Cyprus-Forum.com

[T_C]

OH MY GOD!!!!

AVOID DROWNING!!!!! PUT ON THE INFLATABLE VESTS PROVIDED!!!!

THE EXCUSES ARE ABOUT TO COME POURING IN!!!!

SAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVE YOURSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Get Real!]

GR, I think I've found where expatkiwi got his land figure. This is taken from http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/makarios-denktash%20talks,%2077.htm : Denktash pressed by Makarios, replied. "Since you insist I mention a percentage, I say 32.8% which corresponds to Turkish Cypriot ownership of land."

I'm pretty sure Kiwi didn't get it from anywhere and that he just "heard" it from somewhere because under enormous pressure he did not post this link or any other.

[Get Real!]

Get Real, Believe it or not, I'm not Blackey. I had thought that your reference was in retaliation to my black and white phrase, and that you had put me in the 'black' side. In regards to what I have been saying about 'shades of grey', I've been reading up on the Cyprus problem through http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/. It makes for interesting reading as to what both sides did to each other.

If you're not Blackey then tell me who in a pm please. I actually had some good news for Blackey and his book but I suppose it's pointless in telling you then. Anyway, I'm glad you've been doing some reading but I should mention that you should also read from more sites just in case.

You need to read the GC, TC, British, and UN accounts to truly start figuring out facts from fiction.

[BirKibrisli]

Has anyone heard of the saying "There are lies,damned lies,and Statistics"...

[T_C]

Yeah the lies and statistics are coming from the RoC!

Like the lie that Denktash sold our holy lands for breadcrumbs...

[utu]

A wikipedia site lists a 30% reference: Turkish Cypriot Enclaves. I didn't see expatkiwi's name in the contributor section though.

[Nikitas]

Copperline,

You mentioned the diaspora a few posts above.

There are two diaspora groups- those who emigrated in the normal course of life, like all emigrants. Then there are those who emigrated as a direct result of the 1974 upheaval. Both communities are included in both groups.

The second group, those that left as a result of the invasion obviously have direct rights to reclaim property they were forced to abandon. All emigrans have a general right to return as do their descendans who are Cypriot nationals (as defined by the Constitution of 1960).

Any plan of settlement that does not take these people into account, and more so any plan that provides for settlers and disregards the Cypriots of the diaspora, is a betrayal of Cyprus. The word betrayal here is used in its technical legal sense not in its emotive sense. Technically treason is the selling out of a nation by its own nationals. Not providing for Cypriots forced to leave due to financial hardship or use of force, and worse, not doing so while providing for foreign settlers is treason in the sense it diminishes the nation and threatens its survival in the long term. All the above apply to all communities of Cyprus, not just the Greek side.

[Pyrpolizer]

Hello CopperLine,

I understand your original post came in response of one of my comments. I understand you are also trying hard to maintain a degree of impartiality.
Obviously the article is not so accurate in fact it mixes agreements of population exchanges, humanitarian moves of people, chased refugee issues, real ethnic cleansing practices, genocides etc.

I find the article more useful in telling me when all those things happened during World wars 1 and 2, other wars, in totalitarian regimes likes the ex USSR etc.
the fact that those practices happened only some 70-100 years ago doesn't mean they are acceptable. It just means some years ago the world came to a peak in human crimes with such crimes like world wars use of nuclear weapons on the field etc.

The ethnic cleansing that happened in Cyprus in 1974 was just an effort by a backwards nation (Turkey) to revive those practices. She obviously got into big trouble, and she is paying the consequences. She, and unfortunately the TCs along with her, will continue to pay the price until the victims find justice.
In fact if you notice, there has not been a case where the aggressor has not paid a price.

I don't think there is anything to learn in terms of solving the problem that already exists in Cyprus other than a final agreement is needed.
Welcome to the core argument of the forum then.

[CopperLine]

Pyropolizer,
It might have been a comment of yours that prompted me to post this extract of an article; to be honest I can't remember.

A few points : This extract is just that, an extract - the first few paragraphs of a much longer article and so there is lots more detail and more nuanced argument than appears just in the introduction. This introduction is just a scene- or context-setter.
Second, whilst the author does refer to different types and causes of ethnic cleansing - and as she says, this is by no means an exhaustive list - the primary purpose was to show that ethnic cleansing has been a central part of state formation and state building. She clearly does not approve of ethnic cleansing (!) but her point is to show how common it has been, and that it continues today.
Third, I'd agree entirely with you that 'the fact that those practices happened only some 70-100 years ago doesn't mean they are acceptable'. The difference is that it was only from c. 1919 or even c. 1945 that there was formal international prohibition of these measures.
Fourth, in many ways I think that 1945 - Holocaust and atomic bombings - was not the peak (or depths) of such crimes, though they were certainly exceptional. Every year since 1945 has seen extensive barbarism right across the world which continues unabated and approaching WW2 levels of killings.
Fifth, I don't think it is persuasive to attribute ethnic cleansing or genocide to so-called 'backward' nations nor, therefore, that Turkey was somehow keen to 'revive' those practices. The history of the 20th century to the present is one in which the so-called most 'advanced' states have been at the forefront of genocide, ethnic cleansing and total war - USA, USSR, Germany, France, Britain, Japan etc.
Sixth, I'm more hopeful that we might learn from our mistakes and the mistakes of others. Of course a final settlement is what we're after but we might learn from how others secured a final settlement i.e, the process of negotiation, which interests were recognised and which were discounted etc.
Seventh, overall I do not believe that the Cyprus case is - in its most significant elements - either unique nor, certainly, exceptional. We can have an argument over that, I'm sure, but to make that claim does not mean - as some have suggested in this forum - that the aim is to bury the Cyprus problem or lose it in 'statistics'.

Finally, what I find both astonishing and distressing is the ease with which too many in this forum simply refuse to consider historical evidence which does not correspond or tally with their own assumptions or prejudiced opinions. If the historical evidence contradicts my argument I'm obliged, it seems to me, to amend and adjust - maybe even abandon - my particular arguments. That being the case, the argument has to revolve around the quality and reliability (and sources) of historical evidence and it cannot simply be a battle over whose opinions are expressed most shrilly and manically. It seems to me that too many people in this forum try to 'read off' a simple position/attitude depending on whether one is regarded as a GC or TC or G or T or whatever else and wholly irrespective of the historical evidence.

[Kifeas]

CopperLine, let’s cut the crap and let’s talk honestly and straight! The reason you posted the above said “article,” is no one else other than to promote the rationalisation of the Turkish illegitimate irredentist claims in Cyprus, which centre around the pursuit for a solution on the basis of the so-called realities that “two separate people /nations and two separate states already exist on the ground!” In a nutshell, you indirectly aim to promote the vindication of the illegal and illegitimate Turkish "fait accomplices" in Cyprus, since 1974!

There can be no other reason you have posted the said article, unless you want us to believe that your aim was to suggest we should go back in history and to the UN, and derecognise all those countries which (some of them indeed) were once formed on the basis of past population expulsions or ethnic cleansings!

Sorry, but we won't buy, not do we sell!