Cyprus-Forum.com

[magikthrill]

you can have a federatio nwith the right of rerfugees to return. a federation that restricts citizens to move from one state to another based on their religion and language then this is a segregated/apartheid federation.

if bizonality is more important than bicommunality because TCs are scared to be separate that means TCs prefer partition to any other scenaraio? and why cant they accept a 20% - 80% partition ?

[erolz]

and why cant they accept a 20% - 80% partition ?

I believe we could have and would have accepted a 20-80 agreed partition of the Island. Pre 60 we would have. From 60-74 we would have. Even now I believe we could accept such a proposal if ti could once and for all end the Cypus problem. It is not my or I believe the majortiy of TC's prefered solution but it is preferable to the 'no solution' situation we have lived with since 63 to now.

What you have to ask, I think, is why was this an absolutely and unequivocaly unacceptable solution to GC. Pre 60. Post 60. And why is there any reason to think that such a solution would be acceptable to GC today? Would it be acceptable to you personaly for example? Acceptable to you personaly if your familys land were to be in the 20% of NC?

It seems to me it is easy to say 'why can't you accept a 80-20 agreed seperation' when such has never been and is not on the table. Put it on the table and then judge if we accept it or not - fine.

[magikthrill]

Put it on the table and then judge if we accept it or not - fine.

i just put it on the table. now aside from beating around the bush can you ansewr the question. would TCs be willing to accept an 80% - 20% partition?

ps my ancestors land is in the karpasia peninsula which regardless of a solution will be under tc control. it was inhabited by settlers but just last night i found out it was sold by the settlers to a TC for a whole 2,000 CYP. hmmm you guys up there must be in da money...

[erolz]

Put it on the table and then judge if we accept it or not - fine.

i just put it on the table. now aside from beating around the bush can you ansewr the question. would TCs be willing to accept an 80% - 20% partition?

Then I accept your proposal on the understanding that I would prefer a solution based on reunifcation than seperation but that this is not possible to agree.

ps my ancestors land is in the karpasia peninsula which regardless of a solution will be under tc control. it was inhabited by settlers but just last night i found out it was sold by the settlers to a TC for a whole 2,000 CYP. hmmm you guys up there must be in da money...

Us guys? Who do you mean by 'Us guys'? Me personaly? Some TC? Most TC? All TC? Some settlers? Most settlers? All settlers?

[magikthrill]

Then I accept your proposal on the understanding that I would prefer a solution based on reunifcation than seperation but that this is not possible to agree.

thakn you. was that too hard?

Us guys? Who do you mean by 'Us guys'? Me personaly? Some TC? Most TC? All TC? Some settlers? Most settlers? All settlers?

i mean what i said. you guys up there. do you need me to specify the up there part or did you just not read it through the first time?

[Main_Source]

Why should we even sell out ourselves to give over 20% of land because you have been brainwashed by Turkey into thinking there should be a part of Cyprus just for Turkey. Cyprus is for the Cypriots. You dont see Maronites asking for their own breakaway state.

Infact, if the Marnoites arent Greek, why aren't they allowed their homes back either.

If your so desparate to live under Turkish rule...go and move to Turkey. We were here thousands of years before you.

[magikthrill]

Btw do you personaly accept it as well?

i do and i dont. basically, as a realist, i am aware that there will be no true union in cyprus regardless of the plan. for example, Annan 5. and if i were to choose between disguised partition and actual partition then id say the latter is best.

why should settlers mooch off GCs in a supposed federation until their 3rd world status reaches that of GCs, right?

I am still unsure what you mean by 'you guys'? Sorry. Do you mean those specific 'guys' that sold you families specific piece of land or do you mean a wider group than that (and if so how wide)? I am not trying to misundertand you here - I am actually trying the opposite.

oi, everyone who lives pass the ceasefire. is that explicit enough? kinda sucked the fun out of that.

[erolz]

why should settlers mooch off GCs in a supposed federation until their 3rd world status reaches that of GCs, right?

Well for what it's worth I don't think they should be 'allowed' to do so either.

oi, everyone who lives pass the ceasefire. is that explicit enough? kinda sucked the fun out of that.

Yep thats clear and explicit now - thanks (and sorry for sucking your fun). Have to say it feels a little harsh then. I am not 'in da money' personaly at the expense of GC that lost land. The vast majority of my family are not 'in da money' at the expense of GC either - they came from NC before 74 (my TC grandfathers village was temblos / zeytinlik just under the shadow of St Hillarion, a village that was always TC pre and post 74 I believe?). In fact the only one of my close relatives that has 'profited' from lost GC land as far as I am aware is my Aunt who got given a (nice but small) house that was formely owned by London based GC (though not lived in by them ever - it was always rented out) as compensation by the TRNC for the loss of her husband at the hands of GC extremists in 1964. So as I say your 'in da money' comment feels a little harsh as far as it is directed to me and my immediate family - but there you go.

[magikthrill]

Yep thats clear and explicit now - thanks (and sorry for sucking your fun). Have to say it feels a little harsh then. I am not 'in da money' personaly at the expense of GC that lost land. The vast majority of my family are not 'in da money' at the expense of GC either - they came from NC before 74 (my TC grandfathers village was temblos / zeytinlik just under the shadow of St Hillarion, a village that was always TC pre and post 74 I believe?). In fact the only one of my close relatives that has 'profited' from lost GC land as far as I am aware is my Aunt who got given a (nice but small) house that was formely owned by London based GC (though not lived in by them ever - it was always rented out) as compensation by the TRNC for the loss of her husband at the hands of GC extremists in 1964. So as I say your 'in da money' comment feels a little harsh as far as it is directed to me and my immediate family - but there you go.

hehehe

erol did i really offend you? i was talking about the area in general from when i visisted it and from comments in general. i hope you understand that this was not directed to you or anyone in general as an insult. rather a sarcastic comment.

also you know that with the same arguments i can pull out the offended card everytime the term "TRNC" as - to me- it states, your grandparents and their 5 teenage daughters were forced off their ancestral land and, guess what, they aint going back either.

if you do feel offended though i apologize. but chill out. the matter of fact is that north of the ceasefire really is a 3rd world style entity. well except for the recent concrete jungle that has occurred from gazimagusa to kyrenia.

[erolz]

hehehe

erol did i really offend you?

I did not feel offended but as I said before I felt that the 'accusation' (that we were all 'in da money) was a bit unfair and harsh if it applied to everyone living in NC.

i was talking about the area in general from when i visisted it and from comments in general. i hope you understand that this was not directed to you or anyone in general as an insult. rather a sarcastic comment.

I took it to be a 'jibe' based on the old arguments that the Cyprus problem is based on TC greed and our desire to steal from GC at their expense and not for any other reasons. This may not have been your intent and if you say differently then I accept it, but that was how I interpreted it.

also you know that with the same arguments i can pull out the offended card everytime the term "TRNC" as - to me- it states, your grandparents and their 5 teenage daughters were forced off their ancestral land and, guess what, they aint going back either.

Please lets not start this one up again - there a whole (already split from source) thread on this issue. Suffice to say I think this comparison bogus for a number of reasons put please if you do wish to carry on this part of the discussion - please please do so in the other thread and not here. Your co operation on this would be sincerely and very much apprecited by me. Thanks in advance.

if you do feel offended though i apologize. but chill out. the matter of fact is that north of the ceasefire really is a 3rd world style entity. well except for the recent concrete jungle that has occurred from gazimagusa to kyrenia.

I tried to be as chilled out as I can. I can only be what I am at the end of the day and if that appears to you to be an overly dry and 'retentive' indivdual I am sorry that is the impression you get.

My point was - and I am seriously doubting the value of even trying to make it in light of how things have developed - is that it is imo a little 'harsh' and 'unfair' to say that all people living in the north are 'in da money' (off the back of GC lost properties). Some undoubtedly are, but there are also TC here that could have taken land in exchange for that they themselves lost in the south but chose to not do so, TC here who are living on exactly the same land they were pre 74, TC who took land in 'exchange' but that is of less value that that which they left in the south. It just seemed and seems a little harsh to lump all these people into the same group as settlers that got land in north that was GC before 74 in exchange for nothing and TC that got land in north belonging to GC before 74 in excess of what they left behind. That was my point, but like I say maybe next time I'll just 'let it pass'.