www.talkcyprus.org

[Eric Dayi]

cannedmoose wrote: Just for the record Eric, I fundamentally disagree with your perspective, but I recognise your right to hold the views that you do, even if they do result in a violation of my relative's human rights (a number of my relatives are refugees from Angastina and Lapithos). So, while I disagree with your stance, I understand that this is a product of your history and is probably not something that I can change.

However, I also realise that the way forward is not simply to hate you for what you are saying and to spit in your face, but to put forward to you the opposite position, in the hope that you can begin to appreciate that there are two sides to this tragic story.

I don't for a minute hold that against you or anyone else that disagrees with my perspective. I know that most will find this hard to believe but I have mentioned it before and will mention it here as well, and I do feel for those who have suffered from both sides but I know for certain that there will be more suffering and more loss of land and more loss of lives should the two sides be forced to unite. There are plenty of examples of "good will" coming from the Greek Cypriot side to prove my point.

I don't want history repeating itself and am not prepared to take that chance.

Quote: The man who strikes first admits that his ideas have given out.


Yes, very true, as has been proven in 1963 and also by Kiefeas and DelaSol doing the same just yesterday.

[De_La_Soul]

Quote: Maybe just as well that it wasn't stopped because it gave the other posters the chance to see what these two are like and what extremes they would go to to force their will on to others. I am certain that some of the other posters support what Kiefeas and Delasol did/do but at least they were/are civilised enough to not go public.


Lets cut the crap...ever since you discovered these Cyprus websites....your sole aim is to antagonise and taunt the pain of the Greek Cypriot community. I gave you the oportunity to come from behind your computer and see how much of a man you really are and say such things to my face, as opposed to hiding behind your computer.

You reap what you sow.

Quote: Yes, very true, as has been proven in 1963 and also by Kiefeas and DelaSol doing the same just yesterday

So its perfectly fine for you taunt the suffering of our community...but not for us to react to that? This is more personal, if I wanted to go out and attack every Turkish Cypriot in sight...I would have plenty of oportunities to do so by now by just walking up to Palmers Green high road.

What is annoying is that I dont see any genuine efforts from Turkish Cypriots on this site to condemn what this idiot posts.

[Kifeas]

Eric Dayi wrote:
Maybe just as well that it wasn't stopped because it gave the other posters the chance to see what these two are like and what extremes they would go to to force their will on to others. I am certain that some of the other posters support what Kiefeas and Delasol did/do but at least they were/are civilised enough to not go public.

Dayi, there is no one more extremist than you in this forum!

Answer this question to me please. Do you fervently support partition, without I my add the return of not even one inch of soil, set aside to keep only the 18% of the territory that represent your community’s share? Yes or No?

[Kifeas]

Kifeas wrote: Eric Dayi wrote:
Maybe just as well that it wasn't stopped because it gave the other posters the chance to see what these two are like and what extremes they would go to to force their will on to others. I am certain that some of the other posters support what Kiefeas and Delasol did/do but at least they were/are civilised enough to not go public.

Dayi, there is no one more extremist than you in this forum!

Answer this question to me please. Do you fervently support partition, without I my add the return of not even one inch of soil, set aside to keep only the 18% of the territory that represent your community’s share? Yes or No?

Thank you very much dayi for not replying to my question. It is evident that you do not wish to reply, since you have already made another 3 postings in other threads from the time I have posted the above question.

However, your non-reply to the above question is interpreted as a positive one, namely that you fervently support partition for your own reasons which we all know, without the desire to return even one inch of the excessive territory that your "motherland" illegally occupies.

You believe that this is your kismet, that they are the spoils that you won a war and which according to the Islamic tradition but also with the Turkish ottoman tradition, you are perfectly moralized to keep as your own, and you simply do not give a damn shit to what this means to the people that their homeland is being deprived to them, neither you give a damn shit to the fact that also their properties and their human rights are to remain violated in perpetuity. You do not care if this is deemed by the rest of the civilized world as an illegality. You do not accept international legality, nor you do accept the need for a sense of moral order and /or the need for a civilized contact among people and nations in the world.

I hope everyone sees who the extremist is in this forum!

[Eric Dayi]

Kifeas wrote: Eric Dayi wrote:
Maybe just as well that it wasn't stopped because it gave the other posters the chance to see what these two are like and what extremes they would go to to force their will on to others. I am certain that some of the other posters support what Kiefeas and Delasol did/do but at least they were/are civilised enough to not go public.

Dayi, there is no one more extremist than you in this forum!

Yes there is, you!

Quote: Answer this question to me please. Do you fervently support partition, without I my add the return of not even one inch of soil, set aside to keep only the 18% of the territory that represent your community’s share? Yes or No?

I will not converse with anyone or answer his/her questions who insults me and wants "eliminate" me because I do not share his/her views.

[SP]

Kifeas

Does this mean that you support partition on an 18 / 82 split???

[Kifeas]

Eric Dayi wrote:
Quote: Answer this question to me please. Do you fervently support partition, without I my add the return of not even one inch of soil, set aside to keep only the 18% of the territory that represent your community’s share? Yes or No?

I will not converse with anyone or answer his/her questions who insults me and wants "eliminate" me because I do not share his/her views.

Your views dayi, are illegal views! They are also immoral views! They are views that are support illegalities by international law, such as the usurping of other peoples properties and homes and the violation of their human and historical homeland ownership rights. You are supporting the maintenance and perpetuations of illegalities that they are the outcome of a war (an act of aggression.) There is absolutely no difference between you supporting the perpetuation of illegalities and the expressing of desires to legalize the spoils of a war, and me for supporting a war in order to win back my violated rights, in which I may have to eliminate you if stand or step in the way. If my suggestion is immoral, your beliefs are equally immoral. If my threats are illegal, then equally illegal are your desires and aims. The only difference is that you are supporting the continuation and perpetuation of an illegality that was already committed against me, while I am supporting the committing of a similar thing in the future for the purpose of undoing the illegality that you support its continuation.

Your pro-partition ideas, in they way you understand and promote those partition ideas, in my book constitute the same or an even bigger threat than my threat to have to eliminate you one day for being an obstacle to the re-instatement of my human rights.

Only the hypocrites, who seem to exist in abundance in this forum, cannot see this analogy and /or parallelism.

If you have the right to maintain, express and promote illegal and violent ideas, then I have the same right exactly!

[cannedmoose]

As one of Kifeas' alleged "hypocrites", I'll remind Kifeas of the words of Blaise Pascal... 'There are truths on this side of the Pyranees, which are falsehoods on the other.'

In other words, just because you declare something immoral doesn't mean everyone does...

[Kifeas]

SP wrote: Kifeas

Does this mean that you support partition on an 18 / 82 split???

No, I do not support any partition whatsoever. However, I have to respect the right of the majority of the T/Cs (if there is such a majority,) that wish to hate me as a G/C, that do not wish to share the same homeland with me as a G/C, and who do not wish for their own reasons to regard me as their compatriot, and instead they prefer to regard the Turks from Turkey as their compatriots. If this is what the majority of the T/Cs believe and or prefer then tough luck. I have to respect their choices! However, if this is the case, if this is the will of the T/Cs, it is only decent if they at least propose and /or be ready to accept that together with their desires for partition which I will have to respect, that their share in this country is no more than 18% of the territory of Cyprus, and to at least propose this together with their partition desires. Only then I would regard them as decent and honest people. What they are doing however, is exactly the opposite. They propose or demand partition, for their own hilarious reasons in my opinion, but at the same time they mean or wish to keep the entire or most of the excessive territory that Turkey occupies today. This is what makes the dishonest, insincere, hypocritical and opportunistic, and this is why under such circumstances the G/C might not have a choice in the future other than to seize the right moment and /or opportunity to declare a war against them so that they undo they injustice that the T/Cs wish to inflict upon them.

[Kifeas]

cannedmoose wrote: As one of Kifeas' alleged "hypocrites", I'll remind Kifeas of the words of Blaise Pascal... 'There are truths on this side of the Pyranees, which are falsehoods on the other.'

In other words, just because you declare something immoral doesn't mean everyone does...

Go and tell this then to the UN, the council of Europe and the ECHRs! Unless you do not recognize their verdicts of course, something which by now shouldn't surprise me at all, especially in view of your above cleverish comment!

[Kifeas]

Unless again if you believe that if something is illegal, should not be regarded immoral at the same time!

[cannedmoose]

Ok Kifeas, so if euthanasia of a dying relative is illegal, is it also immoral? It depends on your perspective. Not all illegal acts are immoral, no.

In the case of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, it is certainly illegal according to international law, but is it immoral... now there's a question. If you are a Greek Cypriot, then certainly, an entity that denies you access to your land would certainly be an immoral entity. However, for Turkish Cypriots, a state that has provided them with physical security for the past 40 years, against a perceived threat from their Greek Cypriot compatriots could not be regarded as immoral.

Let's return to international law... whose pronouncements are really more theoretical than practical in many instances. For example, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was certainly immoral and was declared by some as illegal, however, because powerful interests were involved in deciding on its illegality, strictly speaking it is not. So, you've got to regard international law as a flexible instrument, which changes according to the interests of the time. So while the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is illegal now, that may not always be the case. Remember the Peoples' Republic of China from 1949 until 1972?

If the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus were regarded as a immoral entity, would state actors really be willing to meet and be photographed with an immoral leader like Talat? Why is the Swedish foreign minister planning to meet with him, when he would not go and meet people like Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong-Il? You just don't understand that while you feel nothing but hate for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, others around the world don't share your views and are increasingly willing to accommodate the views of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is regarded as representing the will of the Turkish Cypriot people, into their calculations on Cyprus. The day that you and the leadership whose views you represent so closely appreciate this, the closer we might be to a solution to this problem.

[Kifeas]

cannedmoose wrote: Ok Kifeas, so if euthanasia of a dying relative is illegal, is it also immoral? It depends on your perspective. Not all illegal acts are immoral, no.

In the case of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, it is certainly illegal according to international law, but is it immoral... now there's a question. If you are a Greek Cypriot, then certainly, an entity that denies you access to your land would certainly be an immoral entity. However, for Turkish Cypriots, a state that has provided them with physical security for the past 40 years, against a perceived threat from their Greek Cypriot compatriots could not be regarded as immoral.

Let's return to international law... whose pronouncements are really more theoretical than practical in many instances. For example, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was certainly immoral and was declared by some as illegal, however, because powerful interests were involved in deciding on its illegality, strictly speaking it is not. So, you've got to regard international law as a flexible instrument, which changes according to the interests of the time. So while the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is illegal now, that may not always be the case. Remember the Peoples' Republic of China from 1949 until 1972?

If the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus were regarded as a immoral entity, would state actors really be willing to meet and be photographed with an immoral leader like Talat? Why is the Swedish foreign minister planning to meet with him, when he would not go and meet people like Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong-Il? You just don't understand that while you feel nothing but hate for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, others around the world don't share your views and are increasingly willing to accommodate the views of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is regarded as representing the will of the Turkish Cypriot people, into their calculations on Cyprus. The day that you and the leadership whose views you represent so closely appreciate this, the closer we might be to a solution to this problem.

C'mon moose, do not give me such crap! Any state that is founded an the basis of an act of aggression, on the basis of an ethnic cleansing and on the basis of the violation of the human rights of its lawful inhabitants, can never be regarded as moral without the consent of the very people who were the victims in the process of its establishment. Soon you will claim, with all the above crap that you posted, that we the G/Cs are not morally legitimized to ever reclaim it back in a war, should we will be capable of doing it and should the ideas of people like dayi became the norm among the T/Cs. C'mon!

[SP]

Sounds a lot like 1963 and the Samson Coup of 1974.

18% is a nominal figure, even Makarios thought that 25% was reasonable

[cannedmoose]

I cite the case of EU-candidate Croatia... founded in the Yugoslav civil war, which conducted mass ethnic cleansing against the ethnic Serb inhabitants of Krayina, who continue to live in refugee camps in Belgrad. However, because it was recognised from the outset by a sponsor state (Germany), today it is recognised as a legal state and is an EU candidate.

As for claiming back the lost lands of the north in war, c'mon yourself. You know that this will never be possible, no-one would support you in such a venture and that the Republic of Cyprus will never possess the resources to do so, at least so long as the Turkish government supports the Turkish Cypriot inhabitants of the island. Morally, I do believe that Greek Cypriots deserve to return to their land, however, after 40 years it would be equally immoral to dispossess children who have grown up living in stolen properties of everything they have ever known. Effectively you will simply create a new generation of refugees.

For the record, I don't think Eric Dayi represents majority opinion in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. But the longer things remain as they are today, and the longer that Turkish Cypriots feel that the Greek Cypriot authorities don't represent their aspirations, the more people like Dayi will be listened to, and the more likely partition will be the ultimate outcome.