Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

... the TC component state covers only the 18.4% of the territory and the coastlines of Cyprus, since this is the percentage of population and private property ownership of your community in Cyprus.

According to the figures I have to hand, prior to 1974 26.7% of the land was state owned. That is, owned by the state in which GCs and TCs were joint partners. Why do the GCs get all of this?

They don't. With the numbers that Kifeas gives (in other of his posts he explains them in detail) GCs (together with Armenians, Latins and Maronites) get about 82% of the state owned land, and TCs get about 18% of the state owned land.

Any split would be unfair for us since we are the majority of all parts of Cyprus, (unless the TCs get autonomy over the TC only villages, and the villages that TCs are legally the majority - but in that case we would have several small TC "cantons" and not 1 state) but if we are going to split the land in two then that is the most fair (or least unfair) way to do it and there is no doubt about that.

No what Kifeas is saying is perfectly clear. Turkish Cypriots get the 18% of the land which was privately owned by them and Greek Cypriots get all the land that was privately owned by them plus ALL of the state land.

No Tim, what Kifeas is saying is that the members of the TC community (including the religious organization, evkaf,) were the owners of the 18% (actually it was 17%) of the private land. Private land is what is left after you subtract the state land (26%) from the total territory of Cyprus. Therefore, the TC ownership is what is left as the private land, i.e. the 17% of the 74% of Cyprus, or the 12.5% of the total territory of the island. The 26% that represents the state owned (public) land is also split on the basis of the 82:18, since the TC population was the 18% of the total. I hope I am clearer now!

[Sotos]

There is a counter argument which would say that, since TCs were equal partners in the RoC, they get half the state-owned land.

If they were equal partners then why we had the president and they only had the vice president? 82 is not equal to 18. Simple maths that is!

[Kifeas]

... the TC component state covers only the 18.4% of the territory and the coastlines of Cyprus, since this is the percentage of population and private property ownership of your community in Cyprus.

According to the figures I have to hand, prior to 1974 26.7% of the land was state owned. That is, owned by the state in which GCs and TCs were joint partners. Why do the GCs get all of this?

They don't. With the numbers that Kifeas gives (in other of his posts he explains them in detail) GCs (together with Armenians, Latins and Maronites) get about 82% of the state owned land, and TCs get about 18% of the state owned land.

Any split would be unfair for us since we are the majority of all parts of Cyprus, (unless the TCs get autonomy over the TC only villages, and the villages that TCs are legally the majority - but in that case we would have several small TC "cantons" and not 1 state) but if we are going to split the land in two then that is the most fair (or least unfair) way to do it and there is no doubt about that.

No what Kifeas is saying is perfectly clear. Turkish Cypriots get the 18% of the land which was privately owned by them and Greek Cypriots get all the land that was privately owned by them plus ALL of the state land.

Tim,

I don't think you have seen Kifeas's post on land ownership and I don't have it to show it to you now, but the 18% land includes TC's private land owned (around 12.5 %) as well as 18% of all the State land, which is about another 5-6 % to make it total of around 18% roughly for the TC's..

OK. Thanks for the clarification. I thought he was saying that TCs collectively own 18% of the land as private property, and that's all they get.
There is a counter argument which would say that, since TCs were equal partners in the RoC, they get half the state-owned land.
It is all academic, anyway. Certain realities, not least the presence of 40,000 Turkish troops, dictate that partition would amount to a formal recognition of the de facto situation, with a few sweeteners such as the return of Varosha thrown in.

Oh I see, you also bought this Turkish argument as well! Well, no where in the 1960 constitution there is a mention of the word partnership or partners, set aside a mention about equal partners! And even if we assume that in the spirit (not in the letter) of the constitution, they were equal partners, that would only refer to their political rights as a community, and not to the state owned assets of the country, as such! Of course, having been in Turkey, and having heard your beloved Ataturk's slogan probably a million times, that "one Turk equals the whole world," I suppose I should feel lucky you didn't find a "premise" to claim that they own the whole of Cyprus, including everything the GCs own as well!

[Tim Drayton]

... the TC component state covers only the 18.4% of the territory and the coastlines of Cyprus, since this is the percentage of population and private property ownership of your community in Cyprus.

According to the figures I have to hand, prior to 1974 26.7% of the land was state owned. That is, owned by the state in which GCs and TCs were joint partners. Why do the GCs get all of this?

They don't. With the numbers that Kifeas gives (in other of his posts he explains them in detail) GCs (together with Armenians, Latins and Maronites) get about 82% of the state owned land, and TCs get about 18% of the state owned land.

Any split would be unfair for us since we are the majority of all parts of Cyprus, (unless the TCs get autonomy over the TC only villages, and the villages that TCs are legally the majority - but in that case we would have several small TC "cantons" and not 1 state) but if we are going to split the land in two then that is the most fair (or least unfair) way to do it and there is no doubt about that.

No what Kifeas is saying is perfectly clear. Turkish Cypriots get the 18% of the land which was privately owned by them and Greek Cypriots get all the land that was privately owned by them plus ALL of the state land.

Tim,

I don't think you have seen Kifeas's post on land ownership and I don't have it to show it to you now, but the 18% land includes TC's private land owned (around 12.5 %) as well as 18% of all the State land, which is about another 5-6 % to make it total of around 18% roughly for the TC's..

OK. Thanks for the clarification. I thought he was saying that TCs collectively own 18% of the land as private property, and that's all they get.
There is a counter argument which would say that, since TCs were equal partners in the RoC, they get half the state-owned land.
It is all academic, anyway. Certain realities, not least the presence of 40,000 Turkish troops, dictate that partition would amount to a formal recognition of the de facto situation, with a few sweeteners such as the return of Varosha thrown in.

Oh I see, you also bought this Turkish argument as well! Well, no where in the 1960 constitution there is a mention of the word partnership or partners, set aside a mention about equal partners! And even if we assume that in the spirit (not in the letter) of the constitution, they were equal partners, that would only refer to their political rights as a community, and not to the state owned assets of the country, as such! Of course, having been in Turkey, and having heart your beloved Ataturk's slogan probably a million times, that "one Turk equals the whole world," I suppose I should feel lucky you didn't find a premise to claim that they own the whole of Cyprus, including everything the GCs own as well!

Sarcasm does not become you. I want to see a strong, independent Cyprus that is in a position to resist Turkish expansionism. This calls for unity, not conflict, between GCs and TCs.

[Kifeas]

Well Tim, as far as I am concerned, if we are to follow the TC positions on the solution of the Cyprus issue, such a strong independed Cyprus to resist Turkish expansionism, as you, me and the rest of the GCs desire, will never materialize! The only thing that will emerge, as it would have also been the case with the Anan plan, is a Cyprus being under the suzerainty of Turkey, as its protectorate! That is why I have personally concluted that partition may be the only reasonable outcome, as I see the TC positions will never change!

[Piratis]

... e.g. taking him from behind, then by all means do

Since you insist to indulge on indecency Piratis, then may I suggest that Muzzy takes you from the ... front. Of course, only if you have had the sex change operation you were talking about, otherwise it will be rather painful.

Bananiot, I never gave the right to anybody to "screw" me. If anybody tries then I will fight back with whatever means I have. If by any chance the one who wants to "screw" me is too powerful and I, the police and the laws can not protect me, then I will make sure that I will "screw" him back and get even. What is certain is that I will not just bend over and let them constantly screw me without them facing the consequences.

You on the other hand would just bent over to be fucked, and you will say thank you to the one who screws you if he uses some Vaseline. And if by any chance his "member" gets a bit injured while screwing you, then you will accept all the responsibility for his "suffering" and feel obligated to give him a blow job as well.

So I repeat to you: If you are submissive and masochistic that is your own personal right. Go and enjoy to personally get screwed. But don't expect the decent people to stop fighting for what is just and right, just because your masters told you that justice is not an option.

[pantheman]

... e.g. taking him from behind, then by all means do

Since you insist to indulge on indecency Piratis, then may I suggest that Muzzy takes you from the ... front. Of course, only if you have had the sex change operation you were talking about, otherwise it will be rather painful.

Bananiot, I never gave the right to anybody to "screw" me. If anybody tries then I will fight back with whatever means I have. If by any chance the one who wants to "screw" me is too powerful and I, the police and the laws can not protect me, then I will make sure that I will "screw" him back and get even. What is certain is that I will not just bend over and let them constantly screw me without them facing the consequences.

You on the other hand would just bent over to be fucked, and you will say thank you to the one who screws you if he uses some Vaseline. And if by any chance his "member" gets a bit injured while screwing you, then you will accept all the responsibility for his "suffering" and feel obligated to give him a blow job as well.

So I repeat to you: If you are submissive and masochistic that is your own personal right. Go and enjoy to personally get screwed. But don't expect the decent people to stop fighting for what is just and right, just because your masters told you that justice is not an option.

well said P.

[Tim Drayton]

There is a maxim which states: "Possession is nine tenths of the law". Once you jettisson the legitimacy under international law provided by the 1960 agreements, everything is up for grabs.

[pantheman]

There is a maxim which states: "Possession is nine tenths of the law". Once you jettisson the legitimacy under international law provided by the 1960 agreements, everything is up for grabs.

yeah, thats what a theif would say who just just nicked your car, I guess you would go along with that then, would you??

[Tim Drayton]

There is a maxim which states: "Possession is nine tenths of the law". Once you jettisson the legitimacy under international law provided by the 1960 agreements, everything is up for grabs.

yeah, thats what a theif would say who just just nicked your car, I guess you would go along with that then, would you??

That is why you need the rule of law.