Cyprus-Forum.com

[cannedmoose]

I see your avatar is crossed out garb...

[Chrisswirl]

Did you guys know that Albanian's capital Tirane was first build by an Ottoman pasha, who had named it "Tehran" after leaving his hometown?

That's true, but I could not find any other major city with the same story.

A question... before the Ottoman Empire, what did Anatolia consist of population wise?

I ask mainly out of interest as to who lived in the central territory, seing as the West was traditionally Greek (South West Greek with original Lycian roots?), the North Pontian Greek and the East Armenian (was the South East Kurdish at that time)? Were there any Persians?

[suetoniuspaulinus]

Did you guys know that Albanian's capital Tirane was first build by an Ottoman pasha, who had named it "Tehran" after leaving his hometown?

That's true, but I could not find any other major city with the same story.

A question... before the Ottoman Empire, what did Anatolia consist of population wise?

I ask mainly out of interest as to who lived in the central territory, seing as the West was traditionally Greek (South West Greek with original Lycian roots?), the North Pontian Greek and the East Armenian (was the South East Kurdish at that time)? Were there any Persians?

Mr Chrisswirl

It might interest you to have a look at the geography of Turkey, It's quite a large land mass in comparison to sday Cyprus or Crete or Kos or the others.

My point is that ,
when you say that, for example Pontus Greeks inhabited the North where exactly do you mean?

[Chrisswirl]

Sorry, I was being vague, this is mainly due to me not knowing the exact boundaries of each ethnic group, in fact they probably blurred into each other considerably (and my question was to gain more knowledge on this subject). I know that the Pontic Greeks lived in the area around Trabezon on the north east coast of Turkey (Black Sea region).

[MicAtCyp]

I want to talk about compromise, negotiation and polticial settlment to a political probelm.

You keep on insisting that the throwing out of their homes and lands 200,000 GCs and the stealing of their properties is a political problem. Did you ever hear such a massive thing happening as a result of politics? The only time I ever heard that happening is during invasions, genocides, and ethnic cleansing practices. So if invasions, genocides, and ethnic cleansing practices are indeed "Political" then every Politician should have done some of these... In every Politically developed country we should have at least some of these phenomena... And every Political association like the EU should deal with nothing else than such attrocities....

Erol, you demonstrate an exceptional ability questioning basic axioms....

All there is, is (political) acceptance or not from other states of this newly declared state. I would be more than happy if their was such international law, with a legislative body with jurisdiction and an enforcment body to uphold these laws but the plain and simplr fact is that there is no such law or body.

The fact IS that there is no political acceptance of the "trnc".There is no political acceptance of even being a state, because to be a state, the people living in it must own the land and the properties on which this state is founded. The pseudo is based on stolen lands and properties. So whatever legislations it does internally even the most progressive ones it does not change the fact that the state itself is externally illegal.If it could survive by itself as a lonely entity in the world (without any external recognition) that would be fine.The fact is it cannot survive even for a single week without the economic packages coming from Turkey....

Then by your standards the granting of deeds by the United states to land (previously owned by native americans) are all 'illegal', for this land was 'illegaly' taken by force from the original owners

Of course they were and still are illegal if that included the grabbing of ingloos and the forests and the rivers and the horses which the natives were using to survive. From what I know however America was basically an empty country, thats why so many people went there. Those people did not emmigrate to INDIA right?

Soverignty exists for a state as long as it can control the area it is sovreign over.

Totally wrong! Are you trying to modify another axiom Erol?

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.

Again I am not happy with what happened in this regard. However to claim it is 'illegal' is your opinion.

Oh, what the hell, do I have to lose my time replying? Yes Erol, you are absolutely right, when a thief donates a stolen diamond neckless to a poor family he is doing charity, he is not doing anything illegal.Never you heard?

[Alexandros Lordos]

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.

Istanbul and Ankara.
What I mean is that, You know nothing about Turks.
When Turks comes to anatolia, There was already people and civilization who live in anatolia.(Not just Greeks)

So the city Turks populated also this cities. This mean we cant build cities and just steal them?

Do you know Taj Mahal made by Turks magic?
Or do you know how many Turks live in world?
You take all the reputation comes from all greek civilization.
but We should just take ottomans?
Do you know how much Istanbul changed?
Do you thing we get city from greeks. And just use them?
Didnt build anything new?

My friend, I did not say that you do not have a civilization. I am just pointing out that your civilization evolved in a particular way, which involved a lot of conquest. This does not mean to say that you do not have cultural achievements of your own as well.

[Murtaza]

My friend, I did not say that you do not have a civilization. I am just pointing out that your civilization evolved in a particular way, which involved a lot of conquest. This does not mean to say that you do not have cultural achievements of your own as well.

Tell him pirates.

By the way.didnt greek made alot conquest?
Why are they doing in Ankara or Konya ?
That place are belongs to other people.
Or Egypt?
Every Culture in that times are conquerers.

What I want to say is that. You dont know (Turks are not only ottomans)Turks Culture and history.
So stop to make comment about Turkish Culture.
When Turks come Anatolia, All place of anatolia is settled already.
But you can find cities build by Turks, in Middle asia.

[magikthrill]

Of course they were and still are illegal if that included the grabbing of ingloos and the forests and the rivers and the horses which the natives were using to survive. From what I know however America was basically an empty country, thats why so many people went there. Those people did not emmigrate to INDIA right?

after acing my class in native north american history i can say that both you are erol are right and wrong.

most of the settlers that came to north america (british, french and spaniards) first settled on land that either was uninhabited or settled in land ALONG with the aboriginals. with time the settlers realized that a) many of the aboriginals were dying from european diseases and b)they were militarily inferior to the europeans so they took advantage of this.

and erol the fact that it was some 500 years ago makes a big difference to the situation between cyprus and the US one of the many reasons why it is not an apt analogy.

[erolz]

You keep on insisting that the throwing out of their homes and lands 200,000 GCs and the stealing of their properties is a political problem.

The actions of Turkey in 74 were political acts in response to an ongoing poltical crisis that had existed since the formation of an independent Cypriot nation.

Did you ever hear such a massive thing happening as a result of politics? The only time I ever heard that happening is during invasions, genocides, and ethnic cleansing practices.

Similar poltical mass movements of people litter out common history as human beings.

So if invasions, genocides, and ethnic cleansing practices are indeed "Political" then every Politician should have done some of these...

This is basic 'false logic'. All avenues have trees along them. Not all roads with trees along them are avenues.

If all forced mass movments of people are poltical acts logic does NOT say that all politicans must have been involved in forced mass movements of people. Your logic is false.

Erol, you demonstrate an exceptional ability questioning basic axioms....

What basic axiom am I questioning? What is wrong with questiong basic axioms anyway? They can be as incorrect as anything else if the assumptions they are all based on are incorrect.

The fact IS that there is no political acceptance of the "trnc".

There is no formal recognition of the state of the TRNC other than by Turkey. The fact is that there is some political _acceptance_ of the state of the TRNC - much to you chargrain and disapointment no doubt.

There is no political acceptance of even being a state,

No their is not formal recognition which is different from acceptance of the reality.

because to be a state, the people living in it must own the land and the properties on which this state is founded.

Absolutely not the case, not in international law or in real world reality.

A state is an organized political community occupying a definite territory, having an organized government, and possessing internal and external sovereignty. Recognition of the state's claim to independence by other states, enabling it to enter into international agreements, is often important to the establishment of its sovereignty, although some theories do not make this a requirement.

No mention of people living in the state having to own the land. It is a fact that if you go back far enough no nation state is not built on stolen land in one form or another.

If it could survive by itself as a lonely entity in the world (without any external recognition) that would be fine.

If we could that would not be 'fine' for you. It would not change it's legailty in your eyes. It would not change you desire to get back that which you lost in 74. To pretened it would is disingenous and simply not credible.

The fact is it cannot survive even for a single week without the economic packages coming from Turkey....

We could not survive for even a week without finaical aid from Turkey? If you say so.

Of course they were and still are illegal if that included the grabbing of ingloos and the forests and the rivers and the horses which the natives were using to survive. From what I know however America was basically an empty country, thats why so many people went there. Those people did not emmigrate to INDIA right?

America was NOT 'basically an empty country'. I suggest you try some googling on "U.S. government's 19th century General Allotment Act (1887)" and the concept of "Manifest Destiny Doctrine - the historical inevitability of Anglo-Saxon domination of North America from sea to sea." that underpinned this 'law'. (a concept remarkably similar to the mengali idea btw)

You could also have a look at

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/sovereignty.html

an extract for you

Soverignty exists for a state as long as it can control the area it is sovreign over.

Totally wrong! Are you trying to modify another axiom Erol?

Am I trying to modify a basic axiom or is it that you think something is a basic axiom that in fact is nothing of the sort. I refer you to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty

In international law, the important concept of sovereignty refers to the exercise of power by a state. De jure sovereignty refers to the legal right to do so; de facto sovereignty the ability in fact to do so (which becomes of special concern upon the failure of the usual expectation that de jure and de facto sovereignty exist at the place and time of concern, and rest in the same organization). Foreign governments recognize the sovereignty of a state over a territory, or refuse to do so.

The TRNC exercises power over the TRNC and the RoC does not and in international law this is the most important concept of sovreignty. This is just reality.

The key element of sovereignty in the legalistic sense is that of exclusivity of jurisdiction
Specifically, when a decision is made by a sovereign entity, it cannot generally be overruled by a higher authority. Further, it is generally held that another legal element of sovereignty requires not only the legal right to exercise power, but the actual exercise of such power. ("no de jure sovereignty without de facto sovereignty") In other words, neither claiming/being proclaimed Sovereign, nor merely exercising the power of a Sovereign is sufficient, sovereignty requires both elements.

Sovreignty requires both elements but the fact is that in iternatitional law the key element is the ability of a state to exercise control of the area it claims to be sovreign over. Not the only element but this is a key element.

Oh, what the hell, do I have to lose my time replying? Yes Erol, you are absolutely right, when a thief donates a stolen diamond neckless to a poor family he is doing charity, he is not doing anything illegal.Never you heard?

Once again you try and compare theft and legality within the framework of a nations law and indivduals with international law and actions of states as if there is no difference.

Oh what the hell, do I have to lose my time replying. Yes MicAtCyp, you are absolutely right that we stole your land and that is all there is too it and that this is illegal and we should give it back straight away. We should not care what was stolen from us before. We should not care about our rights - how they were ignored by you until power of Turkey restored them to us. We should not care about anything excpet retirning to you your lost land and your unrestricted right (based on the 'manifes destiny doctrine of the superiority of Greek culture) to rule all of Cyprus and all Cypriots. Indeed we should welcome the opportunity to be become great civilised greeks and throw off our barabic Turkish cultural identity.

Now let me say some more.

I think we should give you back some land. I think we should try and reverse compensate and aliveate as much as the suffering that GC experienced as a result of the events of 74 as realisticaly possible. We should do this as part of a POLITICAL settlement that recognises not just the events of 74 and GC but the events prior to 74 and TC losses. If you insist that we must do it based soley on a (fuzzy and ill defined) notion of illegality of the TRNC as a state - that is no where near as clear and simple as you believe, without any regard for the reason why the political events of 74 occured or any regard for what was stolen from us and denied to us before this, then this is something I do not agree with. Both sides must compromise. Both sides must accept the losses of the other. Both sides must accept the political failures of the past and the need for political solutions that will avoid these occuring again in the future. Simply crying 'you are illegal, you are illegal' does not help us do what is necessary and actually makes it harder. That is what I am saying have been saying throuout this thread.

[erolz]

and erol the fact that it was some 500 years ago makes a big difference to the situation between cyprus and the US one of the many reasons why it is not an apt analogy.

It was not an anology. It was an attempt to show the falacy of the argument that the legality of a state is defined by wether the peopel of that state owned the land the state is based on or took it from others. If the argument was that the legality of a state is based on wether the people owned the land it is based on or took it form others within a given time period (how long would that be 50 years, 100years, 300years, 500 years or 1000 years ago) - then depending on where you placed this aribitary time element the example of the USA could be considered irreleveant. this was not the the argument however.