Cyprus-Forum.com

[Afroasiatis]

Again: democratic principles are for states.

Other bodies or organizations can adopt some of the democratic principles to one level or another, but when we are referring to a Democracy we are reffing to a state, not anything else. EU is not a democracy (but a union of democratic states). UN is not a democracy either. A family can not be a democracy etc.

EU countries are as independent as they want to. Any country can leave the EU if it decides to do so.

And again, this is a legalist argument. If someone really gives value to democracy, he would like democratic principles to be applied everywhere.

It is not "legalist", but a basic fact.

It is a basic fact for sure, and it's also a legalist argument. There is no doubt you 're right, but still this is avoiding the main question.

Are you saying that all other democratic countries in EU don't value democracy because they don't brake up their countries by means of ethnic cleansing?

No, I'm saying they don't value democracy because they accept to be ruled based on non-democratic principles.

Countries are not "ruled" by being members of EU. EU membership is voluntarily and countries can leave from the EU any time they want.

You keep repeating this argument. But even if we assume that in all EU-countries, the majority of population is in favor of the EU (something very questionable), how much of a difference does this make? Hitler had in Germany also the support of the majority of population - did this make Germany of 1936 a democratic country?
But as I said before, even in the inside of EU's most important country, Germany, the "one man, one vote" doesn't apply fully. And there the states don't have the right to leave the german federation any time they want.

There is no such thing as a "TC state" and there will never be since we will never accept such thing. We are living in the 21st century, not the era of the conquerors, and our model for the 21st century is definitely not Bosnia!

A TC state was accepted by the leadership of GCs already since 30 years, and all of the players in Cyprus problems base their efforts on the assumption that it will exist. Even the polls among GCs show that a federation can be acceptable, potentially at least.

As for Bosnia, I've been there some times, and I hope Cyprus could be a little more like that, in some aspects at least.. But anyway, that's irrelevant, we're not searching for models, but for solutions.

I never showed any id to cross to the territory of Cyprus illegally occupied by Turkish troops, and I will never go to this territory until it is truly liberated. Therefore for me just "free movement" means absolutely nothing unless north Cyprus is liberated.

Well, that's good for you, but you have to understand that there are GCs for whom North Cyprus means a lot (and respectively, South Cyprus for many TCs), they feel connected to it, and they want to move around the whole of their island without showing IDs. For them, the police controls in the crossings IS a problem. They just can't see North Cyprus as one more tourist destination.

Cypriots already have the same status in matters international recognition. Republic of Cyprus is recognized as the one and only state on this island, and this is not a problem at all. (only for the Turks)

It's a good thing that most of TCs can use their RoC-passports and enjoy, as persons at least, the advantages of international recognition, but this doesn't mean that the non-recognized status of the North doesn't create problems in their daily life.

To the property problem: First, how do you claim to know so much in detail which kind of solution I propose? How long do you know me? And who would we "compensate ourselves"?
Anyway, in an agreed BBF every refugee would either receive his land back, or get a compensation. As the situation is today, he gets neither. And that's the problem to solve.

Don't you support something like Annan plan? With Annan plan many refugees would not get their properties back and we (Greek Cypriots) would have to compensate those that didn't. Today at least Turkey is responsible to pay the compensations.

I support a BBF (although I have few hopes that this is still realistic). I don't care much of what the Annan plan said on properties - though I doubt it that the GCs would be the ones responsible for paying the compensations.
In an agreed solution, BBF or confederation or partition, the refugees won't just have the right to either get their land back or compensation (in form of money or land), they'll actually get it. If this is payed by Turkey, or by an international organisation, or by a combination of both, is irrelevant.

As to who would stop the import of more and more settlers in a BBF, the answer is obvious: the federal government.

The same federal government that can take no decision without the agreement of the TCs will somehow stop the import of Settlers through territory where the Turks will have full control? How?

Even if the federal government was unable to take any decision without TC agreement (which it wouldn't be, not 100%), you forget that the same goes for GC agreement. If the responsibility for granting citizenships will belong to the federal government, is a part of negotiations, and most probably it will be so, because this is important for the EU too. So, the import of settlers will depend on GC approval.

I don't think you realize what the Cyprus Problem is. The problem is that the Turks occupy our lands. There is no such thing as "TC state" and the north part of Cyprus does not belong to the Turks.

I think that's a simplified explanation of Cyprus Problem, seen only from one specific point of view. If we want to simplify what the Cyprus Problem is, in a way that it would apply to all people involved, I'd say that it is the problems that GCs and TCs face in their lives because of the conflict (leaving aside for a moment the international dimension). And that's the problems we need to solve.

[Afroasiatis]

Yes the TRNC is very original unique and beautiful unspoilt unlike.....

Turkish idiot, with an IQ of a dandelion…

How can this territory be “unspoilt” if its indigenous population has been ethnically cleansed and missing?

We are talking about the natural beauty of the north you moron not the ugly GCs.

The natural beauty? You can see the damage done to its natural beauty of north Cyprus with Google earth. Even the trees have been 'ethnicly cleansed'.

The TRNC is beautiful.

The whole of Cyprus is beautiful, and the natural beauty of the whole of Cyprus is being damaged through bad policies or attitudes. I think, in the last years, this happened especially in North Cyprus with very high rates. Also, the local Cypriot identity is being damaged in both parts, for different or for similar reasons.

[Zeki]

Afro, it's for the same reason. The GCs can see the Turkification of the north but are blind to the Greekification of the south that has been going on for over a century.
Talk of turkeys voting for Christmas.

[Zeki]

Yes the TRNC is very original unique and beautiful unspoilt unlike.....

Turkish idiot, with an IQ of a dandelion…

How can this territory be “unspoilt” if its indigenous population has been ethnically cleansed and missing?

We are talking about the natural beauty of the north you moron not the ugly GCs.

The natural beauty? You can see the damage done to its natural beauty of north Cyprus with Google earth. Even the trees have been 'ethnicly cleansed'.

Deniz, which Turkish trees have they cleansed from the south?

[Piratis]

Again: democratic principles are for states.

Other bodies or organizations can adopt some of the democratic principles to one level or another, but when we are referring to a Democracy we are reffing to a state, not anything else. EU is not a democracy (but a union of democratic states). UN is not a democracy either. A family can not be a democracy etc.

EU countries are as independent as they want to. Any country can leave the EU if it decides to do so.

And again, this is a legalist argument. If someone really gives value to democracy, he would like democratic principles to be applied everywhere.

It is not "legalist", but a basic fact.

It is a basic fact for sure, and it's also a legalist argument. There is no doubt you 're right, but still this is avoiding the main question.

Are you saying that all other democratic countries in EU don't value democracy because they don't brake up their countries by means of ethnic cleansing?

No, I'm saying they don't value democracy because they accept to be ruled based on non-democratic principles.

Countries are not "ruled" by being members of EU. EU membership is voluntarily and countries can leave from the EU any time they want.

You keep repeating this argument. But even if we assume that in all EU-countries, the majority of population is in favor of the EU (something very questionable), how much of a difference does this make? Hitler had in Germany also the support of the majority of population - did this make Germany of 1936 a democratic country?

Democracy is not only Majority rule, but also respect to minority and human rights. You can't have a democracy when any of these 3 principles is missing. (so Turkey is not a real democracy either, but more like Nazi Germany)

But as I said before, even in the inside of EU's most important country, Germany, the "one man, one vote" doesn't apply fully. And there the states don't have the right to leave the german federation any time they want.

There is a difference between "doesn't apply fully" and "doesn't apply at all". In representative democracies it is practically impossible to get one person one vote to apply 100%. Even in Cyprus it doesn't, since for example in Parliamentary elections the votes of those who voted for parties that didn't receive the required amount of votes to get a seat is shared among all the other parties. The point is to get as close to 100% as possible. I wouldn't mind if the TCs, who are about 12% of the population right now, would get say 13% or 15% voting power. But for this small minority to receive 50% of power it totally destroys the principle of one person one vote and the result is something which is not democratic at all.

There is no such thing as a "TC state" and there will never be since we will never accept such thing. We are living in the 21st century, not the era of the conquerors, and our model for the 21st century is definitely not Bosnia!

A TC state was accepted by the leadership of GCs already since 30 years, and all of the players in Cyprus problems base their efforts on the assumption that it will exist. Even the polls among GCs show that a federation can be acceptable, potentially at least.

As for Bosnia, I've been there some times, and I hope Cyprus could be a little more like that, in some aspects at least.. But anyway, that's irrelevant, we're not searching for models, but for solutions.

We never accepted that there is a "TC state", so stop saying lies. What we accepted is that we will negotiate a possible solution that could potentially result in such a "TC state" IF our terms are met as well. When we are talking about Federation, we are not talking about something like Bosnia, we are talking about something like Russia.

Just because we accepted that Federation could be a solution, this doesn't mean this federation should be the way the Turks want it to be. This is DEFINITELY NOT what we accepted. Either the Turks will agree to a kind of federation that is acceptable to us, or there will never be any federation and any "TC State".

The TCs have no right whatsoever for a separate state. The north does not belong to them, they stole it from us. So it is only up to us to decide how much of our rights over our lands we are willing to give up. It is not up to them.

I never showed any id to cross to the territory of Cyprus illegally occupied by Turkish troops, and I will never go to this territory until it is truly liberated. Therefore for me just "free movement" means absolutely nothing unless north Cyprus is liberated.

Well, that's good for you, but you have to understand that there are GCs for whom North Cyprus means a lot (and respectively, South Cyprus for many TCs), they feel connected to it, and they want to move around the whole of their island without showing IDs. For them, the police controls in the crossings IS a problem. They just can't see North Cyprus as one more tourist destination.

Of course they can't see north (with small n) Cyprus as a tourist destination. Neither can I. And that is because north Cyprus is OURS and not Turkish as you claim. But you want to force us to see north Cyprus as belonging to the Turks, and therefore foreign to us.

When a French freely travels to Spain without showing any ID or passport, is this Frenchman not a a tourist and a foreigner in Spain, just because he entered the country without showing an ID?

We don't want north Cyprus to be to us just another Tourist destination like Spain is for the French.

As always, you are again missing the point with what the problem is with showing IDs at the crossings. The point is that we shouldn't need to show any ID to travel from one part of our country to another part because we do not recognize that there is more than one state in Cyprus. But what you want is to give official recognition to this pseudo state, which is far worst than people showing their IDs at the gates.

Cypriots already have the same status in matters international recognition. Republic of Cyprus is recognized as the one and only state on this island, and this is not a problem at all. (only for the Turks)

It's a good thing that most of TCs can use their RoC-passports and enjoy, as persons at least, the advantages of international recognition, but this doesn't mean that the non-recognized status of the North doesn't create problems in their daily life.

It should create problems to them because it is illegal. Thats the price to pay for their crime, and they should continue to pay this price for as long as they continue to commit the crime.

To the property problem: First, how do you claim to know so much in detail which kind of solution I propose? How long do you know me? And who would we "compensate ourselves"?
Anyway, in an agreed BBF every refugee would either receive his land back, or get a compensation. As the situation is today, he gets neither. And that's the problem to solve.

Don't you support something like Annan plan? With Annan plan many refugees would not get their properties back and we (Greek Cypriots) would have to compensate those that didn't. Today at least Turkey is responsible to pay the compensations.

I support a BBF (although I have few hopes that this is still realistic). I don't care much of what the Annan plan said on properties - though I doubt it that the GCs would be the ones responsible for paying the compensations.
In an agreed solution, BBF or confederation or partition, the refugees won't just have the right to either get their land back or compensation (in form of money or land), they'll actually get it. If this is payed by Turkey, or by an international organisation, or by a combination of both, is irrelevant.

Private land can be bought and sold. A nation can neither be bought nor sold (not ours). Today Turkey is responsible to pay compensations to the refugees without us having to give up any of our sovereignty rights over the north part of Cyprus.

With what you propose not only we would lose our rights over north Cyprus, but we (not Turkey or any international organization) will be responsible to pay the compensations of refugees.

As to who would stop the import of more and more settlers in a BBF, the answer is obvious: the federal government.

The same federal government that can take no decision without the agreement of the TCs will somehow stop the import of Settlers through territory where the Turks will have full control? How?

Even if the federal government was unable to take any decision without TC agreement (which it wouldn't be, not 100%), you forget that the same goes for GC agreement. If the responsibility for granting citizenships will belong to the federal government, is a part of negotiations, and most probably it will be so, because this is important for the EU too. So, the import of settlers will depend on GC approval.

Today the Turks can bring 10s of thousands of Settlers who do not get the Cypriot citizenship but are in Cyprus illegally. With the solution you want the Turks will continue to bring to Cyprus 10s of thousands of Settlers that will be in Cyprus illegally. So how exactly is your "solution" going to solve this problem?

I don't think you realize what the Cyprus Problem is. The problem is that the Turks occupy our lands. There is no such thing as "TC state" and the north part of Cyprus does not belong to the Turks.

I think that's a simplified explanation of Cyprus Problem, seen only from one specific point of view. If we want to simplify what the Cyprus Problem is, in a way that it would apply to all people involved, I'd say that it is the problems that GCs and TCs face in their lives because of the conflict (leaving aside for a moment the international dimension). And that's the problems we need to solve.

I face no problem in my daily life and this is the case for most Cypriots. On the contrary the "solution" you propose will create to me problems in my daily life, and that is again the case for most Cypriots.

Therefore you are missing the point yet again. The Cyprus Problem is not just about "daily lives", it is mostly a national issue since the Turks are trying to steal and Turkify a territory that belongs to us.

[Piratis]

Afro, it's for the same reason. The GCs can see the Turkification of the north but are blind to the Greekification of the south that has been going on for over a century.
Talk of turkeys voting for Christmas.

The Hellenization of Cyprus happened more than 3000 years ago.

If you claim that Cyprus is not Hellenic, then Asia Minor can not be Turkish, since the Turkification of Asia Minor happened much more recently.

[denizaksulu]

Yes the TRNC is very original unique and beautiful unspoilt unlike.....

Turkish idiot, with an IQ of a dandelion…

How can this territory be “unspoilt” if its indigenous population has been ethnically cleansed and missing?

We are talking about the natural beauty of the north you moron not the ugly GCs.

The natural beauty? You can see the damage done to its natural beauty of north Cyprus with Google earth. Even the trees have been 'ethnicly cleansed'.

Deniz, which Turkish trees have they cleansed from the south?

We were discussing the north.

The south is a different matter all together. On Google earth I saw that our almond trees have disappeared also our fig plantation (well there were only twelve plus a gigantic apricot tree) and converted into the village football pitch. I believe I posted a photograph of the pitch on the cf. Our vineyards also disappeared, but they would have needed to be tended for them to survive. Now it has become arable land after the vine trunks have been uprooted. These I have mentioned before, but as a newcomer you may not have seen them. I am not partisan Zeki. I can criticise both sides faults when I feel up to it. I get my fair share of abuse from both sides. Does that make you happier?

[Lit]

Hello again.

It's nice to discuss the little nuances of understanding we each have about the basis of our humanity, in such a friendly manner.

You're correct that the phenotype is the outward manifestation of the genotype; but the genetic differences which lead to quite dramatic phenotypic variations are actually quite small. Maybe one base change in the DNA of a gene could affect its activity profoundly. The point I was trying to make is that these subtle genetic variations are too minuscule to be used to classify people into different types (races). Besides, we all possess the same genes (+/- sex chromosomes) with equal chances of mutations or recombination to yield our endless differences in phenotypes. Some, quite alarmingly, different to our parents. So, we are not different races because of these genetic differences which become visible under different environmental cues.

As for the other points, we mostly agree. No culture is untouched by others, and nearest-neighbours tend to swap and learn from each other. With 70 Million people in Turkey, we know there are many cultural groups which have been absorbed by the recent conquerors, over the last few centuries, and the marker-analyses gaining popularity for tracking migrations will soon reveal our mysteries, since DNA has a good memory.

I also think it's good we can speak about these issues in friendly manner.

To what you say up to here, I don't disagree, as far as I understand it correctly. So I'll move directly to the last part:

However, the cultural differences which are poignant in the Cyprus Problem are a little more embedded, in my opinion, than simply liking the sound of similar musical instruments and such type. I do suspect that there is a wide cultural divide which is memetically passed down the generations alongside various traditions and expectations. It's probably responsible for the success the 'Turkic tribes' have had in usurping, colonising and replacing natives who, otherwise, had for thousands of years settled into territorial co-operation. It's being exercised right now in some of the unhealthy beliefs we see manifested in arguments for holding on to the occupied north; what most civilized people consider as not rightfully theirs (Turk-TCs) to keep. This theft is supported and reinforced as normal from Turkish-state level. These unhealthy memes are being used to keep people separate from each other - with the excuse that we are different races - perpetuated by that popular nugget we see resurfacing every few months, here on CF, that "GCs and TCs" are more 'genetically similar' than they are to "Turks" and "Greeks". What racist tosh. It is in fact the cultural norms of these people which are more different than their respective genes. The phenotype!

I can't say I see much of cultural differences playing a role in the Cyprus problem - except to the extent they define group identities (i.e. I belong to the "Christians" or to "Muslims", to "Greeks" or to the "Turks"). But generally, I think many things in our lifes, even the way TCs and GCs view the Cyprus problem, are shaped through similar mentalities, which are based on common culture.

As for the success of the Turkish tribes, was their behavior really that different to other tribes which had come earlier in our region, like the greek tribes, the slavic tribes, the semitic tribes etc? Didn't they also often use, as newcomers, violence in order to subjugate the indigenous populations? And did the natives really live in territorial co-operation before the arrival of Turks? There were plenty of wars between Byzantines, Arabs, Persians, Latins, Slavs.

But let's move more into the part mostly relevant to the Cyprus question. You correctly point out to the way the theft of north cypriot land (and I would add, also the ethnic cleansing of GCs from there) "is supported and reinforced as normal from Turkish-state level". But is this really to be explained through cultural differences? Don't the Israelis do the same with Palestine, and even in much greater scale? Isn't a similar situation in Abkhazia? Would that mean that Jews, Turks/TCs, and Russians/Abkhazians have cultural similarities to each other which make them different to Arabs, Greeks/ GCs and Georgians?

About the most ridiculous thing ive read on this forum. You can not compare the Cyprus issue with any of the above. Each is unique...for example.... Abkhazia is a region with a rich and ancient history where as there never was an existence of a so called "trnc". Nice try.

Each case is unique, and they all have an important similarity: that the ethnic group claiming to own the country was a minority, the biggest ethnic group was another one, and this could only be changed through means of ethnic cleansing. This is common in TRNC, Israel, and Abkhazia. Rich and ancient histories are irrelevant to this.

What is irrelevant is your statement above. The model of Abkhazia and the like does not hold. As much as you like to point to a few similarities...i am afraid there are major differences between the two from a moral, historical, and humanitarian points of view. Nice try. LOL

[Afroasiatis]

Democracy is not only Majority rule, but also respect to minority and human rights. You can't have a democracy when any of these 3 principles is missing. (so Turkey is not a real democracy either, but more like Nazi Germany)

There is a difference between "doesn't apply fully" and "doesn't apply at all". In representative democracies it is practically impossible to get one person one vote to apply 100%. Even in Cyprus it doesn't, since for example in Parliamentary elections the votes of those who voted for parties that didn't receive the required amount of votes to get a seat is shared among all the other parties. The point is to get as close to 100% as possible. I wouldn't mind if the TCs, who are about 12% of the population right now, would get say 13% or 15% voting power. But for this small minority to receive 50% of power it totally destroys the principle of one person one vote and the result is something which is not democratic at all.

Ok, if you ask me, not only Turkey isn’t a real democracy, but practically no country that I know of is, not really any EU-country and certainly not the EU itself. But that’s a very long subject.

But it’s good we’re finally getting somewhere regarding this “one man, one vote”- thing. We know that this doesn’t apply fully in the EU, and the difference to what we are discussing is quantitative rather than qualitative. So, people who oppose BBF on the grounds that it violates “one man, one vote”, should stop making Europe into their flag – that’s all I was saying. This doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to be against BBF.

Now, to the core of the subject: the latest numbers on demographics accepted by both sides are 18% for the TCs, so this is the beginning point. You say 50% is too much for 18%, and you’re probably right. Not even the TC negotiators demand so much, although what they want is near to that. From what we know up to now, it seems that the final deal (if there is one, which I doubt) will close to somewhere between 30-40%.

We never accepted that there is a "TC state", so stop saying lies. What we accepted is that we will negotiate a possible solution that could potentially result in such a "TC state" IF our terms are met as well. When we are talking about Federation, we are not talking about something like Bosnia, we are talking about something like Russia.

Just because we accepted that Federation could be a solution, this doesn't mean this federation should be the way the Turks want it to be. This is DEFINITELY NOT what we accepted. Either the Turks will agree to a kind of federation that is acceptable to us, or there will never be any federation and any "TC State".

The TCs have no right whatsoever for a separate state. The north does not belong to them, they stole it from us. So it is only up to us to decide how much of our rights over our lands we are willing to give up. It is not up to them.

Again, you use some typically correct, but legalist arguments. The GC elites accepted that if there’s going to be a solution, it’s going to be a federation, and that’s the only solution officially under discussion. Federation means that there is going to be at least one TC state – the exact terms of this are still under negotiation. I’m aware that a big part of GC elites may prefer other solutions, nearer to partition, but for the time being, very few of them, if any, have the courage to say it openly. But even this solution implies the existence of a TC state, official or unofficial. So, it’s something we can take for granted. Except if the global socialist revolution comes in the meantime, but I personally have very few hopes for this.

As to what you say in the last paragraph, it’s difficult for me to see the point in it. You speak as if the acceptance of federation is a gesture of GC good will, which the GC elites did out of generosity and can take back any time they want. But it’s not at all like that. There was an invasion and a military defeat, which created facts and forced the GC elites to accept this solution. They would never have even considered it otherwise.
Right now, there are negotiations on how exactly it will look like. The strong cards of the turkish/TC elites are the geopolitical weight of Turkey, and the created facts plus the time factor. The strong cards of the GC elites are the international legality and the EU-membership. If there is an agreement (as I said, doubtful), it will be a compromise, somewhere in the middle.

Of course they can't see north (with small n) Cyprus as a tourist destination. Neither can I. And that is because north Cyprus is OURS and not Turkish as you claim. But you want to force us to see north Cyprus as belonging to the Turks, and therefore foreign to us.

When a French freely travels to Spain without showing any ID or passport, is this Frenchman not a a tourist and a foreigner in Spain, just because he entered the country without showing an ID?

We don't want north Cyprus to be to us just another Tourist destination like Spain is for the French.

As always, you are again missing the point with what the problem is with showing IDs at the crossings. The point is that we shouldn't need to show any ID to travel from one part of our country to another part because we do not recognize that there is more than one state in Cyprus. But what you want is to give official recognition to this pseudo state, which is far worst than people showing their IDs at the gates.

You may want to see North Cyprus as foreign or a tourist destination, but it’s neither to me. Neither you nor any turkish military establishments can make me to see it like that. It’s a part of my homecountry. If you feel tourist or not, depends primarily on you.

As for French in Spain, the truth is that he’s not exactly a foreigner from a legal point of view. He’s an EU-citizen, which gives him far more rights there than what a normal foreigner has. But anyway, a federated Cyprus will have one single sovereignty, so the relationship isn’t going to be exactly the same as between Spain and France.

Private land can be bought and sold. A nation can neither be bought nor sold (not ours). Today Turkey is responsible to pay compensations to the refugees without us having to give up any of our sovereignty rights over the north part of Cyprus.

With what you propose not only we would lose our rights over north Cyprus, but we (not Turkey or any international organization) will be responsible to pay the compensations of refugees.

You accuse me of telling lies, but what are you doing here now? Find me ONE sentence or phrase, with which I implied that the compensations should be payed by you or me. What I said, is that the refugees shouldn’t only have the right to get compensations, they should actually get them – or have their land returned.

Today the Turks can bring 10s of thousands of Settlers who do not get the Cypriot citizenship but are in Cyprus illegally. With the solution you want the Turks will continue to bring to Cyprus 10s of thousands of Settlers that will be in Cyprus illegally. So how exactly is your "solution" going to solve this problem?

There’s always going to be illegal immigration – the only real solution to this problem is the global socialist revolution I mentioned before.
The problem may not be solved, but it will get less intense in a BBF. Today, Turkey or the TC elites have the possibility to use a state apparatus for adding population from Turkey in order to change the demographics. With a BBF, they won’t have this possibility any more, since granting citizenships will need to pass through the federal government. Simple as that.

I face no problem in my daily life and this is the case for most Cypriots. On the contrary the "solution" you propose will create to me problems in my daily life, and that is again the case for most Cypriots.

That’s your opinion. I don’t know if you are right or wrong, I tend to believe the opposite. But anyway, when and if the time comes, there’s going to be a referendum, Cypriots will weigh what the most important problems in their daily lives are or will be potentially. And will take their decision, if we are going to move in the future together, or will take our separate ways.

Therefore you are missing the point yet again. The Cyprus Problem is not just about "daily lives", it is mostly a national issue since the Turks are trying to steal and Turkify a territory that belongs to us.

But don’t you understand that this is the basic difference in the way we see the Cyprus problem? I see it from partly a humanist and partly an all-Cypriot point of view, you see it from a national one. This is seen everywhere: from the way you use “we” and “you” in arguments with TCs, to your reference to TCs as collectively criminals in your last post. As I said, in my opinion it’s exactly this mentality which is the root of the Cyprus problem, and which will also put in danger any kind of re-unification.

[Afroasiatis]

Hello again.

It's nice to discuss the little nuances of understanding we each have about the basis of our humanity, in such a friendly manner.

You're correct that the phenotype is the outward manifestation of the genotype; but the genetic differences which lead to quite dramatic phenotypic variations are actually quite small. Maybe one base change in the DNA of a gene could affect its activity profoundly. The point I was trying to make is that these subtle genetic variations are too minuscule to be used to classify people into different types (races). Besides, we all possess the same genes (+/- sex chromosomes) with equal chances of mutations or recombination to yield our endless differences in phenotypes. Some, quite alarmingly, different to our parents. So, we are not different races because of these genetic differences which become visible under different environmental cues.

As for the other points, we mostly agree. No culture is untouched by others, and nearest-neighbours tend to swap and learn from each other. With 70 Million people in Turkey, we know there are many cultural groups which have been absorbed by the recent conquerors, over the last few centuries, and the marker-analyses gaining popularity for tracking migrations will soon reveal our mysteries, since DNA has a good memory.

I also think it's good we can speak about these issues in friendly manner.

To what you say up to here, I don't disagree, as far as I understand it correctly. So I'll move directly to the last part:

However, the cultural differences which are poignant in the Cyprus Problem are a little more embedded, in my opinion, than simply liking the sound of similar musical instruments and such type. I do suspect that there is a wide cultural divide which is memetically passed down the generations alongside various traditions and expectations. It's probably responsible for the success the 'Turkic tribes' have had in usurping, colonising and replacing natives who, otherwise, had for thousands of years settled into territorial co-operation. It's being exercised right now in some of the unhealthy beliefs we see manifested in arguments for holding on to the occupied north; what most civilized people consider as not rightfully theirs (Turk-TCs) to keep. This theft is supported and reinforced as normal from Turkish-state level. These unhealthy memes are being used to keep people separate from each other - with the excuse that we are different races - perpetuated by that popular nugget we see resurfacing every few months, here on CF, that "GCs and TCs" are more 'genetically similar' than they are to "Turks" and "Greeks". What racist tosh. It is in fact the cultural norms of these people which are more different than their respective genes. The phenotype!

I can't say I see much of cultural differences playing a role in the Cyprus problem - except to the extent they define group identities (i.e. I belong to the "Christians" or to "Muslims", to "Greeks" or to the "Turks"). But generally, I think many things in our lifes, even the way TCs and GCs view the Cyprus problem, are shaped through similar mentalities, which are based on common culture.

As for the success of the Turkish tribes, was their behavior really that different to other tribes which had come earlier in our region, like the greek tribes, the slavic tribes, the semitic tribes etc? Didn't they also often use, as newcomers, violence in order to subjugate the indigenous populations? And did the natives really live in territorial co-operation before the arrival of Turks? There were plenty of wars between Byzantines, Arabs, Persians, Latins, Slavs.

But let's move more into the part mostly relevant to the Cyprus question. You correctly point out to the way the theft of north cypriot land (and I would add, also the ethnic cleansing of GCs from there) "is supported and reinforced as normal from Turkish-state level". But is this really to be explained through cultural differences? Don't the Israelis do the same with Palestine, and even in much greater scale? Isn't a similar situation in Abkhazia? Would that mean that Jews, Turks/TCs, and Russians/Abkhazians have cultural similarities to each other which make them different to Arabs, Greeks/ GCs and Georgians?

About the most ridiculous thing ive read on this forum. You can not compare the Cyprus issue with any of the above. Each is unique...for example.... Abkhazia is a region with a rich and ancient history where as there never was an existence of a so called "trnc". Nice try.

Each case is unique, and they all have an important similarity: that the ethnic group claiming to own the country was a minority, the biggest ethnic group was another one, and this could only be changed through means of ethnic cleansing. This is common in TRNC, Israel, and Abkhazia. Rich and ancient histories are irrelevant to this.

What is irrelevant is your statement above. The model of Abkhazia and the like does not hold. As much as you like to point to a few similarities...i am afraid there are major differences between the two from a moral, historical, and humanitarian points of view. Nice try. LOL

I don’t point to a few similarities, I point to practically one. There are of course many differences between Abkhazia and North Cyprus, but I don’t see how they cancel the one similarity to which I pointed out. If you know of anything that cancels this, please educate me, I admit I know almost near to nothing about Abkhazia. But up to now you don’t sound very convincing.

But even if Abkhazia can’t count as an example, Israel certainly can. So, the point still remains, and if you believe that it’s wrong, you should explain why.