Cyprus-Forum.com

[repulsewarrior]

...i remember the "church" thread, and so kikapu i agree with you. vp, dogma from a book is ok, but in reality all we want is something better. things won't stay the same. you must consider that, or continue your fight in a trench, either way you loose because of your own intolerance.

[bilako22]

VP,

It is very obvious that one cannot have a serious discussion with you, because anything said that you don't like, you start your petty accusation and read stuff in my post that was never written or intended to lead you to think that way, but you will do anything to defend the most indefensible acts just to protect your interest, even if it means to violate others Human and Democratic Rights. If a solution is going to come, you better get ready for hard and painful compromises to be made and much more in the north than in the south, only because large majority of the land in the north belongs to the GC's. 2004 AP was designed to overcome these problems for the TC's and settlers at the expense of the rightful owners, but as you may have heard, that plan failed 4 years ago and the new negotiations will discuss all the problems we have in Cyprus, from security, land distribution, property rights, freedom of movement, return of settlers and so on.

You certainly know how to put the GC side forward.

Again, the 2004 AP took care of all these "little" problems for one community and tried to screwed the other, and if this is your idea of what a settlement is all about, than you better call Talat to end them tomorrow, because they will fail in the end anyway. We are not going to have long lasting peace if only very little is going to change on the ground. But that is a foolish thing for me to say when it comes to you VP, because just like Denktash, you really do not want anything to change on the ground, and if it wasn't for the fact that Cyprus is in the EU, there wouldn't even be any crossings open today or that we would be trying to find a solution. All you will be waiting for, would be for a recognition to come. You might get your BBF, but it is going to cost you plenty. Peace is a two way street and each community will need to their part to make it happen and stay that way. The bigger question is VP, are you ready to make the compromises that are needed for peace. My gut feelings tells me, that you are not yet ready. What do you say.??

[Get Real!]

A Bananiot of the other side, Izet Iztzan (Secretary General of the United Cyprus party) said

Why is Izet Iztzan a "Bananiot" of the other side?

What's happening to Bananiot... he now thinks he's a Russian?

[Viewpoint]

Please everyone read this post, noway can this style or level of argument be put forward by a TC, its not possible this is from the mouth of a hardliner GC, the post reeks hate and a sick happiness that TCs will suffer in a solution due to the fact that they have built on GC land.

Well listen up Mr Doom and Gloom if that's what a solution orders and we agree to it, that's what will happen but never forget that we to have the right to reject anything that we feel we cannot accept, you cannot force us to do anything against our will.

The part I have highlighted is your imagination how will they loose their investment? do you think TCs will accept a solution where TCs will suffer by loosing their investments, the TRNC who will be linked into a united Cyprus will have to cough up if such an agreement is reached as they are the ones who issued these deeds and that indirectly will effect GCs negatively in a united Cyprus. So feel free to shoot yourselves in the foot if you think TCs will ever vote for a solution where they will loose their property build on deeds given to them by the TRNC. All these just like in other examples will be settled via the current occupant having the right to purchase at a fixed price just like it was in the AP.

I don't claim to have the knowledge of the Cyprus Problem that some of you have but I thought that Kikapu's post made sense and I certainly didn't pick up on any 'sick happiness' as you put it.

The problem with living in an illegal regime is that any of that regime's titles are essentially worthless. When the original titles deeds are recognised then they override any new ones distributed by your 'TRNC'. Plus, seeing as your 'TRNC' will be reborn as the 'Turkish Constituent State' you've got no chance of holding your TRNC leaders accountable as they wont officially be in charge anymore and the new government wont be responsible for their actions. Again, that's because your current regime is illegal.

Even if the 'current occupiers' are given the right to purchase the land, then who says the original occupier has to sell? Even if they would sell, why would they sell it to the 'current occupier' at a discount?

As for TCs refusing to agree to it and pull out of the talks, then it is the TC side who will have scuppered the negotiations and judging by most of the posts in this forum, most GCs wont mind if this plan doesn't go through.

That's just my opinion though, i'll let you big guys fight it out.

Any solution will have to incorporate these factors and at the last attempt these issues were not addressed as GCs demanded, this in turn was another reason why they rejected the AP. If any new solution does not resolve this issue in a union adequately we to have the right to reject whats on offer and get the same response as the GCs, don't you think?

[Kikapu]

I don't claim to have the knowledge of the Cyprus Problem that some of you have but I thought that Kikapu's post made sense and I certainly didn't pick up on any 'sick happiness' as you put it.

The problem with living in an illegal regime is that any of that regime's titles are essentially worthless. When the original titles deeds are recognised then they override any new ones distributed by your 'TRNC'. Plus, seeing as your 'TRNC' will be reborn as the 'Turkish Constituent State' you've got no chance of holding your TRNC leaders accountable as they wont officially be in charge anymore and the new government wont be responsible for their actions. Again, that's because your current regime is illegal.

Even if the 'current occupiers' are given the right to purchase the land, then who says the original occupier has to sell? Even if they would sell, why would they sell it to the 'current occupier' at a discount?

As for TCs refusing to agree to it and pull out of the talks, then it is the TC side who will have scuppered the negotiations and judging by most of the posts in this forum, most GCs wont mind if this plan doesn't go through.

That's just my opinion though, i'll let you big guys fight it out.

Magnus,

You seem to have a handle on the reality on what has happened regarding the GC's properties in the north by the reckless leaders of the "TRNC", which today is one of the most contentious problems for peace. The actions of the reckless leaders were deliberate at the time the decision was made to sell off the GC's properties, because as far as they were concerned, Cyprus problem was solved once and for all. All that was missing, was a recognition by the world and never had to look back again. Well, that plan was working very nicely until Cyprus became a EU member and recognition by the world never came, which has changed the dynamics on the ground, but not before the damage was done by the reckless leaders. Since Cyprus has been in the EU, selling off GC land by the "TRNC" has stopped, however, individuals continue to do so, knowing full well (or should have known) that they are dealing in "hot" properties and one day, they will have to face the music. In the eyes of the law, ignorance is hardly an excuse to escape punishment for taking part in illegal activities. For most of these people, the worse that is going to happen, is lose some or all of their investments, and they have zero excuses or blame others, other than themselves. They are the one's that gambled by rolling the dice, but unfortunately for them, they were playing "Russian Roulette" instead of "Craps".

That's just my opinion though, i'll let you big guys fight it out.

Don't sell yourself short Magnus, because the way you see reality, you are already up there with the Big Guys.!!

Actually, you are way ahead of some of our "Big Guys" around here.

[Magnus]

Please everyone read this post, noway can this style or level of argument be put forward by a TC, its not possible this is from the mouth of a hardliner GC, the post reeks hate and a sick happiness that TCs will suffer in a solution due to the fact that they have built on GC land.

Well listen up Mr Doom and Gloom if that's what a solution orders and we agree to it, that's what will happen but never forget that we to have the right to reject anything that we feel we cannot accept, you cannot force us to do anything against our will.

The part I have highlighted is your imagination how will they loose their investment? do you think TCs will accept a solution where TCs will suffer by loosing their investments, the TRNC who will be linked into a united Cyprus will have to cough up if such an agreement is reached as they are the ones who issued these deeds and that indirectly will effect GCs negatively in a united Cyprus. So feel free to shoot yourselves in the foot if you think TCs will ever vote for a solution where they will loose their property build on deeds given to them by the TRNC. All these just like in other examples will be settled via the current occupant having the right to purchase at a fixed price just like it was in the AP.

I don't claim to have the knowledge of the Cyprus Problem that some of you have but I thought that Kikapu's post made sense and I certainly didn't pick up on any 'sick happiness' as you put it.

The problem with living in an illegal regime is that any of that regime's titles are essentially worthless. When the original titles deeds are recognised then they override any new ones distributed by your 'TRNC'. Plus, seeing as your 'TRNC' will be reborn as the 'Turkish Constituent State' you've got no chance of holding your TRNC leaders accountable as they wont officially be in charge anymore and the new government wont be responsible for their actions. Again, that's because your current regime is illegal.

Even if the 'current occupiers' are given the right to purchase the land, then who says the original occupier has to sell? Even if they would sell, why would they sell it to the 'current occupier' at a discount?

As for TCs refusing to agree to it and pull out of the talks, then it is the TC side who will have scuppered the negotiations and judging by most of the posts in this forum, most GCs wont mind if this plan doesn't go through.

That's just my opinion though, i'll let you big guys fight it out.

Any solution will have to incorporate these factors and at the last attempt these issues were not addressed as GCs demanded, this in turn was another reason why they rejected the AP. If any new solution does not resolve this issue in a union adequately we to have the right to reject whats on offer and get the same response as the GCs, don't you think?

I didn't say that you wont have the right to reject the proposals, I said that if you do reject them then it is the TC side who will have scuppered the negotiations. I'm pretty sure that wont help your quest for recognition in the eyes of the international community in the event of the BBF plan falling apart.

Whether you should have the right to negotiate on property that was taken by invasion and is being occupied illegally is an entirely different matter.

[Viewpoint]

Please everyone read this post, noway can this style or level of argument be put forward by a TC, its not possible this is from the mouth of a hardliner GC, the post reeks hate and a sick happiness that TCs will suffer in a solution due to the fact that they have built on GC land.

Well listen up Mr Doom and Gloom if that's what a solution orders and we agree to it, that's what will happen but never forget that we to have the right to reject anything that we feel we cannot accept, you cannot force us to do anything against our will.

The part I have highlighted is your imagination how will they loose their investment? do you think TCs will accept a solution where TCs will suffer by loosing their investments, the TRNC who will be linked into a united Cyprus will have to cough up if such an agreement is reached as they are the ones who issued these deeds and that indirectly will effect GCs negatively in a united Cyprus. So feel free to shoot yourselves in the foot if you think TCs will ever vote for a solution where they will loose their property build on deeds given to them by the TRNC. All these just like in other examples will be settled via the current occupant having the right to purchase at a fixed price just like it was in the AP.

I don't claim to have the knowledge of the Cyprus Problem that some of you have but I thought that Kikapu's post made sense and I certainly didn't pick up on any 'sick happiness' as you put it.

The problem with living in an illegal regime is that any of that regime's titles are essentially worthless. When the original titles deeds are recognised then they override any new ones distributed by your 'TRNC'. Plus, seeing as your 'TRNC' will be reborn as the 'Turkish Constituent State' you've got no chance of holding your TRNC leaders accountable as they wont officially be in charge anymore and the new government wont be responsible for their actions. Again, that's because your current regime is illegal.

Even if the 'current occupiers' are given the right to purchase the land, then who says the original occupier has to sell? Even if they would sell, why would they sell it to the 'current occupier' at a discount?

As for TCs refusing to agree to it and pull out of the talks, then it is the TC side who will have scuppered the negotiations and judging by most of the posts in this forum, most GCs wont mind if this plan doesn't go through.

That's just my opinion though, i'll let you big guys fight it out.

Any solution will have to incorporate these factors and at the last attempt these issues were not addressed as GCs demanded, this in turn was another reason why they rejected the AP. If any new solution does not resolve this issue in a union adequately we to have the right to reject whats on offer and get the same response as the GCs, don't you think?

I didn't say that you wont have the right to reject the proposals, I said that if you do reject them then it is the TC side who will have scuppered the negotiations. I'm pretty sure that wont help your quest for recognition in the eyes of the international community in the event of the BBF plan falling apart.

Whether you should have the right to negotiate on property that was taken by invasion and is being occupied illegally is an entirely different matter.

We will have to weigh up the consequences just as the GCs did over the AP, we have a right 100% because many TCs have invested money and their lives in that land and in many cases have utilized the property more than the previous occupants.

[Magnus]

Magnus,

You seem to have a handle on the reality on what has happened regarding the GC's properties in the north by the reckless leaders of the "TRNC", which today is one of the most contentious problems for peace. The actions of the reckless leaders were deliberate at the time the decision was made to sell off the GC's properties, because as far as they were concerned, Cyprus problem was solved once and for all. All that was missing, was a recognition by the world and never had to look back again. Well, that plan was working very nicely until Cyprus became a EU member and recognition by the world never came, which has changed the dynamics on the ground, but not before the damage was done by the reckless leaders. Since Cyprus has been in the EU, selling off GC land by the "TRNC" has stopped, however, individuals continue to do so, knowing full well (or should have known) that they are dealing in "hot" properties and one day, they will have to face the music. In the eyes of the law, ignorance is hardly an excuse to escape punishment for taking part in illegal activities. For most of these people, the worse that is going to happen, is lose some or all of their investments, and they have zero excuses or blame others, other than themselves. They are the one's that gambled by rolling the dice, but unfortunately for them, they were playing "Russian Roulette" instead of "Craps".

That's just my opinion though, i'll let you big guys fight it out.

Don't sell yourself short Magnus, because the way you see reality, you are already up there with the Big Guys.!!

Actually, you are way ahead of some of our "Big Guys" around here.

Thank you, but I really am not as informed about the intricate details as everyone else seems to be. I don't even expect a reply. I'm just here to learn and to understand, and I make my observations based on my experiences of being around people that lived through those times and on my understanding of what I have read and think is true and morally correct.

[Magnus]

We will have to weigh up the consequences just as the GCs did over the AP, we have a right 100% because many TCs have invested money and their lives in that land and in many cases have utilized the property more than the previous occupants.

You can't judge what the previous occupants did with the land, they were forced to leave it in 1974. Up until that time they were living in a totally different world, not today's economies. Who can say what they would have done with their land had they not been forced to leave it?

The fact that TCs or settlers have invested their money and efforts on that land really doesn't wash with me. They knew they were inhabiting that land illegally but took the risk. If you take a risk you must be prepared to lose.

If I buy a stolen car, spray it a nice new colour and drive it around, it doesn't change the fact that it was stolen from someone else. I have to expect that one day it might get taken from me and I could end up going to jail. That is the risk I take for buying it, so I can't complain when the law catches up to me. I know that's simple logic but I think the same principle applies to anything stolen, be it a car, land, a house or whatever.

[Viewpoint]

We will have to weigh up the consequences just as the GCs did over the AP, we have a right 100% because many TCs have invested money and their lives in that land and in many cases have utilized the property more than the previous occupants.

You can't judge what the previous occupants did with the land, they were forced to leave it in 1974. Up until that time they were living in a totally different world, not today's economies. Who can say what they would have done with their land had they not been forced to leave it?

The fact that TCs or settlers have invested their money and efforts on that land really doesn't wash with me. They knew they were inhabiting that land illegally but took the risk. If you take a risk you must be prepared to lose.

If I buy a stolen car, spray it a nice new colour and drive it around, it doesn't change the fact that it was stolen from someone else. I have to expect that one day it might get taken from me and I could end up going to jail. That is the risk I take for buying it, so I can't complain when the law catches up to me. I know that's simple logic but I think the same principle applies to anything stolen, be it a car, land, a house or whatever.

Nothing was stolen it was abandoned which is a totally a different thing we did the same in south. The usage was automatic as people without homes will settle in what they can find you cannot honestly expect anyone to leave empty houses standing around and force them to build new homes this is not logical or practical and does not happen anywhere in the world.

The selling on of land or property only really took off after the referendum when is was realized that property resolution will be along the lines of precedents around the world eg Poland where the current occupant will pay the difference on property surrendered against property utilized. The previous occupant will get financial compensation or offered any alternative available land or surrenderd land. Dont forget that the majority of land used by the TCs has something offset against it in the south.