 |
| Author |
Message |
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| Quote: |
Turkish Cypriots instead were imposing their communal will against Greek Cypriots because they had the backs by a larger power that enabled them to do so.
|
One more thing. That's true. If Turkish Cypriots did not have Turkey behind them, Turkish Cypriots would either have been called "Muslim Greeks of Cyprus" or they would have been competing with Armenian and Maronite Cypriots for minority rights.
So, sorry that it offended you that Turkey helped us to survive against your community's selfish interests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| So are you claiming that the right to self determination is an example of an international peremptory norm? |
Yes, it should be … I will say it is one of the most important human rights. If there was a body of higher power to enforce the international laws and specifically the right of self-determination then there will be no conflict. |
Well first off I did not ask if it should be I asked if you thought it was.
Secondly the idea that if the absolute unrestricted and unlimitable right to self determination actually was a peremptory norm and could be enforced there would be no conflict in the world if absolute nonsense as far as I am concerned.
So the basques in spain and france declare that they want independence and a state of their own under their right to self determination. Will you send in your international enforces to create it for them against French and Spanish resistance? Is this your idea of 'no conflict'? The tamils in sri lanka - send in the enforcers ? Kurds in Turkey and Iraq and elsewhere - send in the enforcers? Macedonians in Greece - send in the enforcers? Turkish Cypriot in Cyprus - send in the enforcers? Just about anyone anywhere- send in the enforcers? This is your idea of ending conflict? Sheer madness imho.
And who will decide what a 'people' is in your world with no conflict and the right to self determination as supreme right that can never be limited in any way ?
Ignoring the above madness if you have your way and say the right to self determination is absolutely inviolable then what you are saying is that no people can make any international agreements that in any way limit their right to self determination - for such agreements would automatically be legally null and void. Do you realise what this means ?
| stavrizatz wrote: |
But countries like Britain and Turkey deny it so as to oppress others for there own interest. |
What people do the UK oppress and deny their right of self determination to for their own interests ? You think the UK denies self determination to the Greek Cypriot people ? You think that it is only Turkey and the UK that are party to the 1960's agreements ? You think that Greek Cypriot to not control the future of Greek Cypriot ? This is just nonsense. Greek Cypriot have self determination and have had it since 1960.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Really Erolz I cannot understand you, I never met anyone with such double standards in there arguments. So it is ok for countries to have rules to overrule agreements between people, but it is not ok for international law to overrule unfair agreements between countries. |
I have never said the idea of international peremptory norms is an invalid one at all. For thing like slavery and torture they are totally correct and sensible. No 'people' should be able to agree internally or between their respective states that torture or slavery are legal imo. In that sense the very concept of international peremptory norm is in conflict with those peoples right to self determination - according to you they SHOULD be able to make such things legal if they choose - internally and between themselves - because any external prohibition on them doing so would violate their right to self determination - and according to you such should be impossible.
What I AM saying is the idea that no people can legally agree to limits being placed on their right to self determination is nonsense. When you sign up to international charters on human rights you place limits on your right to self determination - and rightly so. When you join the EU you place limits on your right to self determination - and rightly so. When you agree to a constitution that forbids enosis you place limits on your right to self determination - and rightly so.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Nevertheless my point remains the same and it is not an irony because you view self-determination as an absolute right ignoring the legal framework around it and when it applies etc. |
No it is YOU that is saying self determination must be an absolute unalterable and unlimitable right by saying it should be an example of an international peremptory norm - like prohibiting slavery and torture.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
As I mentioned before any state cannot destroy its own future sovereignty by binding future governments, not to exercise the right of self-determination. It didn’t recognise that fact that people change with time along with their desires. |
Enosis was the desire to destroy both the cypriot state and the cypriots peoples right to determine their own future ! That is what enosis would have required.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
| YES of course. The agreement limited the exact thing that the general Cypriot public wanted at the time. |
Are you arguing that a right to life must also give you the right to end life? For you are saying that the right to self determination must include the right to end that self determination.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Erolz Cypriot self-determination is for all Cypriot people and it is democratic in nature where the members of the whole territory are able to express what they want. |
You do not think it is possible for one territory to hold two peoples? What does a 'people' mean to you? Greek Cypriot 'democratically' expressed their desire to see Cyprus cease to exist as a sovereign state and to see cypriot self determination destroyed and see cyprus ruled not by Cypriots and cypriot will but by Greeks and Greek will and the Turkish Cypriot 'democratically' expressed their will to NOT see this happen to their homeland.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Clearly at the time Cypriots wanted enosis and by prohibiting Enosis, is prohibiting the right of self-determination. |
No clearly at the time Greek Cypriot supported enosis and only Greek Cypriot. Enosis required the destruction of Cyprus as a state AND the right of Cypriot self determination - and it is in the name of cypriot self determination that you say its prohibition was unaccetable ???
| stavrizatz wrote: |
You can argue it was against the will of Turkish Cypriots but independence was similarly against the will of Greek Cypriots. |
Listen to yourself. In the name of self determination for Cypriots you claim that independence, the embodiment of self determination, was against the will of cypriots.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
The agreements were clearly imposing a constitution against the will of the general public and it was against the general interest of the community. |
Rubbish. Even the authors of the Akritas plan knew that if the people had been called upon by plebiscite to show their support or rejection of the agreements they would have overwhelmingly supported them.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Provided that Turkish Cypriots were not discriminated in any way by Greek law and the agreement provided guarantee to protect the human rights of Turkish Cypriots, then enosis was by far the fairest solution for all Cypriots. |
It can not be in any doubt that under enosis Turkish Cypriot would have suffered communally and as individuals - even upto the present day. Nor can it be in any doubt that if enosis had been achieved then the very thing you claim to hold sacrosanct - the right of cypriots to determine the future of Cypriots and cyprus would not exists.
Even ignoring the above what you are telling me is that I can belong to a place - cyprus via my father and his father and his father before him and consider it my home and my homeland and a group of people can come to me and say WE (not you) will decide the future of that place - what it is called , who it belongs too, who rules it, what my nationality is - all without me having any say in the matter - all in the name of self determination. Well I am sorry but I do not accept that a group 'other' than me can impose such things on me against my will in the name of self determination in a land that is as much my homeland as it is theirs.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
You mention again and again that Greek Cypriot democratic right is equivalent to imposing something on Turkish Cypriots - this is a misrepresentation of the truth. Turkish Cypriots instead were imposing their communal will against Greek Cypriots because they had the backs by a larger power that enabled them to do so. |
Having a right to stop something happening to you against your will is not the same as having a right to make something happen to others against their will. You argue for a right to allow you to impose something on me. I only argue for a right to stop you being able to do that to me. There is quite a difference between the two - especially when you are the one being imposed upon and not the one doing the imposing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 924
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
Mete ask Armenians or maronites whether if they are not satisfied the way they are treated. In fact many of them are or were fanatic Enosists more fanatic than Greek Cypriots.
The difference between Turkish Cypriots and other minorities is that Turkish Cypriots desire excessive power and that is because of Turkey's claims which claims the island as Turkish. These are not words, these are stated in the website of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus where it sais Cyprus should of been handed over to the authentic owners 'Turkey' but because Turksih people are so generous they let Greek Cypriots govern part of the island and you expect us to say thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| stavrizatz wrote: |
| Mete ask Armenians or maronites whether if they are not satisfied the way they are treated. In fact many of them are or were fanatic Enosists more fanatic than Greek Cypriots. |
Are Cypriot Armenians and Marionites considered 'the ancient enemies of Hellanism'? Do they share a brotherhood of Orthodox christian belief that Turkish Cypriot do not? Are they viewed in some Greek Cypriot circles as 'the children of invaders and occupiers of Cyprus' ?
I also think it is somewhat complacent of you to pretend that these minorities do not have any issues at times with their treatment as minorities in a Greek Cypriot run state.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
The difference between Turkish Cypriots and other minorities is that Turkish Cypriots desire excessive power and that is because of Turkey's claims which claims the island as Turkish. |
The real difference is that the achievement of enosis would not have affected these minorities in the same prejudicial and disadvantageous ways as it would have affected the lives of ordinary Turkish Cypriot, for if it did their desire to resist its imposition would have been the same even if their ability to do so had not. For example just try telling Armenian of Maronite Cypriots that they can not use the term Armenian or Maronite in any Cypriot organisation they form and see how happy they are with that ?
| stavrizatz wrote: |
These are not words, these are stated in the website of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus where it sais Cyprus should of been handed over to the authentic owners 'Turkey' but because Turksih people are so generous they let Greek Cypriots govern part of the island and you expect us to say thank you. |
Care to provide an actual link to this then for to be frank I do not believe such is said on any official Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus website in the way you make out above? |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 924
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
Sorry, let me answer again.
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| So are you claiming that the right to self determination is an example of an international peremptory norm? |
I didn’t say an absolute Yes because my answer was based on the following quote
“The right was declared on principles of International Law and its importance is accepted as a moral and legal right of communities to exist and could even form part of jus cogens.”
As for the rest of your arguments, I feel like either you are pretending to be dim or you argue for the sake of argument or I don’t know what to say! Just ridiculous.
Your examples clearly demonstrate that you have a false perception of the purpose of the right of self-determination. You ignore that the right applies in the different situations in different ways.
I don’t want to argue any further on this topic because we talk about different things. I talk about the right of self-determination, and you argue about Greek Cypriots imposing things on Turkish Cypriots, two closely related but separate issues. Yes I did talk about self-determination but I never referred to Greek Cypriots imposing anything on Turkish Cypriots, and I cannot understand why you jumped to that conclusion.
Before I go, I’ll tell you my philosophy that derives from the philosophy of the indigenous people of Australia, the Aborigines which is also supported by other cosmo-theories.
Kahnini: it has 5 features, I’ll focus on the 4th which is Earth.
Mother Earth is the provider of resources, the provider of life. Earth does not belong to anyone, it is a communal place and the land is shared by everyone for a common purpose (survival). If we respect nature, in nature there are no countries, no borders and people should be able to travel around freely in order to survive.
Who decides which land belongs to whom? Who decides borders?
In my attempt to answer those two questions (in the reality that exists today) I conclude that only where the right of self-determination is used properly – only then fairness, justice and peace can prevail in the world. Any other suggestions welcome |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 924
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
look in the www.trncgov.com, history section.
It explains how Cyprus is Turkish and how the claims that Cyprus is Greek are lies. I don't remember the exact words but let me paraphrase "Cypriots are not Greek, Cyprus never belonged to Greece but it is Turkish as it is an exctention of Anatolia." It argues further why Cyprus should be divided, emphaises Greek brutality and seeks to justify the invasion, sorry the peace operation. The it explains how partition is the fairest solution to the Cyprus problem.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| stavrizatz wrote: |
| As for the rest of your arguments, I feel like either you are pretending to be dim or you argue for the sake of argument or I don’t know what to say! Just ridiculous. |
Look when you join the EU you, by agreement and treaty limit the Cypriot peoples right to self determination - just one example after sighing the treaties the Cypriot people can no longer decide on setting external trade tariffs to protect local industry with other EU members at all and with non EU members alone. What jus cogens MEANS is that this international law can NOT be limtied by treaty or agreement. You may see that as a ridculous argument - I just see it as evidence that the right to self determination CAN be limited by treaty and agreement. So if you can limit a peoples ability to set their own external trade tariffs by treaty and agreement, without such being illegal and without it denying those people their self determination wtf can u not limit a peoples ability to destroy their nation state as a state and destroy their self determination as a people by treaty without such being illegal and without it denying them their self determination?
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Your examples clearly demonstrate that you have a false perception of the purpose of the right of self-determination. You ignore that the right applies in the different situations in different ways. |
You say that the right of self determination applies in different ways in different situations but to refuse to accept it can apply in Cyprus in way that even by agreed treaty Greek Cypriot could be prohibited from destroying cypriot self determination via enosis.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Yes I did talk about self-determination but I never referred to Greek Cypriots imposing anything on Turkish Cypriots, and I cannot understand why you jumped to that conclusion. |
You insist that if Greek Cypriot want enosis and Turkish Cypriot dont ,then Greek Cypriot get their way - and that is not an imposition. If you make me accept and live with that which I do not accept and do not want to live with then you impose on me. That such would be an imposition of your will on mine is not arguable in any rational sane sense. One can argue weather such an imposition of your will on and over mine is just, legal right or proper - but to just say it is not an imposition makes any rational discussion pointless.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Who decides which land belongs to whom? Who decides borders?
In my attempt to answer those two questions (in the reality that exists today) I conclude that only where the right of self-determination is used properly – only then fairness, justice and peace can prevail in the world. Any other suggestions welcome |
And to you apparently 'proper' self determination means in a Cypriot context that if Greek Cypriot want to peruse a purel ethnic Greek Cypriot desire to destroy the Cypriot nation as a nation that they share with me and destroy cypriot self determination - mine along with theirs , then I should have no right or ability to block that decisions as far as it applies to me - because there are more Greek Cypriot than there are Turkish Cypriot. That then is your idea of fairness, justice self determination and how to find peace ! Fairness means Greek Cypriot get what they want and Turkish Cypriot lump it. Justice means Greek Cypriot get what they want and Turkish Cypriot lump it. Self determination means Greek Cypriot get to decide their future and the future of Turkish Cypriot who get no say. Peace means Turkish Cypriot lump anything that Greek Cypriot tell them to lump without resitance or there will be no peace. |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 924
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| And to you apparently 'proper' self determination means in a Cypriot context that if Greek Cypriot want to peruse a purel ethnic Greek Cypriot desire to destroy the Cypriot nation as a nation that they share with me and destroy cypriot self determination - mine along with theirs , then I should have no right or ability to block that decisions as far as it applies to me - because there are more Greek Cypriot than there are Turkish Cypriot. |
'Jila to amaxoui sou parakato' - 'move your wheelbarrow' - whatever. You have the freedom to believe that self-determination means distraction of self-determination! Your opinion
I disagree with you for the time being but about the agreements I will ask a human rights lawyer and hopefully I get him to reply, who knows maybe you are right after all! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Get Real!
Warnings : 3
Senior Villager
Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 325
Location: Nicosia
|
|
Erolz...
| Quote: |
| This is the kind of mindset that has done so much to get Cyprus in the mess it is in today and one you continue to support without even an apparent inch of possible compromise. Has all the pain all the blood and all the suffering of innocents not yet been enough for you to think that maybe a different view and approach is necessary? Apparently not |
I need not remind that it was a political arrangement akin to your current ideas that fuelled the 1960’s Greek Cypriot grievances and yet here you are today telling us that a solution based on pure democracy will have a negative effect against the Turkish Cypriot community so we should make special arrangements for them!
I wonder if it’s genuine fear and concern for the Turkish Cypriot community that drives you, even though I’m sure you know very well that it would take under 4 minutes for Turkish jets to reach Cyprus from Turkey, or nostalgia for 1960’s imbalanced political scenarios where an 18% minority had 30% of the House of Representatives!
You seem to assume that under a democratic system the Turkish Cypriot community will be overwhelmed by their Greek Cypriot counterparts but you fail to realize, or perhaps forget, that with 120+k odd people the Turkish Cypriot community will play very decisive roles at each and every election under democracy.
I wonder if any other Greek Cypriot on this forum agrees with Erolz that the Turkish Cypriot community should have special rights over the Greek Cypriot community... |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| stavrizatz wrote: |
You have the freedom to believe that self-determination means distraction of self-determination! Your opinion
I disagree with you for the time being but about the agreements I will ask a human rights lawyer and hopefully I get him to reply, who knows maybe you are right after all! |
It is like hitting my head against a brick wall.
YOU are the one that says the right to self determination means a group has the right to destroy both their self determination and that of others, when you argue that unless self determination of Cypriots allowed Greek Cypriot alone to achieve enosis , then self determination was being denied to Cypriots.
Enosis would have meant - NO CYPRIOT STATE
Enosis would have meant - NO CYPRIOT RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION
Had enosis been achieved their would only be a Greek peoples right to self determination. Cypriots would not decide Cyprus' future but Greeks would decide it - with Cypriots a tiny minority within this larger group.
Do you understand that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Get Real! wrote: |
| I need not remind that it was a political arrangement akin to your current ideas that fuelled the 1960’s Greek Cypriot grievances and yet here you are today telling us that a solution based on pure democracy will have a negative effect against the Turkish Cypriot community so we should make special arrangements for them! |
Pure democracy would mean that no one would ever be in a position of having no effective voice in the decisions that affect their lives in their own homeland. On issues that are ethnic communal ones (not individual ones) - where people vote the way they do because of the ethnic group they belong to exclusively or near exclusively , then pure democracy demands one community one vote.
| Get Real! wrote: |
I wonder if it’s genuine fear and concern for the Turkish Cypriot community that drives you, even though I’m sure you know very well that it would take under 4 minutes for Turkish jets to reach Cyprus from Turkey, or nostalgia for 1960’s imbalanced political scenarios where an 18% minority had 30% of the House of Representatives! |
What history has taught me is that even the signing of international agreements design to protect Turkish Cypriot from Greek Cypriot oppression (political and physical) even the presence of UN troops in Cyprus to protect Turkish Cypriot from Greek Cypriot oppression and even legal agreements giving obligations and rights to Greece Turkey and UK to uphold these protection were not sufficient to protect Turkish Cypriot from that Greek Cypriot oppression whilst they pursued their treasonous anti Cypriot pro Greek agendas from 1960 - 74, Considerably more than 4 minutes!
| Get Real! wrote: |
| You seem to assume that under a democratic system the Turkish Cypriot community will be overwhelmed by their Greek Cypriot counterparts but you fail to realize, or perhaps forget, that with 120+k odd people the Turkish Cypriot community will play very decisive roles at each and every election under democracy. |
On issues that are not delineated and defined by the ethnic group you belong to you are right and on such issues individual based majority rules meets the requirements of democracy - that people have an effective (and equal) say in the decisions that affect their lives. The problem is on issues that are not 'individual based' but are 'community based' - it is on THESE issues that Turkish Cypriot would be denied any democracy (pure or otherwise) and it is on THESE issues that are not issues of individuals but issues of communities that the concept of one community one vote is not only democratic but a fundamental requirement if 'true' democracy is to be achieved.
Under your system Turkish Cypriot can have an effective voice in the tax rates that apply to Cypriots, the speed limit on the roads etc etc but we can have NO effective voice on if our shared state is to be destroyed as a state and given to another country (that considers us 'ancinet enemies'). That is the problem and it is the problem because for so long this is exactly what the Greek Cypriot community try to force upon us with no regard for our wishes at all.
| Get Real! wrote: |
I wonder if any other Greek Cypriot on this forum agrees with Erolz that the Turkish Cypriot community should have special rights over the Greek Cypriot community... |
I do not want the Turkish Cypriot community as a community to have 'special rights' (extra rights) over the Greek Cypriot community. I want it to have THE SAME rights as a community that Greek Cypriot have as a community. You are the one arguing that if as a community Greek Cypriot want one thing and Turkish Cypriot as a community another then Greek Cypriot must always get what they want and Turkish Cypriot never get what they want, with no need or requirment for compromise or discussion or agreement. This you call 'democracy' - I call it tyranny of one community over another in their shared homeland. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| stavrizatz wrote: |
look in the www.trncgov.com, history section.
It explains how Cyprus is Turkish and how the claims that Cyprus is Greek are lies. I don't remember the exact words but let me paraphrase "Cypriots are not Greek, Cyprus never belonged to Greece but it is Turkish as it is an exctention of Anatolia." It argues further why Cyprus should be divided, emphaises Greek brutality and seeks to justify the invasion, sorry the peace operation. The it explains how partition is the fairest solution to the Cyprus problem.
|
Stavrizatz - you do here what you so often do to me and others in the forum. You take something said , pass it through your filters and distortions and represent it (usually as a 'paraphrasing') as as something that is far and even sometimes the exact opposite from what the original actually says. The most worrying thing is that you genuinely seem to not realise this is what you do 
For your info that website you refer to is not currently active. |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 924
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
Get Real wrote:
| Quote: |
I need not remind that it was a political arrangement akin to your current ideas that fuelled the 1960’s Greek Cypriot grievances and yet here you are today telling us that a solution based on pure democracy will have a negative effect against the Turkish Cypriot community so we should make special arrangements for them!
I wonder if it’s genuine fear and concern for the Turkish Cypriot community that drives you, even though I’m sure you know very well that it would take under 4 minutes for Turkish jets to reach Cyprus from Turkey, or nostalgia for 1960’s imbalanced political scenarios where an 18% minority had 30% of the House of Representatives!
You seem to assume that under a democratic system the Turkish Cypriot community will be overwhelmed by their Greek Cypriot counterparts but you fail to realize, or perhaps forget, that with 120+k odd people the Turkish Cypriot community will play very decisive roles at each and every election under democracy. |
Well said
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| Enosis would have meant - NO CYPRIOT RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION |
Listen people to this comment "Enosis (as a result of self-determination) would have meant - no Cypriot right to self-determination. LOL, let's see what else we will hear on these forum.
| Quote: |
| Stavrizatz - you do here what you so often do to me and others in the forum. You take something said , pass it through your filters and distortions and represent it (usually as a 'paraphrasing') as as something that is far and even sometimes the exact opposite from what the original actually says. The most worrying thing is that you genuinely seem to not realise this is what you do |
Yes, yes, you are right. Now you attempt to convince the others that I am stupid therefore wrong and your right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 924
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
Ahh yes, as for the compromise you suggest that Greek Cypriots should compromise even further!
Let me remind you the chronology of compromising:
1. from a fair demand for re-union of Cyprus with Greece, Greek Cypriots compromised for independence
2. After Indepence Greek Cypriots compromise from a unitary state to a BBF.
3. From BBF Greek Cypriots were required to compromise to a restricted BBF (ANAN plan)
Why didn't Turkish Cypriots compromised for Enosis in the first place?
On this forum I am not a politician to compromise on anything, I am here to share my view. In real life what is desirable is not always feasible so yes Greek Cypriots should compromise if we want a 'so called' solution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| Enosis would have meant - NO CYPRIOT RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION |
Listen people to this comment "Enosis (as a result of self-determination) would have meant - no Cypriot right to self-determination. LOL, let's see what else we will hear on these forum. |
Cypriot self determination means that Cypriots (and Cypriots alone) would decide what happens in and too Cyprus.
After enosis Cypriots alone would not decide what happens in and to Cyprus. Greeks would decide what happens in and too Cyprus. Yes Cypriots would be included in this set of people but as a small numerical minority. The fact is after enosis if Cypriots wanted something for the future of Cyprus that non Cypriots Greeks did not want , then Cypriot will would be overruled by Greek will - Cypriot self determination would no longer exists.
Is that really so HARD to understand ?
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Now you attempt to convince the others that I am stupid therefore wrong and your right. |
All I am doing is arguing my position. Yes I think you are wrong on many points and I say why I think you are wrong - just as you do with me and my points/ arguments. I make no attempt to convince others of anything , beyond arguing my case in these on going discussions. You have made two posts now that 'para phrase' what official Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus allegedly say about the Cyprus issue - and I believe that your 'para phrasing' is actually a gross distortion of what they actually say. We can discuss this or you can throw out these paraphrases and when challenged about your interpretation of what these sources actually say respond with 'you are just trying to convince others I am stupid'. The choice is yours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
 
 
Link Partners
3212 Attacks blocked
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home