Cyprus-Forum.com

[garbitsch]

Magik, please add Bush (Poust) and Blair (Bliar) to the list....

[erolz]

The Greeks didn't force these people out of their villages. They founded new cities, something that might be hard for you to understand since Turks never created anything, just stole what others created.

The greeks colonised Cyprus just as many others did before and after them.

The Greek culture and language was not forced on anybody in Cyprus. The rest inhabitants of this island simply adopted it because as you probably know the Greek civilization was one of the greatest that ever existed.

Ahh the greatness of Greek Civilisation. The UK (or ottomans) did not colonise Cyprus or force anything on Cypriots. Cypriots simply adopted it because as you probably know the British civilisation was one of the greatest that ever existed.

Well, I talked about balance of power before and you come here with your usual hypocrisy to say that you are a dreamer, dreaming of a better world etc.

No you talked of the Cyprus problem being an issue purely of 'legality' and nothing else. I have merely pointed out the falacy in your perception that there is some kind of international law that has jusridiction and authority to judge weather a state is based on illegal stealing of land or not and enforce it's judgments. Obviosuly facing this reality is hard and unpalatable for you - but it does not change the reality.

With what you said now, I guess you agree that it is all about balance of power, and that when the balance change we have every right to reclaim our land and do whatever we want with you. Right?

You HAD the balance of power and you did whatever you wanted, regardless of human rights and legality and morality. It was this very abuse of the balance of power that led to you loosing it. What I want is for us to break out of this cycle. WHat you want is to regain the balance of power and perpetuate the cycle.

So meanwhile we will try to harm you as much as possible, and you will do the same for us. And then we will see who will win in the end. If the concept of international law does not exist for you, then why are we wasting our time discussing anything? Our bullets will talk in the right time which is apparently the only thing you can accept: violence.

I am not the one who casts the senario in terms of winning and loosing and harming the other side and the use of 'weapons' (phtsical, polticial or 'legal') or who dreams of you regaining a balance of power such that you can once again act without regard for legality and human rights and impose your will on the TC community. I want to talk about compromise, negotiation and polticial settlment to a political probelm. You seem to prefer talk of forced submission and conflict and violence.

You admit that you talk of 'legality' because you believe it to be a 'weapon' to be used against TC community. You clearly would prefer a more effective weapon and an ability to force through violence your own solution in Cyprus (just as you did before 74 and has nor been done to you since 74). You believe that you will eventualy be able to once again force your will on the TC community. This then is your idea of solving the Cyprus problem. This is no solution just a continuation of the Cyprus problem.

[Piratis]

More BS from Mr. Piratis... your posts are losing taste....

Thats a vague statement Mr. Garbitsch

With what you disagree?

[magikthrill]

c. The giving away of GC properties to Settlers. This is even worse than b above, because international law explicitly prohibits occupying powers to demographically alter areas that are under their military control.

i had no idea this was the fact. maybe someone should inform mr. annan about this.

[magikthrill]

Magik, please add Bush (Poust) and Blair (Bliar) to the list....

definitely.

i always say that 9/11 shouldnt have been two hijacked passenger plans in a building but rather hijacked sharon and kissingers planes and fly those fuckers to brussels.

now that would be something we could all applaud

[Alexandros Lordos]

The Greeks didn't force these people out of their villages. They founded new cities, something that might be hard for you to understand since Turks never created anything, just stole what others created.

More BS from Mr. Piratis... your posts are losing taste....

Piratis' style might be somewhat harsh, but historically what he said above is not far from the truth.

Most Turkish cities were not built by the ancestors of the turks, i.e. the ottomans. They were in fact conquered by the ottomans amidst much bloodshed, leading to the subjugation of the local populations. Take Istanbul, for instance, undoubtedly the crowning jewel of modern Turkey. It was built by Greek settlers in the fourth century b.c., then used as the capital of the Greco-Roman empire that came to be known as the "byzantine empire", and was then violently taken over by the ottomans in 1453. A similar history can be traced for most of the major coastal cities of western Turkey. This is simply the way that Ottoman/Turkish civilization evolved, through war and conquest.

Greek civilization did not evolve in the same way - this is also true. The Greeks underwent a massive wave of colonisation from the 14th to the 4rd century bc, during which period hundreds of new cities were built from scratch. Alexander the Great was the only significant "conqueror" in Greek history, but his empire collapsed immediately after his death. The byzantine empire also was not very good at expansionism through conquest, and it gradually succumbed to the pressure of its neighbours who were more willing to take the path of war. Greeks have always been better at fighting each other than fighting other people.

All this of course is history, the above does not necessarily describe modern Turkey or modern Greece - or modern Turks and Greeks for that matter - but it is the historical truth.

[Piratis]

The greeks colonized Cyprus just as many others did before and after them.

No. It was not just like. The Greeks founded new cities and created civilization in Cyprus. They didn't force anybody out of their property and they didn't use other inhabitants as slaves.

Ahh the greatness of Greek Civilisation. The UK (or ottomans) did not colonise Cyprus or force anything on Cypriots. Cypriots simply adopted it because as you probably know the British civilisation was one of the greatest that ever existed.

You disagree about the greatness of the Greek civilization. Once we had the Greek civilization why would we adopt (without being forced) anything inferior?

I am not the one who casts the senario in terms of winning and loosing and harming the other side and the use of 'weapons' (phtsical, polticial or 'legal') or who dreams of you regaining a balance of power such that you can once again act without regard for legality and human rights and impose your will on the TC community.

You choose what you want: legality and human rights, or not?

[Kifeas]

Erol,
The mere fact that the TC community’s “leadership” ....

Kifeas you miss my point entierly....

Erol, The Cyprus problem is not a simple issue like the example of the stolen car that you gave. They are not the same or analogous. The Cyprus problem consists of various parameters and elements each one of them having different implications. Some of them pertain to political decisions (agreements,) some of them pertain to issues of international legality (or illegality.) That is why the U.N. proposal (Annan plan) was called a comprehensive settlement proposal. Because it aimed at addressing both the political issues and the legal issues in a package format. Most probably that is why it failed, but this is another story.

The example of the car as you put it down, is a very simple issue and thus it can be dealt in a pretty much simple way. A similar example in international politics would be the invasion of Iraq into Kuwait. The international community, with the U.S. in charge, obtained a pretty much easy resolution from the U.N. SC, due to the fact that the invasion itself was illegal (against the chart of the U.N.) and unprovoked, and then went ahead and executed the decision by attacking Iraq, ending it’s occupation in Kuwait. This is one prime example in which international legality was enforced by the U.N., via a collision of a number of member countries. Obviously the U.N. doesn’t it’s own means and relies for the enforcement of it’s decisions on the willingness of it’s members states to implement them, presumably under it’s guidance.

That answers your argument regarding the similarities and differences of national and international laws. Both of them are laws and both of them can or may be enforced or not. There are plenty of cases of national laws that are not enforced as well. Not necessarily because they are not enforceable but because there are other factors (mafia, corrupted police and judicial authorities, political covering, etc,) which make their enforcement a difficult issue. That doesn’t mean that in such countries (by the way it happens in almost all countries, including the most developed ones,) there are no laws and /or people in general do not abide by the laws because they are an abstract notion, as you claimed that it is the case with international laws.

Back to the case of Cyprus, in my view, two reasons have made the non-enforcement of international legality a fact, and none of them relates with the inexistence of it or it’s presumed by you unenforceability in general. The first and the most important reason is the paramount (unique) importance that Turkey played and perhaps continues to play in the planes and the assigned role that the U.S. has given her. The second reason is that together and simultaneously with the violation of international law by Turkey (invasion, occupation, forceful relocation of people and denial of property rights,) the Cyprus problem had gained a political dimension as a result of the initial agreements that were made right after 1974 between the two communities, to change the constitution and move from a unitary state into a federal state. That is why the Cyprus problem is a more complicated issue than just the example of the stolen car.

I am certain about one thing, if in the place of Turkey it would have been almost any other country, the legal dimension of the Cyprus problem would have been dealt by the international community much more effectively. International legislation does exist and it works in similar ways like any national legislation. After all, the countries participating in the U.N. organisation, before becoming members, sign a treaty by which the undertake the obligation to respect the chart of the U.N. and the Security Council resolutions and all subsequent decision and parameters of international legislation and agreements. Likewise in the case of national legality, especially when there are week and corrupted judicial and law enforcement mechanisms, we have those powerful ones who get along and escape punishment (a very frequent phenomena in very many –if not in most countries,) the same can be said for international legality. You can argue that international legality is similar or along the same level or even worst, in terms of respect and enforcement, but you cannot argue that it doesn’t exist or it is entirely unenforceable, likewise you cannot say the same for national legality in those countries that I am referring to as an example.

Has the GC side sat back all these years and didn’t negotiate for a comprehensive settlement, and instead it simply argued that the Cyprus problem is only a legal issue and unless the illegality is not terminated we do not negotiate anything else? The answer is “No.” Does it mean though that because we negotiate for a settlement of the political dimension, we have to ignore completely the legal dimension, especially at a time when the country that commits the illegality is also patronising or dictating it’s will (through various ways and means,) on the TC community and thus making the reaching of a political settlement a more difficult one, or at a time when pending a settlement, the TC community’s leadership is increasing the magnitude of the illegality dimension, by allowing the estrangement of GCs from their properties and arguing that this is essential for the TC community’s survival.

[Murtaza]

The Greeks didn't force these people out of their villages. They founded new cities, something that might be hard for you to understand since Turks never created anything, just stole what others created.

More BS from Mr. Piratis... your posts are losing taste....

Piratis' style might be somewhat harsh, but historically what he said above is not far from the truth.

Most Turkish cities were not built by the ancestors of the turks, i.e. the ottomans.

Mr Alexandros Lordos

Do you have any idea where is middle asia?
Because we came later, It wont means we didnt build cities too.
Your knowledge is too limited.
And with this small knowledge you comment about all race.
How childish.

[magikthrill]

Mr Alexandros Lordos

Do you have any idea where is middle asia?
Because we came later, It wont means we didnt build cities too.
Your knowledge is too limited.
And with this small knowledge you comment about all race.
How childish.

Mr. Murtaza,

what are the 2 most developed cities in Turkey?

Im assuming they are nowhere near central asia.

what are the poorest areas in Turkey?

Im assuming they are IN central asia.