Cyprus-Forum.com

[DT.]

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/features/can ... c/20100321

[CopperLine]

Murataga, when you came to Cyprus you found the Venetians, and when they came who did they find? Who had been here all along and endured all those comings and goings?

The indigenous population. You know, the ones who built churches dating from the 4th century, and pre christian monuments dating back to 1200 BC. Hard to swallow I know, but the way to become local is not to deny but accept the history of the place you want to call home. Till then you are siding with an invader.

I saw the situation between 1968 and 1974 and know who enforced the enclaves. Try that ploy on someone younger or with less memory.

Nikitas,
I have to say that it is very disappointing to see you posting this ethnic purity nonsense. It is just one small step to racist notions of legitimacy. (And what ethnicity and ethnic continuity has got to do with origins of property and property ownership is anyone's guess).

[Oracle]

Why the Native GCs will regain ALL their lands ...

ALL their lands? Even the land GCs have given up for compensation after going to the IPC?

http://www.northcyprusipc.org/

As of 16 July 2010, 602 applications have been lodged with the Commission and 113 of them have been concluded through friendly settlements and four through formal hearing. The Commission has paid GBP 43,428,850 to the applicants as compensation. Moreover, it has ruled for exchange and compensation in two cases, for restitution in one case and for restitution and compensation in five cases. In one case it has delivered a decision for restitution after the settlement of Cyprus Issue, and in one case it has ruled for partial restitution

Why don't you fuck off (go on, complain to Admin again) with your stupidities. They might receive compensation for loss of use, but no one can take away their legitimate right to claim their own properties! And, finally, the whole of Cyprus belongs to the RoC.

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the role of the IPC. Any successful claim to the IPC require the applicant to give up their right to this property. It is not possible to claim solely for loss of use (although loss of use can form part of a claim). It is of course your legitimate right to ignore the IPC but anyone receiving compensation or exchange from the IPC, by their own definition (below) must give up their legitimate right to the property in question. In summary - you are wrong Oracle.


Extracted from Law 67/2005.

10. (1) Applicants who receive compensation in return for their rights over immovable properties in virtue of the application of the provisions this Law, can under no condition, make a claim of right of ownership over immovable property for which they have received compensation.
(2) Applicants who receive new immovable property by way of exchange in virtue of the application of the provisions of this Law, can, under no condition, make a claim to a right of ownership over the immovable property on which their application was based.

Vincehugo, you seemed to have missed the point entirely!

Whose "laws" are those? The invaders! The whole of Cyprus belongs to the RoC and administration will be restored there when the Turks have had enough and gone (pushed or fallen?). None of those "transactions" are legal and binding because they have NOT passed through the RoC-administered Land Registry. Same goes for every one of the "transactions" committed in the occupied north since 1974. All those, by virtue of the fact they were not authorised by the RoC, are reversible upon its say-so. So, don't quote me made up pseudo-laws as if they have some authority in a normal world!

[Kifeas]

Murataga, when you came to Cyprus you found the Venetians, and when they came who did they find? Who had been here all along and endured all those comings and goings?

The indigenous population. You know, the ones who built churches dating from the 4th century, and pre christian monuments dating back to 1200 BC. Hard to swallow I know, but the way to become local is not to deny but accept the history of the place you want to call home. Till then you are siding with an invader.

I saw the situation between 1968 and 1974 and know who enforced the enclaves. Try that ploy on someone younger or with less memory.

Nikitas,
I have to say that it is very disappointing to see you posting this ethnic purity nonsense. It is just one small step to racist notions of legitimacy. (And what ethnicity and ethnic continuity has got to do with origins of property and property ownership is anyone's guess).

Cooper, where have you seen anything about ethnic purity in Nikita's post? Do you have comprehension problems?

Ethnic purity nonsense exists only in the Turkish claims and ideas on the Cyprus problem, based on which they aim to eradicate the rest of indigenous Cypriots' rights in their own country, so as to establish a purely Turkish half of Cyprus! It is not the Greek Cypriots that claim Turkish Cypriots have no rights in this country. It is the Turkish Cypriots that claim Greek Cypriots should have no rights in half of their country.

[Viewpoint]

Murataga, when you came to Cyprus you found the Venetians, and when they came who did they find? Who had been here all along and endured all those comings and goings?

The indigenous population. You know, the ones who built churches dating from the 4th century, and pre christian monuments dating back to 1200 BC. Hard to swallow I know, but the way to become local is not to deny but accept the history of the place you want to call home. Till then you are siding with an invader.

I saw the situation between 1968 and 1974 and know who enforced the enclaves. Try that ploy on someone younger or with less memory.

Nikitas,
I have to say that it is very disappointing to see you posting this ethnic purity nonsense. It is just one small step to racist notions of legitimacy. (And what ethnicity and ethnic continuity has got to do with origins of property and property ownership is anyone's guess).

Cooper, where have you seen anything about ethnic purity in Nikita's post? Do you have comprehension problems?

Ethnic purity nonsense exists only in the Turkish claims and ideas on the Cyprus problem, based on which they aim to eradicate the rest of indigenous Cypriots' rights in their own country, so as to establish a purely Turkish half of Cyprus! It is not the Greek Cypriots that claim Turkish Cypriots have no rights in this country. It is the Turkish Cypriots that claim Greek Cypriots should have no rights in half of their country.

We have many different nationalities living peacefully and harmony in the TRNC, its you GCs that are the problem.

[Get Real!]

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the role of the IPC.

I think everyone has a clear understanding of what they do by now...

[Vincehugo]

Why the Native GCs will regain ALL their lands ...

ALL their lands? Even the land GCs have given up for compensation after going to the IPC?

http://www.northcyprusipc.org/

As of 16 July 2010, 602 applications have been lodged with the Commission and 113 of them have been concluded through friendly settlements and four through formal hearing. The Commission has paid GBP 43,428,850 to the applicants as compensation. Moreover, it has ruled for exchange and compensation in two cases, for restitution in one case and for restitution and compensation in five cases. In one case it has delivered a decision for restitution after the settlement of Cyprus Issue, and in one case it has ruled for partial restitution

Why don't you fuck off (go on, complain to Admin again) with your stupidities. They might receive compensation for loss of use, but no one can take away their legitimate right to claim their own properties! And, finally, the whole of Cyprus belongs to the RoC.

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the role of the IPC. Any successful claim to the IPC require the applicant to give up their right to this property. It is not possible to claim solely for loss of use (although loss of use can form part of a claim). It is of course your legitimate right to ignore the IPC but anyone receiving compensation or exchange from the IPC, by their own definition (below) must give up their legitimate right to the property in question. In summary - you are wrong Oracle.


Extracted from Law 67/2005.

10. (1) Applicants who receive compensation in return for their rights over immovable properties in virtue of the application of the provisions this Law, can under no condition, make a claim of right of ownership over immovable property for which they have received compensation.
(2) Applicants who receive new immovable property by way of exchange in virtue of the application of the provisions of this Law, can, under no condition, make a claim to a right of ownership over the immovable property on which their application was based.

Vincehugo, you seemed to have missed the point entirely!

Whose "laws" are those? The invaders! The whole of Cyprus belongs to the RoC and administration will be restored there when the Turks have had enough and gone (pushed or fallen?). None of those "transactions" are legal and binding because they have NOT passed through the RoC-administered Land Registry. Same goes for every one of the "transactions" committed in the occupied north since 1974. All those, by virtue of the fact they were not authorised by the RoC, are reversible upon its say-so. So, don't quote me made up pseudo-laws as if they have some authority in a normal world!

I think it's pretty clear to most sane people who has missed the point!

This is an approach to resolving property issues, proposed by Turkey and ratified by the ECHR. It may not fit with your view of the world but it is happening. You can bang on about RoC Land Registry till the cows come home but, believe it or not, there are greater powers at work here.

Or maybe this is just your attempt to try and gloss over the fact that your have not understood the way that the IPC works - i.e. you can't just pick up some dosh for "loss of use" and then wait to claim your land back - it's all or nothing.

It's about time you and some of your friends on here woke up and smelt the coffee. The world view of Cyprus is changing, whether you like it or not and your petty insults make not a jot of difference to the big picture.

[Oracle]

Greek Cypriots are not the indigenous population of this island. They came from Greece, they speak the Greek language, they live the lives of Greeks, their allegiance and loyalty is with Greece. A few different dance motives and a few dishes with more olive oil does not make you indigenous.

So which Turkish nationalist, Greek nationalist, or British ignorant is going to prove Murataga correct by supplying credible and irrefutable evidence that…

1. Greeks “colonized Cyprus”.
2. The indigenous Cypriots vanished into thin air.

???

You would need to satisfy both these criteria for your theory to work…

Unlike you GR!, we don't believe the Turks, such as Murataga, have the right to "ridicule" us into ignoring our origins. Turks don't like Greeks, huh? Then they can piss off Cyprus! We are NOT racist here!

And, a little "Cypriot-origins" pressie for you GR!

"American archaeologists excavating the Franchthi cave in the southern Argolid peninsula of Greece (which has a sequence of levels from 25 - 50,000 Before Present) recovered obsidian, a highly valued volcanic glass used for making tools, in layers dated to about 9500BP. Trace-element analysis of this obsidian by J.E. Dixon of Edinburgh University reveals that it must have come from the island of Milos, some 130 kilometres to the southeast. According to Dixon and Colin Renfew an authority on the archeology of the Cyclades, Milos was an island even in late Pleistocene times, so boats crossed to Milos before 7000 BC.
Shifting land and sea.
The tectonic activity in that region may render present day data on sea depths inapplicable to the late Pleistocene. (The Mediterranean is tectonically very active. For example, the north coast of Cyprus has uplifted by one metre since Byzantine times). But, the obsidian finds coincide with discoveries of large fish bones in the same Mesolithic levels at Franchthi. According to Sebastien Payne of the University of Cambridge, who is analysing the fauna from Franchthi, this link suggests seagoing activity possibly correlated with the supposed early obsidian trade."

Source: New Scientist

[Oracle]

Why the Native GCs will regain ALL their lands ...

ALL their lands? Even the land GCs have given up for compensation after going to the IPC?

http://www.northcyprusipc.org/

As of 16 July 2010, 602 applications have been lodged with the Commission and 113 of them have been concluded through friendly settlements and four through formal hearing. The Commission has paid GBP 43,428,850 to the applicants as compensation. Moreover, it has ruled for exchange and compensation in two cases, for restitution in one case and for restitution and compensation in five cases. In one case it has delivered a decision for restitution after the settlement of Cyprus Issue, and in one case it has ruled for partial restitution

Why don't you fuck off (go on, complain to Admin again) with your stupidities. They might receive compensation for loss of use, but no one can take away their legitimate right to claim their own properties! And, finally, the whole of Cyprus belongs to the RoC.

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the role of the IPC. Any successful claim to the IPC require the applicant to give up their right to this property. It is not possible to claim solely for loss of use (although loss of use can form part of a claim). It is of course your legitimate right to ignore the IPC but anyone receiving compensation or exchange from the IPC, by their own definition (below) must give up their legitimate right to the property in question. In summary - you are wrong Oracle.


Extracted from Law 67/2005.

10. (1) Applicants who receive compensation in return for their rights over immovable properties in virtue of the application of the provisions this Law, can under no condition, make a claim of right of ownership over immovable property for which they have received compensation.
(2) Applicants who receive new immovable property by way of exchange in virtue of the application of the provisions of this Law, can, under no condition, make a claim to a right of ownership over the immovable property on which their application was based.

Vincehugo, you seemed to have missed the point entirely!

Whose "laws" are those? The invaders! The whole of Cyprus belongs to the RoC and administration will be restored there when the Turks have had enough and gone (pushed or fallen?). None of those "transactions" are legal and binding because they have NOT passed through the RoC-administered Land Registry. Same goes for every one of the "transactions" committed in the occupied north since 1974. All those, by virtue of the fact they were not authorised by the RoC, are reversible upon its say-so. So, don't quote me made up pseudo-laws as if they have some authority in a normal world!

I think it's pretty clear to most sane people who has missed the point!

This is an approach to resolving property issues, proposed by Turkey and ratified by the ECHR. It may not fit with your view of the world but it is happening. You can bang on about RoC Land Registry till the cows come home but, believe it or not, there are greater powers at work here.

Or maybe this is just your attempt to try and gloss over the fact that your have not understood the way that the IPC works - i.e. you can't just pick up some dosh for "loss of use" and then wait to claim your land back - it's all or nothing.

It's about time you and some of your friends on here woke up and smelt the coffee. The world view of Cyprus is changing, whether you like it or not and your petty insults make not a jot of difference to the big picture.

Fine, Turkey can give the GCs as much money as she likes as rent or compensation for loss of use, but no one can tell the RoC to accept these transactions as legal in term of registering new "owners" in the Land Registry and issuing Turkey with Title Deeds!

I think you'll find the RoC decides on Land Registry administration in Cyprus, not the ECHR.

See most recent Orams' reinforcement ...

[Vincehugo]

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the role of the IPC.

I think everyone has a clear understanding of what they do by now...

I'm not so sure that you can count Oracle in on the "everyone". It does seem as though she supports the view that it's OK to go to the IPC and take money from Turkey in "full and final settlement" and then run back to the RoC Land Registry and attempt to reclaim ownership. Very honest behaviour - not!

Don't think anyone will get very far with this approach.