Cyprus-Forum.com

[Oracle]

My first thoughts - based on the public sources of information - are basically that:

(1) they are not doing two reports, or a number of them, one on each aspect of the problem. The only report, "Destruction of Cultural Property in the Northern Part of Cyprus and Violations of International Law", has automatically excluded any destruction of cultural property in the southern part of Cyprus. That can only be a deliberate bias, and proof of the untrustworthy nature of the report.

(2) that it is impossible not to think this report has been made this week to exploit the anniversary. It is an abuse of the emotions of Greek Cypriot victims as much as it is a denial of the suffering of the Turkish Cypriots.

I don't think I'm going to enjoy reading the hearing or the report...

It is not automatically "deliberate bias" or "untrustworthy" as they have stated which part of the island this report is concentrating on.

If the RoC is commissioning a report on the destruction of areas over which it has no administration, then it is a requirement to gain an insight into the force of the invasion and continued occupation.

As such, it is a very worthwhile analysis; and by stating what it is concentrating on, does not make it a piece for propaganda, but an analysis of the after effects of the war.

Any destruction in the free areas can be ascertained by the RoC anytime and itself a consequence of the war (mostly due to abandonment).

[samarkeolog]

My first thoughts - based on the public sources of information - are basically that:

(1) they are not doing two reports, or a number of them, one on each aspect of the problem. The only report, "Destruction of Cultural Property in the Northern Part of Cyprus and Violations of International Law", has automatically excluded any destruction of cultural property in the southern part of Cyprus. That can only be a deliberate bias, and proof of the untrustworthy nature of the report.

(2) that it is impossible not to think this report has been made this week to exploit the anniversary. It is an abuse of the emotions of Greek Cypriot victims as much as it is a denial of the suffering of the Turkish Cypriots.

I don't think I'm going to enjoy reading the hearing or the report...

It is not automatically "deliberate bias" or "untrustworthy" as they have stated which part of the island this report is concentrating on.

I was wondering which thing you'd complain about. Now I only have to wonder how you choose which thing to complain about.

It is precisely deliberate bias. They have stated that they are looking at destruction in northern Cyprus - therefore, that they are not looking at destruction in southern Cyprus.

You are like this even though my research is about northern and southern Cyprus. Imagine what you would be like if my research was only about southern Cyprus.

If the RoC is commissioning a report on the destruction of areas over which it has no administration, then it is a requirement to gain an insight into the force of the invasion and continued occupation.

Was this commissioned by the RoC?

No, this was an alleged independent, U.S. governmental commission.

But it could have been an RoC commission, given the only three witnesses at its hearing were all friends of the GCs. As I said before, there's nothing wrong with having friends of the GCs study what has happened in the TRNC; but, for balance - to avoid bias, and to learn accurate knowledge - they should have friends of the TCs study what has happened in the RoC.

As such, it is a very worthwhile analysis; and by stating what it is concentrating on, does not make it a piece for propaganda, but an analysis of the after effects of the war.

When the UK and the US only count their own war dead, that is bias; it is an analysis of parts of the effects of a war, but it is not a worthwhile analysis, because it is imbalanced information. If the U.S. report had only studied mosques, you would have denounced it. But because it only studied churches, you defend it.

Any destruction in the free areas can be ascertained by the RoC anytime and itself a consequence of the war (mostly due to abandonment).

Yes, any destruction in the free areas could be ascertained by the RoC anytime. And in 35 years, it has never done it; neither has any U.S. Helsinki Commission. The RoC has even turned out a book about the mosques in Cyprus, without ever admitting that any were destroyed.

It is propaganda.

You may think these historical lies help your political cause. But look to Turkey for an example. Look what genocide denial has done to Turkey. Do you want to become Turkey? That's your choice. Become like France and Germany, or become like Turkey. Which will you choose?

[samarkeolog]

It didn't include Turkish Cypriots famous for their criticism of the TRNC. Why not? Why not ask Mehmet Yasin to give evidence?

There are bicommunal sources, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots working together to understand and document what happened, trying to rebuild a life together. This report ignored them. Why? Why did it deliberately exclude bicommunalist Cypriots from its witnesses, from its evidence?

It is obviously, lazily biased. It can only produce a false history, and that history will wound Cyprus once more. Bicommunal Cyprus will die by a thousand cuts, and this report will be one of those cuts.

[Oracle]

So you are saying someone stating they are gathering data on AIDS in women is deliberately biased against men and that their research is worthless?

You have a lot to learn about specialized research ....

[samarkeolog]

So you are saying someone stating they are gathering data on AIDS in women is deliberately biased against men and that their research is worthless?

You have a lot to learn about specialized research ....

You are absurd. You are trying to compare historical lies, logically akin to genocide denial, with health research to protect vulnerable, high-risk groups?

If you think this even deserves to be called "research", you have a lot to learn. Michael Jansen ignores some evidence and abuses some evidence.

You could call it "specialised research" only if you were mocking it and knowingly using "specialised research" as a euphemism for "lazy propaganda".

[Oracle]

So you are saying someone stating they are gathering data on AIDS in women is deliberately biased against men and that their research is worthless?

You have a lot to learn about specialized research ....

You are absurd. You are trying to compare historical lies, logically akin to genocide denial, with health research to protect vulnerable, high-risk groups?

If you think this even deserves to be called "research", you have a lot to learn. Michael Jansen ignores some evidence and abuses some evidence.

You could call it "specialised research" only if you were mocking it and knowingly using "specialised research" as a euphemism for "lazy propaganda".

I think you've gone off the rails with your accusations through a complete failure to appreciate the context.

If they had stated they were looking at "Destruction in Cyprus", and then only mentioned destruction in the north, then I agree, that would have been wrong and biased. They have not done that. They have stated clearly which field they are concerned with in this report.

You cannot compare it with the academic register you are trying to produce, which is a comparative discourse. This is an analytical report on one (clarified) specific aspect.

[samarkeolog]

So you are saying someone stating they are gathering data on AIDS in women is deliberately biased against men and that their research is worthless?

You have a lot to learn about specialized research ....

You are absurd. You are trying to compare historical lies, logically akin to genocide denial, with health research to protect vulnerable, high-risk groups?

If you think this even deserves to be called "research", you have a lot to learn. Michael Jansen ignores some evidence and abuses some evidence.

You could call it "specialised research" only if you were mocking it and knowingly using "specialised research" as a euphemism for "lazy propaganda".

I think you've gone off the rails with your accusations through a complete failure to appreciate the context.

If they had stated they were looking at "Destruction in Cyprus", and then only mentioned destruction in the north, then I agree, that would have been wrong and biased. They have not done that. They have stated clearly which field they are concerned with in this report.

So if Turkey had museum exhibits about Armenian massacres of Turks, they wouldn't be historical lies, or propaganda, because they said they were exhibits about Armenian massacres of Turks?

You cannot compare it with the academic register you are trying to produce, which is a comparative discourse. This is an analytical report on one (clarified) specific aspect.

But you act as if it - or any state commission - is going to produce an academic analysis of what happened to the TCs as well.

When medical research targets particular groups, it does so because they are vulnerable, or high-risk, or unstudied.

They only do it when the basic work has been done on the subject in general (so that they have enough knowledge to specialise). But the basic work on destruction in Cyprus has not been done; there has only been masses and masses of work on the destruction of Greek Cypriot cultural heritage.

Medical researchers also do specialist research that helps not only their target group, but also all other sufferers, by generating a better understanding of the disease. These one-sided studies actually harm the other groups. Moreover, they harm the target group, the Greek Cypriots, by teaching them a false history.

Medical researchers also specialise (normally) safe in the knowledge that other medical researchers will specialise in other areas. These commissions specialise specifically to avoid generating information about the other areas.

And if, if, what they were doing was unbiased, and academic, and for the benefit of all Cypriots, and for the cause of peace and reconciliation... Why did they explicitly dismiss the facts of destruction of Turkish Cypriot cultural heritage as "claims"?

They didn't simply focus on the destruction of Greek Cypriot cultural heritage. They "specialised" in the destruction of Turkish Cypriot cultural heritage, and their "expert" opinion was that nothing happened, even though the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and UNESCO, explicitly stated that destruction of Turkish Cypriot cultural heritage did happen.

They are producing propaganda, and it will harm you as much as it harms your enemy. If you are happy to suffer as long as someone else is suffering too, then, that's your choice. It is a self-destructive choice; but it is your choice. Much like sadomasochism, you have the freedom to consent to your own harm.

But this does not only affect you, and you do not have the freedom to give someone else's consent to their harm.

[Oracle]

... there has only been masses and masses of work on the destruction of Greek Cypriot cultural heritage.

Maybe that is a reflection on the copiousness of the heavily one-way destruction and not necessarily bias (it may be biased to suggest that it is equal).

After all, there is masses and masses of research on the common cold ... because it is just that ... COMMON!

[samarkeolog]

... there has only been masses and masses of work on the destruction of Greek Cypriot cultural heritage.

Maybe that is a reflection on the copiousness of the heavily one-way destruction and not necessarily bias (it may be biased to suggest that it is equal).

After all, there is masses and masses of research on the common cold ... because it is just that ... COMMON!

But according to the public sources, the commission dismissed as "claims" even the cases of destruction documented by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and UNESCO. That is bias. It is artificially fabricating a history of heavy, one-way destruction.

At least one of the commission's witnesses, too (Michael Jansen), did the same thing. Again, that is bias.

I am not suggesting that the destruction is equal. I am suggesting we still do not know how much destruction there was, and the only way to find out is to study it all, not to study the same Greek Cypriot sites again.

I would also say that the most important thing is not the exact amounts of destruction, but the facts of the destruction, and the destroyers. I think the most important thing is to know that small groups of extremists and paramilitaries destroyed Cypriot community and society, and how they destroyed them, so that we can try to undo some of their damage, and try to save others from a similar fate.

[Oracle]

I would also say that the most important thing is not the exact amounts of destruction, but the facts of the destruction, and the destroyers. I think the most important thing is to know that small groups of extremists and paramilitaries destroyed Cypriot community and society, and how they destroyed them, so that we can try to undo some of their damage, and try to save others from a similar fate.

The amount of destruction may be an indicator of the intent or ultimate aim of the destruction, which I think is the real issue.

Systematic or state sponsored destruction is obviously of major concern being less amenable to preventative measures.

We know from habit and history that the victors or conquerors aim to erase the influences of the predecessors. There is much evidence to suggest the Turks are systematically, via state endorsement, attempting to remove Greek history, symbols (icons), language (village names), buildings (churches) and most of all ... people!

In this context, the RoC has absolutely no desire to eradicate the TCs' history, (is there even one mosque converted to a church?). There is unlikely to be any (RoC) state endorsed destruction, as the aim is to restore a reunified island with all the people accessing their homes.

Sam, you are a good mental distraction ... but I bid you goodnight!