Cyprus-Forum.com

[MicAtCyp]

Erol you are not fair.
You took a part of a discussion were I was clearly referring to human rights and gave the example of HUMAN RIGHT TO LIFE to support your thesis that I said it is my right to kill INNOCENT people??

Sumeone who violates your most basic human right to LIVE is innocent in your opinion?

Heres what I said in the post you soo kindly cared to refer:

Erol is that your own view or what? If yes how can you be so absolute?
Are you saying that you have no right to kill, when someone violates your human rights? I think you are wrong. Lets take for example the right to LIVE and EXIST. If someone comes to take that right away from you (i. e to kill you) are you claiming that you cannot Kill? . Of course you can. It's called SELF DEFENSE.

[erolz]

Erol you are not fair.

I said

Was it not you that argued in an earlier thread that GC had a right to kill innocent British in the persuit of their rights to self determination in the 50's (if it was not you then applogies but thats what I remember)?

the basis for this statement was my memory of the previous discussion which on inspect showed you said

Are you saying that you have no right to kill, when someone violates your human rights? I think you are wrong.

To me this seemed like a fair basis for my claim (with a caveat and pre built appolgy btw). I can see that he introduction of he word 'innocent' is relevant here. However my question remains the same. Do you think that GC had a r9igh to use violence and murder against the British in the 50's to gain heir right to self determination. If you think no, then an appology by me to you is warranted and given. If you think yes then my original question remains (if GC had a right to use violence and murder against British to gain self determination then why did the TC not have this same right re GC) and I do not hink an appology is warranted.

[Realist]

The reason being is that the British were an occupying force. The GC were native to the land, just like the TC.

Now let's look at your question from another angle, why did the TC not feel the need to liberate themselves from the British occupying force, feel the need to be free, but then felt need to liberate themselves from their fellow countrymen?

[insan]

Now let's look at your question from another angle, why did the TC not feel the need to liberate themselves from the British occupying force, feel the need to be free, but then felt need to liberate themselves from their fellow countrymen?

The answer is simple:

Under the Ottoman rule GCs tried to get rid of TCs because GCs considered TCs as the invaders of GC homeland. Then, Under the British rule, GCs tried to get rid of both colonists. GCs thought that they would kick Ottomans out of Cyprus and make the dream of "megali idea" true. However the Brits took control of Cyprus. Then the primary target of GCs had become Brits.

The eyes, brains and souls of TC's fellow countrymen had been blinded by church with a dream called megali idea(then Enosis). How could TCs feel the need to free themselves from Brits under the then circumstances while their fellow countrymen were struggling only and only for the megali idea of Hellenic nation? Tell me please...

[Piratis]

In general I have taken a decision to not try and discuss anything with you for the moment as I just can not see the point.

Yes, instead of giving unrelated answers or trying to avoid answering my direct questions you might as well stop answering.

The right of self-determination is of particular importance because its realization is an essential condition for the effective guarantee and observance of individual human rights and for the promotion and strengthening of those rights.

So self-determination is one of the means to guarantee, promote and strengthen the individual human rights. So the aim is for all individuals to have their human rights which include:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

So even if TCs were "peoples" (they are a community), they should use this right of "self determination" in order to promote the individual human rights. However you want to use this "self determination" as an excuse to violate individual human rights, which is clearly not what "self determination" right is about.

You are basicaly arguing that the right to self determination can only be held by indivduals and never by groups. Such an argument is absolutley at odds with all the charters on human rights that exist.

Erolz, I made a question, I didn't argue what you claim I did.
I will make the question again in a different form: Who decides how this self determination right should be used?

A senario such as we have in Cyprus....

All countries have a complex scenario. However things like the human rights are universal and apply to all. Do you see any notes in the universal human rights declaration that says:

"This declaration is universal except from the case were a new nation state was created from the ending of colonial rule that had two distinct and seperate peoples or communites in it, neither of which owned exclusive territory and neither of which had ruled their own affairs ...."

If it was like that, then all countries could avoid applying the human rights, democracy etc because {Enter country name} {enter unique country history}.

These are just cheap EXCUSES to violate our human rights and to gain on our loss.

[MicAtCyp]

However my question remains the same. Do you think that GC had a r9igh to use violence and murder against the British in the 50's to gain heir right to self determination. If you think no, then an appology by me to you is warranted and given. If you think yes then my original question remains (if GC had a right to use violence and murder against British to gain self determination then why did the TC not have this same right re GC) and I do not hink an appology is warranted.

Aren’t you messing up 2 different issues here i.e the human right to freedom, object slavery /subordination and the self determination right? My answer is clear: The self determination right has limitations to the ways it can apply in practice, namely to what extend it affects the application of other peoples self determination right and vice-versa. What I am absolutely sure is that the presense of the British here violated the self determination rights of both the GCs and the TCs.

If you notice carefully in the post you quoted me on human rights, I just refuted your absolute statement that in no way an individual can kill to defend his human right. I repeated many times the word "I think" and "I cannot be so absolutely sure" and I gave the example of killing in self defence that obviously refutes your absolute principle.

Yet you insist in pushing me to provide you with absolute statements regarding these rights. You are not going to get any absolute statements from me because from the very begining I said I cannot be so absolutely certain, like you are of the opposite.

So I think it's about time you stop this effort, and stop putting things that I never said in my mouth.

****************************

megali idea

Re Insan do you know what "Megali idea" is and you keep on repeating it a thousand times in this forum? I am really curious!!!

[erolz]

So self-determination is one of the means to guarantee, promote and strengthen the individual human rights. So the aim is for all individuals to have their human rights which include:

Yet again you twist and pervert the meaning and spirit of the declerations on Humna Rights. The point of the right to self determination is not solely to insure indivdual rights. It is the source of indivdual righs. If it is only necessary to protect indivdual rights then there would be nothing wrong with British rule in Cyprus provided they respected GC indivdual righs. Clearly this is not the case. Even with full execersie of your indivdual rights (something TC never had in the 'united' cyprus that existed pre 74 btw) without the right of self determination these are meaningless.

These are just cheap EXCUSES to violate our human rights and to gain on our loss.

Yet more evidence that rational discussion with you is pointless as if more evidence was needed.

You abused our rights and you continue to do so with your insistance we acualy have no rights to self determinaion as a people or a community.

Since 74 we have in turn abused your rights. Now you want to see the restoration of your rights whilst continuing to deny ours or ignoring your previous denial of our rights. This is not good enough. If you want the restoration of your rights then you must discuss the resotoration of ours as well. Denying we have any rigths does nothing to further the aim of restoration of all rights in Cyprus. Ignoring your historic and current denial of our rights also does nothing to further this aim.

[insan]

Re Insan do you know what "Megali idea" is and you keep on repeating it a thousand times in this forum? I am really curious!!!

Code: Select all

Megali Idea
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Megali Idea (Μεγάλη Ιδέα) (Greek for "Great Idea") is a concept of Greek nationalism expressing the goal of establishing a Greek state that encompasses all ethnic Greeks.

The Greek state emerging under John Capodistria after the Greek War of Independence left out large groups of ethnic Greeks. The Great Idea encompassed a desire to bring these groups into the Greek state; specifically in the territories of Epirus, Thessaly, Macedonia, the Aegean Islands, Crete, Cyprus, parts of Anatolia, and the city of Constantinople, that would replace Athens as the capital.

A major proponent was Eleftherios Venizelos, who expanded Greek territory in the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 — southern Epirus, Crete, and southern Macedonia were attached to Greece. Thessaly, and part of southern Epirus, had been annexed in 1881. Victory in World War I seemed to promise an even greater realisation of the Great Idea, as Greece won northern Epirus, Smyrna, Imbros and Tenedos, and Western Thrace.

A major defeat followed in 1922, however, when the Turkish nationalists defeated and expelled the Greeks from Anatolia during the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). Greece did not manage to occupy Smyrna, Imbros, and Tenedos from Turkey, to whom they still belong; she also was not capable to occupy southern Albania (northern Epirus). Greece did retain western Thrace, and in 1945, at the end of World War II, won the Dodecanese from Italy.

Although the Great Idea ceased to be a driving force behind Greek foreign policy after the Treaty of Lausanne, remnants remain. Greece only recently, for example, recognised the present Greco-Albanian border (and, implicitly, Albanian rule over northern Epirus); Greece also sponsored a pro-enosis military coup on Cyprus in 1974 leading to the still-standing division between Turkish Cyprus and Greek Cyprus.

[edit]
See also
Foreign relations of Greece
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megali_Idea"


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

[Piratis]

If you want the restoration of your rights then you must discuss the resotoration of ours as well.

I deny no right of yours. You are the ones who deny our 100% legal rights. What I deny is what is not your rights. You have no right to steal our properties, and a TC has no righ to have more voting power than a GC.
This is what I deny, are these your rights?? NO they are not.

[erolz]

If you want the restoration of your rights then you must discuss the resotoration of ours as well.

I deny no right of yours. You are the ones who deny our 100% legal rights. What I deny is what is not your rights. You have no right to steal our properties, and a TC has no righ to have more voting power than a GC.
This is what I deny, are these your rights?? NO they are not.

blah blah blah blah blah blah

You constantly and consistently deny that TC have any right to self determination - the source and root of all other rights. While you continue today to treat TC and TC community rights with distain and contempt as you did throughout the 60's and long before the loss of any GC rights do not be surprised if here is little interest from TC in discussing with you your lost rights. You are the Cyprus problem personified as far as I am concerened.