Cyprus-Forum.com

[cannedmoose]

De jure they belong to GCs, de facto they belong to TCs or settled Turks... I think that's what he means...

[detailer]

De jure they belong to GCs, de facto they belong to TCs or settled Turks... I think that's what he means...

[detailer]

Kifeas, the way your question was phrased in English made it seem that you think properties in the north are no longer owned by GCs, hence Brother's confusion...

It was a perfectly straightforward question. Technically it can even be answered with a "yes" or "no".
Anyhow, I believe the clarification I made later doesn't live the slightest doubt as to what my question was.

I am still waiting for his straightforward answer.

Some questions are straight forward, but dont have necessarily straightforward answers.

[Kifeas]

De jure they belong to GCs, de facto they belong to TCs or settled Turks... I think that's what he means...

I can understand that de facto they are occupied by Turkey or that de facto they are held by TCs or settled Turks, but what does it mean "de facto they belong to TCs?"

The term “belongs” presupposes legitimacy.

Can you say that something belongs to you if it doesn’t legally (de jure) belong to you?

[Kifeas]

Kifeas, the way your question was phrased in English made it seem that you think properties in the north are no longer owned by GCs, hence Brother's confusion...

It was a perfectly straightforward question. Technically it can even be answered with a "yes" or "no".
Anyhow, I believe the clarification I made later doesn't live the slightest doubt as to what my question was.

I am still waiting for his straightforward answer.

Some questions are straight forward, but dont have necessarily straightforward answers.

I agree, if someone wants to escape from answering a straightforward question. However, he sincerity will remain questionable, if not nullified entirely.

[detailer]

this "legality" is subject to change in a possible agreement to some extent.

Of course, there will be some kind of compensation for this change.

[Viewpoint]

detailer

this "legality" is subject to change in a possible agreement to some extent.

Of course, there will be some kind of compensation for this change.

some people have yet to realize, digest and come to terms with this reality.

[Kifeas]

this "legality" is subject to change in a possible agreement to some extent.

Of course, there will be some kind of compensation for this change.

Yes, but we do not know yet if it will change and in which way and to what extend it will change.

Therefore, in the absence of any such agreement (yet,) do you accept that the properties that the GCs left in the north, belong or not, to the GCs?

[detailer]

If this does not change forever, the legality will stay as "legality".

[Kifeas]

detailer

this "legality" is subject to change in a possible agreement to some extent.

Of course, there will be some kind of compensation for this change.

some people have yet to realize, digest and come to terms with this reality.

With which reality?