From: ptg2351@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Panos Tamamidis )
Subject: Re: The hypocrites
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:30:23 GMT

cza@troy.uucp (22141-akgun) writes:

>In article <Bttxzq.HpH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> ptg2351@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Panos Tamamidis ) writes:
>>
>>>Are you kidding?  Turkish arm forces are the only reason
>>>why Cyprus was never turned out to be today's Bosnia.
>>>This is the only security that Turkish Cypriots have and
>>>alway will.  Like every Bosnians today, we all know how
>>>much UN provides when modern day massacres committed.
>>
>> I haven't seen so much hypocricy in my entire life.  You turn things
>> upside-down; you present the black as being white.  

>I can post the entire Akritas plan if you want to teach
>you the meaning of hypocrasy.  

 Your hypocricy can be judged by the readers.  What you are saying in
 your articles, confirms my claim.

>>
>> Turkish forces in Cyprus are forces of occupation.  Turkish invaded
>> Cyprus in order to divide the island into a Greek and a Turkish part.
>> 
>Hardly.  Turkish arm forces their for the security of
>their own.  They could not do in 1963 but they did it
>with flying colors to protect their own from the faith as
>we all are seeing in Bosnia.  You may be sorry that they
>were the party pupers in 1974 ut such as other unecpected things
>in life.

 Exactly the same thing that Serbs are doing in Bosnia.  Why do you thing
 that Serbs don't have the right to do this thing, and Turks have it?
 What makes you different from Serbs?

 Isn't it hypocritical to say that Turkey has the right to invade another
 country to protect its minority, but Serbs don't have it?  What else
 is hypocricy?

>> Turkey has been 'convicted' by the UN numerous times since 1974.
>> Your opinion, that turkish military in Cyprus "is the only security 
>> that Turkish Cypriots have and always will" shows the real intension
>> of Turkey; which is to annex the northern part of Cyprus.

>We all know how UN resolves ethnic violonce and
>cleansing, don't we? 

 Yes, we all know.  Turkey has given the example.  The cleansing performed
 by Turks in Cyprus is something that should be allowed.  Serbs, on the other
 hand, should not be allowed to do the same thing.

>That is why the Turkish arm forces
>are there and will move nowhere until Turkish Cypriots
>are satisfied.  If not, that is what it will be.

 What Turkish Cypriots? How many are they left in Cyprus? Many of them
 have become imigrants because of your invasion.  Turkey has moved thousands
 of Turks (and Kurds!!) from Turkey to Cyprus in an attempt to change the
 composition of the population.  These people can vote, and soon will be
 controling the politics.  Turkey will then have achieved its purpose, which
 is to annex northern Cyprus.

>As I
>understand from past and current goverments in Turkey,
>despite all the internal problems and membership to EEC
>or not, the resounding resolution was and still is 18 years, 
>36 years 50 years do not make any difference if Turkish
>Cypriots are not convinced that there are no way of
>returning before 1974.

 See my above coment. Who can convince the thousands of Turks that Turkey
 has moved to Cyprus? Do you think everybody is stupid and cannot see what
 you are trying to do?

>>
>> What? The numerous convictions of Turkey from UN are also crap?
>> On the one hand, Turkey is refusing since 1974 to comply with the
>> UN decisions, and on the other hand you dare to call this thing crap?
>> Do you know how many nations have voted against Turkey in the UN?
>> All nations, with the exception of Pakistan. Do you thing all these
>> people are stupid, and Turkey is the clever guy who always demands but
>> never complies?

>You cannot expect to have your cake and eat it too.

 You should say this to yourself.

>Sure, the Greek side has to concede  more because they
>were the people start that mess at the first place.  Don't you 
>see the Iraqis now.  They cannot fly over their own country since they
>lose the war.  What do you expect Panos?  If you lose in
>the battle field, you must lose at the table as well.

 But this does not justify Turkish doings in Cyprus.

>Germany lost the war. They lived almost a half century
>as divided country.  Otherwise, how an aggressor can be thought not 
>to repeat those mistakes again.  These are simple things to
>be learned as common sense.  There is no way that Cyprus will 
>return the same status before 1974.  It is too late if
>you expect that.  If Turkey could be intimidated by UN to do what 
>is right, never done what it did at the first place.  We all know how 
>UN decisions are made.  At least, I learned very well at
>these recent days.

 No sir, my sence says that Turkey is the agressor in Cyprus, and that
 this agressor should pay for this thing.  My viwes and feelings haven't
 changed the last 18 years, and won't change after 50 years.


>C. Akgun
-- 
---> Panos Tamamidis
     University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe