Cyprus-Forum.com

[YFred]

[Acikgoz]

Turkey maintains a policy of bringing in thousands of Anatolian colonists to settle in the occupied area...do i agree with this? No, i certainly do not.

I often see such statements put forward by GCs and surprised myself that I haven't commented directly until now.

There is no "policy" for bringing in thousands of immigrants from Turkey to north Cyprus.
There was the period in the 80s and early 90s during Denktas where immigrants came to work the land etc. and after were "gifted" lands. Beyond that, over the last 10-15 yrs, the immigrants have not been enticed by any govt. policy, but by the opportunity potential. Remember the 2004-6 where the rapid increase in immigrants occurred that was due to the real estate sector demand.

TRNC is unlike Israel on the context of colonisation. We have no kibuts, there is no repatriate "Turks" for Cyprus fund, etc. etc. kitchen economics brought the immigrants over, not Turkish policy.

I bring this up because not understanding the reason for immigration means evaluations on the parties are incorrect.

[Oracle]

Turkey maintains a policy of bringing in thousands of Anatolian colonists to settle in the occupied area...do i agree with this? No, i certainly do not.

I often see such statements put forward by GCs and surprised myself that I haven't commented directly until now.

There is no "policy" for bringing in thousands of immigrants from Turkey to north Cyprus.
There was the period in the 80s and early 90s during Denktas where immigrants came to work the land etc. and after were "gifted" lands. Beyond that, over the last 10-15 yrs, the immigrants have not been enticed by any govt. policy, but by the opportunity potential. Remember the 2004-6 where the rapid increase in immigrants occurred that was due to the real estate sector demand.

TRNC is unlike Israel on the context of colonisation. We have no kibuts, there is no repatriate "Turks" for Cyprus fund, etc. etc. kitchen economics brought the immigrants over, not Turkish policy.

I bring this up because not understanding the reason for immigration means evaluations on the parties are incorrect.

Twerp!

[SKI-preo]

Do you think the Israeli tourists will we win away from Turkey will be willing to pay 5 Euros for a coffee?

[Paphitis]

@ Simon

You are wrong.

It is not NATOs responsibility to defend Australia. We have our own ANZUS Treaty, but are not as reliant on the US as Europe is.

Also, Australia has invested heavily in Nuclear Research. Many billions in fact, and many ADF have died. We are always designing delivery systems and looking for an F-111 replacement. Make your own mind up.

The NPT will not stop anything when push comes to shove.

Paphitis, if Australia was under serious attack (including nuclear) what do you think NATO or ANZUS (take your pick, it's all about the US at the end of the day) would do? Let's use a bit of common sense. Australia has invested in nuclear research, but so have many countries, it's ridiculous to assume that because of this Australia has nuclear weapons. I can think of several countries off the top of my head that have conducted extensive nuclear research, including Brazil, South Africa, Canada and Libya. Are you saying it is likely all these countries have nuclear weapons as well? Nuclear material has many other uses other than for weapons, and delivery systems do not have to have nuclear warheads on them. Further, the NNPT is very relevant here. The only country that has withdrawn from it is North Korea, and the only country apparently in breach is Iran. Is that the type of company Australia intends to keep in the future? Iran and North Korea?

Dude, Australia is not a member of NATO. We are a signator to the ANZUS Treaty. This is a regional pact between Australia and the US, and it includes NZ.

If Australia was under heavy attack, which may be nuclear, then the US is said to be, according to the ANZUS Treaty, obligated to take up Australia's defence, which may again include the deployment of nuclear weapons, for which the ADF is capable of delivering. Australia does not have any defence agreements with NATO or any other NATO member, including the UK!

There is only ANZUS! NATO has nothing to do with Australia, other than being an alliance block of nations which may offer Australia assistance but is not obligated to. If Australia was under nuclear attack, most European NATO countries would have already been anihilated.

Once again Simon, Australia is not a NATO nation!!!'

[Paphitis]

@ Simon

You are wrong.

It is not NATOs responsibility to defend Australia. We have our own ANZUS Treaty, but are not as reliant on the US as Europe is.

Also, Australia has invested heavily in Nuclear Research. Many billions in fact, and many ADF have died. We are always designing delivery systems and looking for an F-111 replacement. Make your own mind up.

The NPT will not stop anything when push comes to shove.

Paphitis, if Australia was under serious attack (including nuclear) what do you think NATO or ANZUS (take your pick, it's all about the US at the end of the day) would do? Let's use a bit of common sense. Australia has invested in nuclear research, but so have many countries, it's ridiculous to assume that because of this Australia has nuclear weapons. I can think of several countries off the top of my head that have conducted extensive nuclear research, including Brazil, South Africa, Canada and Libya. Are you saying it is likely all these countries have nuclear weapons as well? Nuclear material has many other uses other than for weapons, and delivery systems do not have to have nuclear warheads on them. Further, the NNPT is very relevant here. The only country that has withdrawn from it is North Korea, and the only country apparently in breach is Iran. Is that the type of company Australia intends to keep in the future? Iran and North Korea?

Dude, Australia is not a member of NATO. We are a signator to the ANZUS Treaty. This is a regional pact between Australia and the US, and it includes NZ.

If Australia was under heavy attack, which may be nuclear, then the US is said to be, according to the ANZUS Treaty, obligated to take up Australia's defence, which may again include the deployment of nuclear weapons, for which the ADF is capable of delivering. Australia does not have any defence agreements with NATO or any other NATO member, including the UK!

There is only ANZUS! NATO has nothing to do with Australia, other than being an alliance block of nations which may offer Australia assistance but is not obligated to. If Australia was under nuclear attack, most European NATO countries would have already been anihilated.

Once again Simon, Australia is not a NATO nation!!!'

[Paphitis]

And another thing! Not many countries have invested quite as much as Australia has. We have conducted many nuclear tests in our own country, and get this, we even deployed hundreds of ADF personell close by in order to test the effects of radiation. None are alive today.

What kind of a sick experiment was that?

And our delivery systems are not there just for the hell of it.

Do some research on Woomera!

Now, if Australia was to withdraw or breach the NPT, who is going to punish us? Will the US or UK threaten sanctions or attack Australia? Be realistic!

Australia has no intentions at the moment, but if we deem a security requirement, then that is exactly what we would do. At the moment our interests lie in trying to get Iran and North Korea to comply with the NPT. If that does not occur, and Australia was under threat, then there is no need for us to comply either. And we will not comply!

Anyway, if you want to talk to me about Armageddon, then I suggest you open a new thread, because this thread is about the Israeli Peace flotilla to Cyprus!

[Paphitis]

There is nothing more we want then for foreign ships to enter our ports. The israelis if they come will not be stopped and they will be treated well.

I think that's up to the RoC to decide!

Yeh, and I very much doubt the Israelis would be doing anything remotely near what the Turks want.

They will send their boats to RoC controlled areas!

[Paphitis]

Turkey maintains a policy of bringing in thousands of Anatolian colonists to settle in the occupied area...do i agree with this? No, i certainly do not.

I often see such statements put forward by GCs and surprised myself that I haven't commented directly until now.

There is no "policy" for bringing in thousands of immigrants from Turkey to north Cyprus.
There was the period in the 80s and early 90s during Denktas where immigrants came to work the land etc. and after were "gifted" lands. Beyond that, over the last 10-15 yrs, the immigrants have not been enticed by any govt. policy, but by the opportunity potential. Remember the 2004-6 where the rapid increase in immigrants occurred that was due to the real estate sector demand.

TRNC is unlike Israel on the context of colonisation. We have no kibuts, there is no repatriate "Turks" for Cyprus fund, etc. etc. kitchen economics brought the immigrants over, not Turkish policy.

I bring this up because not understanding the reason for immigration means evaluations on the parties are incorrect.

There we are Nikitas! Do you wish to reply to this?

Listen sunshine, Turkey is far worse than Israel. At least the Jews actually belong in this region and merely returned back to where they historically belong.

The same can not be said about the Turks.

[Nikitas]

The policy of settlement in the north is proven by very real and substantial evidence- the grnting of nationality, the creation of settler political parties, the appointment of settlers in public service posts and political appointments. Granting land is also part of the process but not the most important or potentially damaging to any political settlement.

When this is mentioned the retort is "how about the Sri Lankans and the Pontians in the south". There is a hell of a difference between residence permits to aliens, who remain aliens with no voting rights, and what is going on in the north and which is very much like the granting of Israeli nationality to any jews simply because of their faith.

Like the north, Israel has shown a remarkable rise in population, from 2 million in the 60s to 6 million today. Thomas, who is a very experienced and often honored reporter had this in mind when she frankly and honestly stated her opinion for which she was severely and unjustly punished.