Piratis, I didn't "choose to ignore what [I] don't like?" That is just idle and mischievous speculation. It is equally the case that despite the fact that I argued that 'blood' arguments are scientific nonsense, you repeated that "we can easily identify if any of us has any Turkish blood in him." Shouldn't I also charge you with "choose to ignore what you don't like?" [Incidentally if this visual blood testing skill is so simple and self-evident, why don't forensic investigators like those in CSI use this method instead of setting up complex and expensive labs ?] There are many things to write about, many comments from many writers to consider. On a Forum of all places we'd be all lost if we made the assumption that that which didn't get a direct reply was a function of our displeasure or dissent !
Who said it was? The "indegeousness" discussion is just a response to those that say that in Cyprus there are two peoples. If there are indeed two peoples, and the invading Ottoman Turks never mixed up with the Cypriots that inhabited the island (as Murataga claims), then obviously the "TCs" are nothing more than Turks that now live in Cyprus, and have noting to do with the Cypriot population.
Our rights are crystal clear and are based on international law, human rights and the very simple fact that we are legally the great majority at all parts of the island. Who is indigenous and who is not is just a side discussion and has very little to do with our rights.
I can say this with at least some authority since as part of my professional work I'm a specialist in International Law, first, so-called national rights are not 'crystal clear' in international law as you assert. The ambiguity of national rights is something not just confined to Cyprus and Cypriots but is endemic to international law as a whole. If national rights were as clear as you insist then, arguably the Cyprus question wouldn't be so vexed. Nor would those of Israel/Palestine, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Armenia, Burma, Pakistan, Rwanda, Somalia, Mexico, Guatemala, Russia, even the UK and Ireland. Second, that the majority of a given country's population can be identified as being from Group X does not give Group X *more* or stronger rights. The whole point of modern republican citizenship, from at least the French Revolution onwards, was that citizens were equal before the law, that is to say held equal sets of rights before the law. That one was a 'national' or a religious believer, a man or a woman, rich or poor, country bumpkin or urbane cosmopilitan was no longer, in principle, to be relevant. Now that we enjoy EU citizenship it means, in principle, that you enjoy equality before the law with a Finnish Muslim woman, and a Spanish atheist pensioner. Third you mention specifically the basis of Cypriot rights in human rights. But, I repeat, the whole point of human rights is that they inhere in persons because they are human beings (hence *human* rights) and not because one claims a national identity. The most obvious and familiar codification of human rights is the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights [you can find the full and definitive text here
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/ ]. Look at Article 2 in particular, which is one of the sources of my points above - its says :
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Incidentally the second paragraph of Article 2, amongst others, confirms the rights which Turkish Cypriots should enjoy even though TRNC is an unrecognised state. The UDHR 1948 is specifically designed to protect individuals first and foremost, not collective or social rights. (There are other international legal instruments which deal with the latter).
The other Article, 15, that's probably especially relevant to this discussion states :
Article 15
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
But neither that article nor any other makes any connections whatsoever between claims to indigeneity and national rights. It couldn't do, because if it did it would contradict the rest of the Declaration and and undermine the very principle upon which modern human rights law has developed, namely equality of the individual.
Finally I do confess that I'm confused by your response because as I understand it - and I'm sure people will correct me if I'm mistaken - GetReal introduced this thread by making some claims about the importance of indigeneity to the Cyprus problem, the title of this thread is after all "Are Turkish Cypriots indigenous to Cyprus ?', then there was a discussion about what indigenous means, who was or was not indigenous, how we might be able to classify someone as indigenous or invader or whatever else. And my contributions were mainly intending to argue that it is not possible at all to define indigeneity still less establish any criteria, and it was in that context that I tried to dismiss any effort to come up with a DNA or blood test of indigeneity. In any case I argued in a casual phrase, that you part quoted, no connection can be made between scientific claims and social-political conclusions over disputes. [In case of any ambiguity in my meaning of 'dispute', I meant socio-political disputes in general and not necessarily the Cyprus dispute in particular].
You seem to want to take a jump from asserting that GCs and not TCs are indigenous and that because of that the rights of GCs are more firmly rooted, and the TCs because, according to you, are not indigenous have no rights or at most very weak rights. And I am saying to you that this jump is illicit and it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding as to the sources, character and organisation of rights, including human rights, both within states and in international law.
One final thought for the moment : when does "I am a Greek Cypriot born and living in Cyprus" become "We are Greek Cypriots who have always lived in Cyprus" ? Natural beings, like you and I, live for 'three score years and ten', but collectivities seem to live longer ... at least in our
historical imagination. Indigeneity is figment of the imagined community.
Did he? I must've missed that! 
