to name calling at all. However I have seen from you exactly what I expected which is why I will no longer be spending any of my time or effort in replying to your posts.


Sure Erolz, you’ll be back.
Back to top
repulsewarrior

Ministerial
Ministerial


Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 2264
Location: a cypriot in canada

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 1:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

...And where is the Communal Assembly(Chamber...)... where are its Greek Cypriot representatives? ...Never happened, and as a result boring conversations like this.

Fact is Dag, Turkish Cypriots were ignored, the center of your conversation for about sixty years,... like their needs are different to yours.

Rhe, if I can call you Rhe, be wise. The name of the game is subjugation. It does not need another label. I seek to be free, you>>

The past is dead, (and not just you) get over it. Wake up, unfreeze, and give, as a Christian, or a Moslem, or a Jew, as a Buhdist, or a Human being, you have a gift called love, to serve through reason, suffer peace.

I say that Cypriots love their island. They are united in their desire to have a life where their efforts are toward its betterment. They want to have the same basic Human rights, and to expect a custom of Goodfaith and Respect. Free Association, Expression, and Movement.

My goal is to convince you that the repopulation is good for us, [(Right of Return, Settlers/Displaced) Turkish and Greek] and as people politically, I suggest you figure the system I am proposing, with the possibility of Greek nearing extinction, and a Moslem majority, by population, just beyond our lifetime.

It is surprising to me how people choose to be a something, rather than a person first. Do you seriously believe that with the end of this impasse that our urban centers would not be the same, whether they have a Grecophone or Turcophone predominance. I say, embrace the change that membership into the EU will bring. Prepare for the onslaught when there is peace in the Middle East. Don't you look forward to an end to Africa's pain? Will we be welcoming?
Back to top
DigenisAkritas
Currently banned

Senior Villager
Senior Villager


Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 140
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

repulsewarrior wrote:
...And where is the Communal Assembly(Chamber...)... where are its Greek Cypriot representatives? ...Never happened, and as a result boring conversations like this.

Fact is Dag, Turkish Cypriots were ignored, the center of your conversation for about sixty years,... like their needs are different to yours.

Rhe, if I can call you Rhe, be wise. The name of the game is subjugation. It does not need another label. I seek to be free, you>>

The past is dead, (and not just you) get over it. Wake up, unfreeze, and give, as a Christian, or a Moslem, or a Jew, as a Buhdist, or a Human being, you have a gift called love, to serve through reason, suffer peace.

I say that Cypriots love their island. They are united in their desire to have a life where their efforts are toward its betterment. They want to have the same basic Human rights, and to expect a custom of Goodfaith and Respect. Free Association, Expression, and Movement.

My goal is to convince you that the repopulation is good for us, [(Right of Return, Settlers/Displaced) Turkish and Greek] and as people politically, I suggest you figure the system I am proposing, with the possibility of Greek nearing extinction, and a Moslem majority, by population, just beyond our lifetime.

It is surprising to me how people choose to be a something, rather than a person first. Do you seriously believe that with the end of this impasse that our urban centers would not be the same, whether they have a Grecophone or Turcophone predominance. I say, embrace the change that membership into the EU will bring. Prepare for the onslaught when there is peace in the Middle East. Don't you look forward to an end to Africa's pain? Will we be welcoming?


I agree with you.

But if there is going to be any big demographic shift following reunification it will probably be from Asian economic migrants, not Turks.
Back to top
Donald Keogh

Villager
Villager


Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 73
Location: Ireland

PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="DigenisAkritas"]


Most nations are charecterized by a degree of ethnic, geographical (proximity to a certain area), linguistic, cultural and religious continuity.
[quote="DigenisAkritas"]


Digenis SOME nations may be characterised by a degree of

ethnic
geographical
linguistic
cultural or
religious continuity

looking at the British Isles that MOST would certainly be considered as SOME by many in a modern day Europe a category that might more aptly
apply to Cyprus....
Back to top
Chapfallen
Warnings : 7

Senior Villager
Senior Villager


Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 464

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

D.A represents the majority of the right winkers bustards that are rich and “well” educated and this gamimenoi malakes pou den kseroun pou tous pan ta 4 are the only reason of our situation. This is the same persons who divided people with cultural bullshits, is the child’s of the wealthy people that searching for superiority. These guys must be shoot down even in a democracy.

This guys have the mentality of luxury hookers, they are smart arrogant hypocrites (see the nicest example the TPap thing) and the only difference with luxury hookers (pornes politelias) is what they are fucking them self’s with superiority knowledge to step up their pathetic existence and to be able to live among the big authority guys and live in the security of superiority while the real luxury hookers fucking them self’s to live in the superior world of the authority of money and luxury.

They are all psychopaths with small dick that can not live with the idea what they are just humans and they becoming Donkey teachers and spreading around their psychology problems to the poor people that also need to feel superior for something. This egomania illness is coming from Ancient Greece and it is the main reason even for the destruction of the Greek civilization, this are not the ashes of Greeks this are the shits of Greeks their are true identity and culture are Greekshits this is their nationality, they manage to collect every shit left back from their bloodline and even manipulate it and become scientist’s of shit cultivation (skatokaliergites) and they manage to incubate shit candy’s for the Cypriot Donkeys, they even making shit cocktails with Nazi and religion bullshits to be able to drug the innocent people and transfer their misery about their small dick to the poor week innocent people to feel better for their self’s.
Back to top
Chapfallen
Warnings : 7

Senior Villager
Senior Villager


Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 464

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The thing is what I’m a shit cleaner and someone had to clean us from shits even if this is a job for a poor common person with out superiority complex.

I’m in a mood to analyze the great science of shit cultivation.

Where it comes from?

It comes from rich people who are paying to educated their sons in their prototypes and sell their ideas to the poor people to be able to control them. This is called conservatism, is the right wingers that born nationalism, this are the guys who want to guarantee their wealth and their authority this is the guys who made loans from history that they don’t want to pay and they prefer the continuing of the cultivation to protect their self’s their psychology and to feel secure in their misery.

The thing is what they don’t know what the history loans have an interest and what the debt is increasing while they are continuing the loans with even a trying to pay back.

There are many Turks that are professionals in shit cultivation but they are not scientists and their level is in a low rank because of their poor education. Turks will also pay for their loans from their history but also for their loans from other people even if they will be Europeans even if they will not they history will strike back.

Our situation if far more professional and our shit cultivation scientists are in much more misery because the loans that they taking from our history are to fucking big. They had the bud luck to be the sons of Ancient Greece and their tremendous cultural wealth and as it was logic their loans are greedier and more expensive and the interest bigger and the dept tremendous.

I’ve to say what they are doing very good work in shit cultivation but even if they will drown in to shits to hide their head they will not be able to hide their body that is there and visible to anybody. This ostrichness of the Greek shit cultivators is obvious in our days when they are hiding behind their loans with out the guts to pay back. a single penny and instead of paying they are continuing the loans and they feeling what the payment should made to them from them and from the innocent people, they are paying their dept with shits by collecting the egocentral attitude from past times where the egocentrism have cost us but it was at least logical and natural since our grandfathers were the root of civilization.

The question is not who our grandfathers were, but who we are?

We can’t stand the reality of who we are and we prefer to feeding our self’s with shits and to continuing the crime of the exploit of our grandfathers with out at least giving them a single penny back.

I will examine the native Cypriot rubbish of this self masturbating prick D.A and not only ( Mr Kleanthous, this politic joke, this ridiculous piece of shit have said what we gave the half Cyprus to Turks (Turkish Cypriot’s) and now by electing Karogian we will give the other half to the Armenians).

The tremendous argument of the shit cultivator is what we are native Cypriots because we are a cultural continue of the Greeks.

He can’t say genetically because it is proven what with Turkish Cypriot’s we have the same blood.

For first I’ve to say what the Greek culture was an import because a long before the Greeks come to Cyprus there were true natives.

We adopt the Greek culture like we have adopted the antiGreek culture of Byzantium.

But let’s see what is our relation with the Greek culture.

The only relation we have with Greek culture is the imported neoGreek language that is not the pure Greek language of the Ancients is more like the English language the Italian language that are also based in Greek language like the vast majority of European languages. We call it Greek because we had the bad luck to be citizens of this secret land among the Greek ashes.

But let’s see if there is a real relation with the Ancients.

Our bloodline (the neoGreek generally) are those who burn the Greeks, our religion is purely and unquestionable antiGreek so we are Greeks because we like to exploit our burned (from us) grandfathers. Especially Cyprus is full of Judaist saints that was teaching about the Greek Satan the Lucifer (εωσφόρος) the creature who had the light, the enlighten. I can be more specific in Christianity teachings and maybe I’ll do it some day.

Who we are??

We are the cultural waste of the Byzantium empire that was never (if I’m not mistaken) ruled from a person with Greek origin because the Greeks were unwanted and they was like clowns among the saint Christians and were the word Greek was to describe the Satan child’s. The only reason that we are still speaking Greek is because the Bible shit was written in Greek even if the saint bustards wanted to change our language at times, it was not so easy to change the way that the people was used to communicate.

By the fact that we are not a pure genetically born of Greeks it easy to understand what the Turkish Cypriot’s are more Greeks that what we are if they ever want to call them self’s such, since they are not worship the killers of Greeks.

Not only the Greeks are not native Cypriots but also is a crime to exploit the Greeks to feel superior and to fuck your self like a hooker to take just a bite from the cultural cake that it’s not belong to you.

Either this shit cultivators will stop this loans and this exploit of the ancients either the history will strike back and burn them.
Back to top
repulsewarrior

Ministerial
Ministerial


Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 2264
Location: a cypriot in canada

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

on rereading DA i must say, good writing, learned alot, Mr.f. and mr. E (good writing as well) read again from this distance, can't condone the intolerance of calling Cypriots, Turks, but that always busts my balls. Beyond that, read again, very incisive and valid points.

Gabi, beyond the diversion...

do you understand my view.

mr f. ps the 'experts' u quote; are the ones that u demanded of me (see other topic). help us therefore, if you can remember, find the actual, for us all.
pss mr f. right o! we are grecophones (and turcophones), we are Cypriots, quite simply, this island's dwellers.
Back to top
Chapfallen
Warnings : 7

Senior Villager
Senior Villager


Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 464

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
mr f. ps the 'experts' u quote; are the ones that u demanded of me (see other topic). help us therefore, if you can remember, find the actual, for us all.


No I was speaking about experts on constitutions, which are able to understand what is already signed and what BBF means.

Quote:
pss mr f. right o! we are grecophones (and turcophones), we are Cypriots, quite simply, this island's dwellers.


Yes it could be that simple if we were not donkeys.

---

I hope what Im the f and what I understood correctly.
Embarassed

---

Ps: you are a really nice, rare and sensitive person and you should stay this way.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
All times are GMT + 3 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 


get the latest forum posts directly to your desktop get the latest album posts directly to your desktop

get the latest forum posts directly to your desktop in RSS 2.0 format get the latest album posts directly to your desktop in Atom format

Link Partners

Board Security

610915 Attacks blocked
Talkcyprus.org - the Cyprus bicommunal discussion and chat forum is Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group