Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

Whatever. Still I would not have bothered with you any more I'd bother with a Somalian or an Iraqi, had you not been occupying my back yard.

GO! GO! GO! GO! FIRE IN DA HOLEEEEE!!!!!

So then, you like being a clown?

I like driving those who r full of hatred and prejudice to hell.

[miltiades]

Erolz is a thoroughly decent guy , never swears at any one , and always polite and proper. He stands his ground and why shouldn't he .
He defends what he considers worth defending just as any one else does. I hope he carries on debating.

[polis]

Whatever. Still I would not have bothered with you any more I'd bother with a Somalian or an Iraqi, had you not been occupying my back yard.

GO! GO! GO! GO! FIRE IN DA HOLEEEEE!!!!! :lol:

So then, you like being a clown?

I like driving those who r full of hatred and prejudice to hell. 8)

Dream on.

[Sotos]

The complex situation being that living in someone else's property doesn't make the property yours unless, a. you never paid rent for the property, b. the owner has either being murdered or ethnically cleansed, and c. you don't think that the owner will ever be able to evict you. Attila the Hun Code, Volume II, Article 125.

The complex situations is WHY today there are TC using land that was GC pre to 74 in the North and GC using land that was TC in the South pre 74.

I realise that for you the 'why' we are in this situation today is answered by the response 'because TC and Turks are barbaric greedy murdering thieves and gc are pure innocents who have done nothing at all to cause the situation in Cyprus as it exits today'. However the reality of why we ended up in the situation we are in today is in fact a lot more complex than this.

As I have said before childish approaches along the lines of 'my side is totaly innocent and your side is totaly guilty' will get us no where.

Both sides have played their parts in creating the conditions that have led us to where we are today, including us having people on both sides that are currently using property that before 74 was owned and controlled by someone else. I think a settlement should seek to rectify this situation in ways that cause the minimum additional new harm to all of use as is possible.

Giving a property comnission the power to rule that in given indivdual cases under pre agreed criteria they can place current users rights over those of pre 74 owners is no more denying the rights of indivduals than agreeing that the state can under specific conditions and after paying proper compensation compulsary purchase land from private indivduals against their wishes for a greater good.

You can blame GCs for other things but not for the property problem. The property issue is because Turks wanted partition. And in the most part we have been very careful with the properties you left in the south unlike what you did in the north. After partition the second major reason that created the property problem was the sale of GC properties in the north. So now let justice take care and correct those injustices for all people, GCs and TCs. OK?

[bill cobbett]

The complex situation being that living in someone else's property doesn't make the property yours unless, a. you never paid rent for the property, b. the owner has either being murdered or ethnically cleansed, and c. you don't think that the owner will ever be able to evict you. Attila the Hun Code, Volume II, Article 125.

The complex situations is WHY today there are TC using land that was GC pre to 74 in the North and GC using land that was TC in the South pre 74.

I realise that for you the 'why' we are in this situation today is answered by the response 'because TC and Turks are barbaric greedy murdering thieves and gc are pure innocents who have done nothing at all to cause the situation in Cyprus as it exits today'. However the reality of why we ended up in the situation we are in today is in fact a lot more complex than this.

As I have said before childish approaches along the lines of 'my side is totaly innocent and your side is totaly guilty' will get us no where.

Both sides have played their parts in creating the conditions that have led us to where we are today, including us having people on both sides that are currently using property that before 74 was owned and controlled by someone else. I think a settlement should seek to rectify this situation in ways that cause the minimum additional new harm to all of use as is possible.

Giving a property comnission the power to rule that in given indivdual cases under pre agreed criteria they can place current users rights over those of pre 74 owners is no more denying the rights of indivduals than agreeing that the state can under specific conditions and after paying proper compensation compulsary purchase land from private indivduals against their wishes for a greater good.

"compulsory purchase (of other people's land) against their wishes for a greater good"

We're not talking about a few donums to build LCA or a Highway mate/matess.

What you're suggesting is wholesale, countrywide, expropriation by a state-run scammy property theft commission against the rights of 10,000's of individual owners, every single one of who has their right to their land and to free enjoyment of their land recognised by practically every country at the UN and every single country in the rest of Europe.

See you in Courts throughout Europe mate/matess.

[polis]

The complex situation being that living in someone else's property doesn't make the property yours unless, a. you never paid rent for the property, b. the owner has either being murdered or ethnically cleansed, and c. you don't think that the owner will ever be able to evict you. Attila the Hun Code, Volume II, Article 125.

The complex situations is WHY today there are TC using land that was GC pre to 74 in the North and GC using land that was TC in the South pre 74 blah, blah, blah

Living in someone else's property doesn't make it yours Erol. Rules don't change if you are a Turk. If the issue was humanitarian and not political (your wish to promote ethnic segregation) why are the Greek Cypriot refugees occypying Turkish properties not embracing the same arguments about the hardship of having to give up the land in return for their own? Sorry Erol, but I have no time for page long replies so here's the gist: you are full of bull.

[erolz3]

I think erolz3 is using Greek Cypriot property in the north. I asked him about it and he avoided answering. And I think that if he has any property in the south it is too little compared to what they gave him in the north. Think about it and then you will understand why he talks in this way! He is like all those British who bought GC land in the north. He is trying to find ways to avoid legality and keep what he took from us and give us much less than what our property worth.

My personal situation is irrelevant to my arguments. It is a fairly standard practice on fora such as these , when on has run out of attacks on the arguments made by a given poster to start attacks on them as an indivdual and not their arguments and try and imply motives that may or may not exist as to why they argue as they do.

In reality unlike too many Cypriots I would personaly give up anything I have in Cyprus if that was the price for achieving a settlement I believed to be fair and had realistic chances of being lasting.

I do not seek to avoid legality and certainly not for personal gain and nor do I seek to try and cast legality in solely terms such that it meets my communites maximal demands at the expense of yours.

There is nothing illegal in the principle of the state compelling indivduals to sell their private properties to the state for the greater good of society as a whole. In principle an agreement could be brokered that gave an indpendent body the ability to effectively and legaly compulsorly purchase property from pre 74 owners in specific cases and under specific and agreed guidelines as to in what cases they can or can not do this, in order to achieve a settlement that creates the least additional burden and hardship on all Cypriots as a whole regardless of ethnic group and in the name of the greater good of Cypriot society.

Of course you reject such a concept and principle and instead seek to convince yourslef that legality can only possibly allow for your side to get its maximals desires from a settlement.

[polis]

There is nothing illegal in the principle of the state compelling indivduals to sell their private properties to the state for the greater good of society as a whole.

If done in a wholesale way and only members of a particular ethnic group are targeted it is called ethnic cleansing, it is a crime against humanity and a war crime and it is against 'the law'.

[erolz3]

If done in a wholesale way and only members of a particular ethnic group are targeted it is called ethnic cleansing, it is a crime against humanity and it is against 'the law'.

I am not proposing that it is done in a wholesale way. Firstly as many cases as possible should be solved via the agreements on the territory of the propsed component states. Remaing conflicts should first look to find a settlement that both current users and pre 74 owners are happy with. In many cases pre 74 owners may prefer compensation in money or alternative property than return, in others current users may prefer such rather than continued use. Only in those remaining cases where there is still a conflict of wants would the property comission in SOME cases and according to pre defined and agreed criteria opt for 'compulsary purchase' against the pre 74 owners and in other uphold their wants.

Nor am I suggesting a system that places any more right on any indivdual based on ethinc community they belong to than any other. The system I am suggesting would operate the same and under the same rules and guidelines for GC as it would for TC.

why are the Greek Cypriot refugees occypied Turkish properties not embracing the same arguments about the hardship of having to give up the land in return for their own?

If there was no issue for GC using TC property in the South having to give up such use in favour of the pre 74 TC owner, then why did it take 10 years for a TC pursuing return of his pre 74 land to finally get it and require taking the issue all the way to the supreme court, and even after that ruling risk the AG over turning the ruling only for him to back down in the end. Yes ultimately the RoC did return the property to the pre 74 TC owner at the expense of the current user, but the fact that it took 10 years of legal battling by the TC owner all the way to the supreme court in this one specific case shows that the issue is not simple or clear cut.

[polis]

If done in a wholesale way and only members of a particular ethnic group are targeted it is called ethnic cleansing, it is a crime against humanity and it is against 'the law'.

I am not proposing that it is done in a wholesale way... blah... blah... blah... [yawn] even more blah...

That is exactly what you are proposing.

If there was no issue for GC using TC property in the South having to give up such use in favour of the pre 74 TC owner, then why did it take 10 years for a TC pursuing return of his pre 74 land blah... blah...

Because the refugee occupying the TC property is still a refugee and he wasn't very happy handing over the property to the Turkish owner without being able to claim his own land back. Can't you read the point made before replying?