Cyprus-Forum.com

[ChomskyFan]

People should not be forced out of their homes against their will for any reason. However that does not change the fact that in Cyprus many were. Saying that we should now force people from their homes of 30+ years to solve the problem of those that it was done to 30 years ago, without any consideration for how responsible those to be forced from homes today are for being in someones home of 30 years ago and without any considerations of the wider issues that led to the prior forcing of people from their homes (and ignoring the forcing of people from thier homes prior to that), is to me not a sensible or constructive appraoch.

No, it's simple legality, it doesn't belong to them, ergo, why should their actions be justified simply because they have lived in them for 30 years?

We will not be forced to give up our right of return. Sorry, it ISNT going to happen. We will not let highwayman bandit do this to us.

You have asserted this many times before (and ignoring you lack of disctionction between T and TC). It is in my view simply not the case that TC want full RoR in a Cyprus settlement. This is a GC 'red line' (to some degree or other). If anything TC want a right to not now be forced from their homes against their will.

Really? Can you spot the irony in the last part?

[erolz]

No, it's simple legality, it doesn't belong to them, ergo, why should their actions be justified simply because they have lived in them for 30 years?

And the 'RoC' does not belong to GC alone so why should this be legitimised by a purely cynical and political decision (not moral or legal) of the UN in 64 and the fact they have 'got away wtih it' to varying degrees since 64?

The point to me is, that saying that the issue of how we reverse the injustices done to GC in 74 re loss of property, has to include considerations beyond just an 'absolutist moral assertion' - TC are thieves, return the theft - problem solved (like the events that led to this injustice in the first place, who is responsible fot this injustice and those before it that led to it, consideration for ordinary TC as well as GC etc etc) is not a call for 'legitimsing' what happend to GC in 74. It is a call for finding practical ways we can move on from these historic events and realites.

We will not be forced to give up our right of return. Sorry, it ISNT going to happen. We will not let highwayman bandit do this to us.

It is your right to take this 'absolutist' line and refuse to consider or discuss any other appraoch. For me however this is not an apporach I consider will actually get us very far, if out objective is to find an agreed solution to the mess we are in today. In my personal view it actualy undermines any chance of reaching an agreed and acceptable to all parties solution not aids it.

PS this part of the thread (RoR, moral absolutism, etc etc) is off topic for the thread. If you wish to continue the discussion that is fine, but I will try and split out the 'off topic part' to the best of my judgment should you wish to continue.

[ChomskyFan]

And the 'RoC' does not belong to GC alone so why should this be legitimised by a purely cynical and political decision (not moral or legal) of the UN in 64 and the fact they have 'got away wtih it' to varying degrees since 64?

No, it's just basic legality in any Modern Nation State, perhaps not The Shariah, but that's not my concern.

The point to me is, that saying that the issue of how we reverse the injustices done to GC in 74 re loss of property, has to include considerations beyond just an 'absolutist moral assertion' - TC are thieves, return the theft - problem solved (like the events that led to this injustice in the first place, who is responsible fot this injustice and those before it that led to it, consideration for ordinary TC as well as GC etc etc) is not a call for 'legitimsing' what happend to GC in 74. It is a call for finding practical ways we can move on from these historic events and realites.

Isn't it an absolutist moral statement to describe a TC thief's stolen property as 'compensation'? As decribed earlier, this assumes that an entire race is responsible for the actions of a few.

We will not be forced to give up our right of return. Sorry, it ISNT going to happen. We will not let highwayman bandit do this to us.

It is your right to take this 'absolutist' line and refuse to consider or discuss any other appraoch. For me however this is not an apporach I consider will actually get us very far, if out objective is to find an agreed solution to the mess we are in today. In my personal view it actualy undermines any chance of reaching an agreed and acceptable to all parties solution not aids it.

No, we will never accept your bullshit of 20% offer.

Keep what you stole, it's the only way you can succeed, look at the Ottomans, look at Modern Turkey, look at the Turks in North London. The Ottomans had to steal in order to be 'successful' they never founded any great cities, nor any schools, they couldn't even run their own financial of civil service affairs, they needed Greeks and Jews to do it for them. Modern Turkey is the same, GC's are successful, TC's were not on comparitive study, ergo, we must kill them and take what they owned because we can't do it any other way, edit. Or look at N. London, GC's are one of the most successful Ethnic Minorities, who knows before they try and steal that.

Unacceptable comments edited by erolz under advise from other mods

[erolz]

Isn't it an absolutist moral statement to describe a TC thief's stolen property as 'compensation'?

I personaly do not think it is an absolutist moral statement to say that these properties were given (in some / most cases) to TC as compensation. That is a historical fact as I see it. Rightly or wrongly the TC admin told these people that they (the 'state') would compensate them for their losses with these lands / properties. Whether the this giving of such properties was right or wrong or partly so is to me a different thing and we can afgue and discuss that. Bu to merely say that this is the basis how / why these properties were given to TC by the TC admin, is not to me the same as saying this act was legitmate.

No, we will never accept your bullshit of 20% offer.

Will you accept any offer < than 100% ?

Keep what you stole, .......

There is so much 'confused ranting' in this section as I see it that it's hard to use it as the basis for any sort of rational arguments. There is also imo some unacceptable racist generalisations in it too, but I will leave any moderator decisions about these to other moderators.

All I can really say is that if as you assert the problems in Cyprus are all down to a deep seated ethnic based desire on the part of TC to 'steal' then why were there such obvious problems in Cyprus before this 'theft' in 74? Why was there no resloution to the problems in all the years before 74? It seems pretty clear to me that there were and are issues involved here that pre date and are seperate from the TC/T 'theft' in 74. Certainly post 74 the issues of this 'theft' are real and complex and need resolution, but they are not the 'only story'. If the only way you will negoatiate for an agreeded settlement is on the basis that all that needs to be done is to reverse the consequences of this 'theft' in 74, then I fear that a solution is a long way away - to the cost of all Cypriots, TC and GC those that lost homes and those that did not.

[Khan]

If TC's are thieves, what are GC's? Arent you doing exactly the same and using our properties in the South? If you want to set an example of your moral superiority to us Turks, why not let the TC's return to their homes. I believe the GC excuse is "law of neccesity":

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArt ... S-LAND.xml

[brother]

Chomskyfan

Look, lets be honest here and cut to the chase, those living in properties that don't belong to them are simple thieves, plain and simple thieves. No intellectual acrobatics, no comparitive hypotheticals, no flawed logic of 'compensation'. Those who occupy these properties are thieving criminals.

What like the thieves in the south who have built homes and business's on my family lands and been making money off them for 30 years, yes chomskyfan/fi you are thieves

[ChomskyFan]

Chomskyfan

Look, lets be honest here and cut to the chase, those living in properties that don't belong to them are simple thieves, plain and simple thieves. No intellectual acrobatics, no comparitive hypotheticals, no flawed logic of 'compensation'. Those who occupy these properties are thieving criminals.

What like the thieves in the south who have built homes and business's on my family lands and been making money off them for 30 years, yes chomskyfan/fi you are thieves

Hey brother, if it were up to me, you would get what you legally owned back, but everyone else would as well. There is not justification on either side.

[gabaston]

chomsky

can i have mine too?

[brother]

Hey brother, if it were up to me, you would get what you legally owned back, but everyone else would as well. There is not justification on either side.

My sentiments exactly but calling people thieves gets us nowhere but just gets us stuck in a vicious circle imo.

We must all accept that our elected leaders are not working for our better interests and if they were we would have solved the cyprus problem at least 15 years ago.

[ChomskyFan]

chomsky

can i have mine too?

I said everyone, thats exactly my point.