Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

The point is, that Australia is a democratic nation, and anyone who wishes to adopt it as their new country should also respect the Australian culture.

come on man

Cmon Aussie Cmon!

I will see you in South Africa!

[Tim Drayton]

Tim,
You have to realise there is a lot of inconsistency and hypocricy with certain GC forumers ,enough to take your breath away...When it comes to Australia they do not expect the invading power to respect and adapt to the culture and traditions of the natives...They tell you that was not how things were done in 1788...But with the same breath they say they expected the Ottomans to have respected and adapted to the cultures and traditions of the natives in Cyprus,in 1571.... The fact that the Ottomans were far more respecting of the native people's culture,religion,and languages in 1571 than the British were in 1788 just doesn't enter their twisted minds...

The TCs are the Ottoman remnants who are all guilty at birth even when that birth happened in Cyprus hundreds of years after the original invasion...The British empire can come to Australia declare it "terra nullius" and treat the natives worse than animals,and not a pip out of the likes of Paphidis...You will get used to them in time,and learn to shake your head in disbelief most of the time...At other times you will cry out with sensible arguments and will get garbled non-sensical arguments thrown back at you...That is life in our little Cyprus Forum world...

This is the militant Aborigine position on Terra Nullius. Have I gone mad, because I can see striking parallels here between this and the sort of stuff Piratis copies and pastes ad nuseum?

http://www.treatyrepublic.net/node/83

Terra Nullius
In 1770 Captain James Cook landed in Botany Bay, home of the Eora people, and claimed possession of the East Coast of Australia for Britain under the doctrine of 'terra nullius'
According to the international law of Europe in the late 18th century, there were only three ways that Britain could take possession of another country:
• If the country was uninhabited, Britain could claim and settle that country. In this case, it could claim ownership of the land.
• If the country was already inhabited, Britain could ask for permission from the indigenous people to use some of their land. In this case, Britain could purchase land for its own use but it could not steal the land of the indigenous people.
• If the country was inhabited, Britain could take over the country by invasion and conquest- in other words, defeat that country in war. However, even after winning a war, Britain would have to respect the rights of indigenous people.
Strangely Britain did not follow any of these rules in Australia. Since there were already people living in Australia, Britain could not take possession by "settling" this country. However from the time of Captain Cook's arrival the British Government acted as if Australia were uninhabited. So, instead of admitting that it was invading land that belonged to Aboriginal people, Britain acted as it were settling an empty land. This is what is meant by the myth of terra nullius.

The truth is that indigenous Australians have suffered terribly, but there is no real going back from the fact that a nation called Australia exists nowadays and the people living there as its citizens have to make the best of it. The same applies to Cyprus.

[Paphitis]

So how, essentially, does the Aboriginal argument that they were in Australia first and had the land stolen from them, so that they have first claim on the place, differ from the argument that Greeks came to Cyprus earlier and had the land stolen from them (by the Lusignians actually) thereby having first claim on the island? You have not addressed that.

My real point is that, in the case of Australia, it makes far more sense to argue that there exists a UN-recognised nation of Australia that is not such a bad place and everybody should live in harmony as equal citizens regardless of which ethnic groups arrived when. I think the same is valid for Cyprus.

You are reducing this into something it is not!

Turkey invaded the island in 1974, has ethnically cleansed and continues to occupy the northern portion and has Turkified it.

The RoC was and still is a sovereign nation and member of the UN. That is what we have been saying all along.

You are the one who is turning this into soemthing that it is not. To remind you, you are acting as an apologist to Piratis when he says to Birkibrisli, a Cyprus-born Turkish Cypriot: "you knew that you were coming to a Greek island when you first came here". Birkibrisli was born before 1974, and he never came to Cyprus, he was born here. Why are you suddenly introducing the red herring of 1974?

And I already told you what he meant and he later confirmed it.

Many TCs, Bir included, have stifled the democratic rights and freedoms of the majority and now want to stifle it even more.

As I told you before, no one here has any problems with TCs being EQUAL citizens of the RoC, apart from the TCs themselves. That is the point you fail to see, and Piratis was only trying to highlight this.

[Paphitis]

So how, essentially, does the Aboriginal argument that they were in Australia first and had the land stolen from them, so that they have first claim on the place, differ from the argument that Greeks came to Cyprus earlier and had the land stolen from them (by the Lusignians actually) thereby having first claim on the island? You have not addressed that.

My real point is that, in the case of Australia, it makes far more sense to argue that there exists a UN-recognised nation of Australia that is not such a bad place and everybody should live in harmony as equal citizens regardless of which ethnic groups arrived when. I think the same is valid for Cyprus.

You are reducing this into something it is not!

Turkey invaded the island in 1974, has ethnically cleansed and continues to occupy the northern portion and has Turkified it.

The RoC was and still is a sovereign nation and member of the UN. That is what we have been saying all along.

And why did Turkey invade Cyprus in 1974,can you tell us that, MR Paphidis???? Was the sovereign nation that was the ROC at the time sovereign because that is how the GCs wanted it??? Or it was sovereign because the TCs refused to give away their country to Greece in the first place???Come on,show us how objective you are on recent Cyprus history, going back a little bit further than 1974 to,say,1950....

Why don't you tell us your version Bir!

Was it because the Greek Juntist were going to massacre the lot of you. I don't think so buddy. Not one single TC was targeted by the Juntists who did in fact kill many GCs, And to top it all off, 5 days later, Turkey invaded killing another 6,000 GCs. If you were indeed compatriots, then you would have assisted the GC resistance against the Junta!

Use you fucking brain!

[Paphitis]

Tim,
You have to realise there is a lot of inconsistency and hypocricy with certain GC forumers ,enough to take your breath away...When it comes to Australia they do not expect the invading power to respect and adapt to the culture and traditions of the natives...They tell you that was not how things were done in 1788...But with the same breath they say they expected the Ottomans to have respected and adapted to the cultures and traditions of the natives in Cyprus,in 1571.... The fact that the Ottomans were far more respecting of the native people's culture,religion,and languages in 1571 than the British were in 1788 just doesn't enter their twisted minds...

The TCs are the Ottoman remnants who are all guilty at birth even when that birth happened in Cyprus hundreds of years after the original invasion...The British empire can come to Australia declare it "terra nullius" and treat the natives worse than animals,and not a pip out of the likes of Paphidis...You will get used to them in time,and learn to shake your head in disbelief most of the time...At other times you will cry out with sensible arguments and will get garbled non-sensical arguments thrown back at you...That is life in our little Cyprus Forum world...

This is the militant Aborigine position on Terra Nullius. Have I gone mad, because I can see striking parallels here between this and the sort of stuff Piratis copies and pastes ad nuseum?

http://www.treatyrepublic.net/node/83

Terra Nullius
In 1770 Captain James Cook landed in Botany Bay, home of the Eora people, and claimed possession of the East Coast of Australia for Britain under the doctrine of 'terra nullius'
According to the international law of Europe in the late 18th century, there were only three ways that Britain could take possession of another country:
• If the country was uninhabited, Britain could claim and settle that country. In this case, it could claim ownership of the land.
• If the country was already inhabited, Britain could ask for permission from the indigenous people to use some of their land. In this case, Britain could purchase land for its own use but it could not steal the land of the indigenous people.
• If the country was inhabited, Britain could take over the country by invasion and conquest- in other words, defeat that country in war. However, even after winning a war, Britain would have to respect the rights of indigenous people.
Strangely Britain did not follow any of these rules in Australia. Since there were already people living in Australia, Britain could not take possession by "settling" this country. However from the time of Captain Cook's arrival the British Government acted as if Australia were uninhabited. So, instead of admitting that it was invading land that belonged to Aboriginal people, Britain acted as it were settling an empty land. This is what is meant by the myth of terra nullius.

The truth is that indigenous Australians have suffered terribly, but there is no real going back from the fact that a nation called Australia exists nowadays and the people living there as its citizens have to make the best of it. The same applies to Cyprus.

Australia was not a country then!

Secondly, how could the Brits 'purchase' any land. Would the Aborigines accept their currency or would the Brits trade Rum with them instead (which is what they did btw).

And in any case, the Aborigines are now the recipients of Billions in mining royalties, so the transaction has now taken place.

And as stated earlier, the TCs are citizens of the RoC. No person has said anything that contradicts this. The point that was being made is that the TCs have colaborated against the overwhelming majority on the island and are now wanting unfair, undemocratic special status. The Aborigines have never undermined democracy like the TCs have.

And as I told you before, I personally don't have an issue with accepting the 1959 Zurich Agreement, and therefore I fully recognize the right of TCs to RoC citizenship, health care, and social welfare.

I accept that TCs are equal citizens and would even fight for their very basic democratic and human rights as EQUAL citizens of the RoC. But the TCs want their special status which is anything but EQUAL to their compatriots which account for 82% of the total population of the island.

Therefore, they are unwilling to fight for our EQUAL rights and their actions are anything but democratic. You may call this "the spoils of war" and there is only one way this can be reversed. Will they fight for my rights?

[Tim Drayton]

[quote="Paphitis]
[...]
And as stated earlier, the TCs are citizens of the RoC. No person has said anything that contradicts this.
[...]
[/quote]

What is the implication behind the use of the term "Ottoman remnant", even when used in quotes?

[Paphitis]

[quote="Paphitis]
[...]
And as stated earlier, the TCs are citizens of the RoC. No person has said anything that contradicts this.
[...]
[/quote]

What is the implication behind the use of the term "Ottoman remnant", even when used in quotes?[/quote]

I did not use it with any implications in mind which is why I used quotation marks to denote that it isn't a term I particularly agree with!

But the term can be used against those that wish to suppress the democratic and human rights of the majority, and I believe it was used by others in that context without the quotation marks.

Tim, this argument has been blown out of all proportion, and this debate is simply childish. There are many political discussions here, and if you are willing, you can ask Piratis if he is racist.

Listen mate, I have been called all soughts of names on this forum, such as fascist, racist, traitor and many more things. I believe you too have called me a racist as well. But I can assure you that I'm not racist, fascist or a traitor, and neither is Piratis!

[BirKibrisli]

So how, essentially, does the Aboriginal argument that they were in Australia first and had the land stolen from them, so that they have first claim on the place, differ from the argument that Greeks came to Cyprus earlier and had the land stolen from them (by the Lusignians actually) thereby having first claim on the island? You have not addressed that.

My real point is that, in the case of Australia, it makes far more sense to argue that there exists a UN-recognised nation of Australia that is not such a bad place and everybody should live in harmony as equal citizens regardless of which ethnic groups arrived when. I think the same is valid for Cyprus.

You are reducing this into something it is not!

Turkey invaded the island in 1974, has ethnically cleansed and continues to occupy the northern portion and has Turkified it.

The RoC was and still is a sovereign nation and member of the UN. That is what we have been saying all along.

You are the one who is turning this into soemthing that it is not. To remind you, you are acting as an apologist to Piratis when he says to Birkibrisli, a Cyprus-born Turkish Cypriot: "you knew that you were coming to a Greek island when you first came here". Birkibrisli was born before 1974, and he never came to Cyprus, he was born here. Why are you suddenly introducing the red herring of 1974?

And I already told you what he meant and he later confirmed it.

Many TCs, Bir included, have stifled the democratic rights and freedoms of the majority and now want to stifle it even more.

As I told you before, no one here has any problems with TCs being EQUAL citizens of the RoC, apart from the TCs themselves. That is the point you fail to see, and Piratis was only trying to highlight this.

I did all that...????And here I was thinking I was the victim of our little CP,having to leave my country of birth at age 17,because my father saw no future for us in Cyprus,stuck as we were in our little enclave in Nicosia,living on handouts from Turkey and what little my grandparents could sent us from the village in Paphos!!! Breathtaking historical revisionism...You take the cake,Paphidis...If you keep repeating it you might end up believing it yourself one day...

[Tim Drayton]

Piratis, are you a racist?

[Get Real!]

Piratis, are you a racist?

By their very nature everyone is... and particularly those who deny it.