Cyprus-Forum.com

[Afroasiatis]

The Cypriot people have been Greek long before they became Christian Orthodox. It is the foreign invaders that tried to destroy our identity, but they failed. The Greek Cypriot dialect is, as the name implies, a dialect of the Greek language, like the many other dialects that exist within Greece (or the many German dialects that exist within Germany). Therefore the Greek Cypriot dialect was never something that was in any conflict with our Greek identity, but on the contrary it was yet another element of our Greek identity that goes back 1000s of years.

What a Greek is and how long such a thing exists is an endless debate, it’s by no means clear. The point is, the hellenic national identity is a new thing (as every national identity), and it needed to be imposed on the Christian Orthodox population of Cyprus (not to greek-speakers in general, the greek-speaking Muslims were exempted), as it had been imposed on other Orthodox populations of East Med, many of whom didn’t even speak greek. A part of every nationalist project is also to impose a common language, in case of Cyprus this was the official Greek, and for this purpose the GC dialect had to be suppressed.

All EU countries are democratic countries. We are not talking about some "perfect" Utopian kind of democracy, but about a realistically possible kind of democracy. Just because we can't have an unrealistically perfect democracy this is no excuse to abandon democracy all together.

Well, if you ask me, the EU-countries are about 20-30% democratic, and the reason they aren’t more isn’t because it’s impossible, it’s because they don’t want to be. But let’s not move too much out of the subject. Even this 20-30% is better than nothing, and we should try to have in Cyprus as much as possible of it. The main thing is we realize that’s a quantitative and not a qualitative target.

Therefore you should not say that our "elites" want BBF or supposedly some of them want partition. What most of us (including GC "elites") want, is a unitary state.

These word games are getting tiring. What is relevant for us is what the GC or TC elites are trying to achieve out of what is realistically possible, not what they like to dream about in their free time. You can choose the verb you prefer to name this, if you don’t like “want”.

I don't think we "simply stand there and cry". We have progressed and our standards of living are much higher than those of the Mafia-Boss, even if he stole from us our most valuable belongings.

Just because we currently can not get our belongings back this doesn't mean we should stop having any claim on what is ours and let the Mafia Boss to fully enjoy what he stole from us. The Mafia Boss should continue to have some problems due to the crime he committed, and when the balance of power changes we will have every right to take back what is ours (a right we wouldn't have if we made a contract and singed our belongings to the Mafia Boss).

And land, unlike a car, never gets too old. If anything lands gets more valuable as time passes.

If you want to make the Mafia Boss suffer for his crime just for the sake of moral satisfaction, you can do it. If you want to reject his offer he makes you on using the car, in order to keep your pride, you can do it. But by keeping illusions that you may get the car back and think about it the whole time, when you know that police is corrupt and the Mafia-boss is strong, you only harm yourself. Just buy a new car and get on with your life.


In some decades, the last refugees will have died. Their children will have built their lifes on their hometowns, and only a few of them will be ready to abandon them in order to go back and live in the lands of their fathers, who will be totally different compared to what their fathers have told them. At the same time, you’ll have to deal in these lands with a population which feels much more connected to them, which is foreign and hostile to you, and which will wait every chance that the balance of power changes again to take their revenge.

So yes, if contrary to all expectations, the time comes that we get the car back, it will almost for sure be too old to be used.

They might have more rights that other foreigners but they are still foreigners. The north part of Cyprus is to us what Lion is to the French, not what Madrid is to them. There is a huge difference.

If we think of it better, the difference is actually a minor one.

We will be able to impose absolutely nothing to north Cyprus since the TCs will be able to block the federal government from taking any decision that they don't agree to.

In some subjects yes and in others no.

I don't have the Annan plan in front of me now to quote you things from it. But that is how it is. Turkey would be off the hook completely and some donors would give a promise for some money which are peanuts compared to the amounts needed for compensations. So who would pay the compensations if not us? The only other possibility is that nobody would pay any compensations and therefore those entitled to compensation will not get any.

So, it seems the Annan-Plan doesn't explicitly mention that compensations are going to be payed by GCs, it's your interpretation of it.
Anyway, if the mechanism of paying the compensations is unclear in Annan-Plan, it's a problem of Annan-Plan. How's this relevant to what we are discussing now?

Earlier you claimed that BBF would supposedly solve the Settler issue. Today Settlers come to Cyprus illegally (but they don't get the Cypriot citizenship). After the "solution" you propose Settlers will still be able to come to Cyprus illegally and we would have no way to stop them or deport them since we would have no control over the north part of Cyprus. So how is that "solution" going to solve the Settler issue?

It's not going to solve it. It's going to make it less intense, by turning it into a problem of illegal immigration. If some nationalist organizations try to import settlers in the North with illegal means in order to change the demographics, if they are found they will be arrested by the police and go through a trial.

You always talk about "North Cyprus" (with capital N), about TRNC (without quotes) and in general you seem to accept the Turkish position that Cyprus belongs to them. Do you deny this?

The north part of Cyprus is not Turkish (yet again you claim it is Turkish and then you claim that you never said such thing!). The north part of Cyprus is under illegal Turkish occupation. Yes, the illegal Turkish occupation might continue for many more years, but that is not as bad as making north Cyprus officially Turkish which is what will happen if we accept your "solution".

As I said, this word game is getting really tiring. I’ll try to make things clear, in order to get on with the essence of the discussion:

- North Cyprus is legally a part of RoC-territory. Practically, it is controlled by Turkey and TC elites. Under these conditions, to whom it belongs and if it’s turkish or not, is a philosophical debate. Again, tell me your perfect verbs, and I’ll try to use them when I discuss with you.
- I talk about North Cyprus, in the same way I speak about North Greece or East Germany: as a part of a geographical entity with clearly different characteristics to the rest. If the N is capital or not, isn’t something that should concern serious persons.
- I don’t use quotation marks to TRNC, because it’s something that exists. It may be never recognized, it may be fully illegal, it may have been the result of invasion and ethnic cleansing, it may be unable to survive even for one day without Turkey’s help, but it’s there. Our politicians and journalists do well that they use quotation marks or the pseudo- prefix, it’s part of the game. But we, as normal people, don’t need to have such concerns, we can keep a minimum honesty.

So, no that we’ ve cleared this up (I hope) let’s move to the essence: under a BBF, North Cyprus will be above all Cypriot, and secondarily Turkish Cypriot to around 70% and Greek Cypriot to 30% (I mean, beginning from today's TRNC territory). If the situation remains as today, 100% of it will be theoretically RoC-terrirory and practically Turkish (not really Turkish Cypriot). We choose and we take.

As I said, I have very few hopes that anything will change. If you want to leave North Cyprus in Turkey's hands, do it. If you want to break Cyprus into two, do it. But be clear about it. By talking about liberations in an undefined distant future, when nothing will be the same any more, we're just making the situation worst.


P.S. I read your answer to another post, where you made a comparison with Czechoslovakia and practically threatened TCs with an ethnic cleansing (correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the impression I got). Do you actually believe that the ethnic cleansing of Sudete Germans was a fair thing to do? If yes, this shows exactly the difference between a national and a humanist way of thinking.

[Piratis]

The Cypriot people have been Greek long before they became Christian Orthodox. It is the foreign invaders that tried to destroy our identity, but they failed. The Greek Cypriot dialect is, as the name implies, a dialect of the Greek language, like the many other dialects that exist within Greece (or the many German dialects that exist within Germany). Therefore the Greek Cypriot dialect was never something that was in any conflict with our Greek identity, but on the contrary it was yet another element of our Greek identity that goes back 1000s of years.

What a Greek is and how long such a thing exists is an endless debate, it’s by no means clear. The point is, the hellenic national identity is a new thing (as every national identity), and it needed to be imposed on the Christian Orthodox population of Cyprus (not to greek-speakers in general, the greek-speaking Muslims were exempted), as it had been imposed on other Orthodox populations of East Med, many of whom didn’t even speak greek. A part of every nationalist project is also to impose a common language, in case of Cyprus this was the official Greek, and for this purpose the GC dialect had to be suppressed.

We could also have an endless debate whether the moon is made of cheese if you insisted on such position. What is true for the Greeks is what is true for every other nation. Nations evolve and gradually change and this is a perfectly normal phenomenon that can happen even within 1-2 generations, let alone 4000 years.

All EU countries are democratic countries. We are not talking about some "perfect" Utopian kind of democracy, but about a realistically possible kind of democracy. Just because we can't have an unrealistically perfect democracy this is no excuse to abandon democracy all together.

Well, if you ask me, the EU-countries are about 20-30% democratic, and the reason they aren’t more isn’t because it’s impossible, it’s because they don’t want to be. But let’s not move too much out of the subject. Even this 20-30% is better than nothing, and we should try to have in Cyprus as much as possible of it. The main thing is we realize that’s a quantitative and not a qualitative target.

Well, maybe in some Utopian kind of democracy they would make a referendum for every decision taken. What I am talking about here is democracies as they actually exist. Democracy as we have in Cyprus today, for example. What we should have in Cyprus after a solution should not be any less democratic than what we have in Cyprus now. A "solution" that doesn't even maintain the level of democracy we have now would be a regress and not progress.

Therefore you should not say that our "elites" want BBF or supposedly some of them want partition. What most of us (including GC "elites") want, is a unitary state.

These word games are getting tiring. What is relevant for us is what the GC or TC elites are trying to achieve out of what is realistically possible, not what they like to dream about in their free time. You can choose the verb you prefer to name this, if you don’t like “want”.

It is not a word game at all. It is totally invalid to say that "GCs want BBF". We don't want it at all. We were just blackmailed and forced to accept to negotiate a possible solution based on it. There is a HUGE difference between the two.

I don't think we "simply stand there and cry". We have progressed and our standards of living are much higher than those of the Mafia-Boss, even if he stole from us our most valuable belongings.

Just because we currently can not get our belongings back this doesn't mean we should stop having any claim on what is ours and let the Mafia Boss to fully enjoy what he stole from us. The Mafia Boss should continue to have some problems due to the crime he committed, and when the balance of power changes we will have every right to take back what is ours (a right we wouldn't have if we made a contract and singed our belongings to the Mafia Boss).

And land, unlike a car, never gets too old. If anything lands gets more valuable as time passes.

If you want to make the Mafia Boss suffer for his crime just for the sake of moral satisfaction, you can do it. If you want to reject his offer he makes you on using the car, in order to keep your pride, you can do it. But by keeping illusions that you may get the car back and think about it the whole time, when you know that police is corrupt and the Mafia-boss is strong, you only harm yourself. Just buy a new car and get on with your life.

As I said: We are moving on with our lives and our standards of living are better than the ones of the Mafia Boss. But why shouldn't we also make the Mafia Boss suffer, and why should we throw away the keys of our stolen car? At the very least the Mafia Boss suffers a bit, at the very best the balance of power changes and we get our car back. So why not?

In some decades, the last refugees will have died. Their children will have built their lifes on their hometowns, and only a few of them will be ready to abandon them in order to go back and live in the lands of their fathers, who will be totally different compared to what their fathers have told them. At the same time, you’ll have to deal in these lands with a population which feels much more connected to them, which is foreign and hostile to you, and which will wait every chance that the balance of power changes again to take their revenge.

So yes, if contrary to all expectations, the time comes that we get the car back, it will almost for sure be too old to be used.

Ask the Turks how they did it in 1974 without them having any roots in Cyprus. If the Turks could ethnically cleanse us and steal our lands from us, then surely we can also reverse the process and take back what is ours.

The land is billions of years old. It will only become "too old" when it becomes uninhabitable due to natural reasons.

They might have more rights that other foreigners but they are still foreigners. The north part of Cyprus is to us what Lion is to the French, not what Madrid is to them. There is a huge difference.

If we think of it better, the difference is actually a minor one.

Not minor at all. I am also an EU citizen and I traveled to many EU countries. I am a foreigner there and that is how the local people see me. When I go to north Cyprus I don't want any Turk to think of me as a guest to "his" territory.

We will be able to impose absolutely nothing to north Cyprus since the TCs will be able to block the federal government from taking any decision that they don't agree to.

In some subjects yes and in others no.

In all important matters.

I don't have the Annan plan in front of me now to quote you things from it. But that is how it is. Turkey would be off the hook completely and some donors would give a promise for some money which are peanuts compared to the amounts needed for compensations. So who would pay the compensations if not us? The only other possibility is that nobody would pay any compensations and therefore those entitled to compensation will not get any.

So, it seems the Annan-Plan doesn't explicitly mention that compensations are going to be payed by GCs, it's your interpretation of it.
Anyway, if the mechanism of paying the compensations is unclear in Annan-Plan, it's a problem of Annan-Plan. How's this relevant to what we are discussing now?

Do you think that today we can reach a BBF "solution" that will be much better than Annan plan?

Earlier you claimed that BBF would supposedly solve the Settler issue. Today Settlers come to Cyprus illegally (but they don't get the Cypriot citizenship). After the "solution" you propose Settlers will still be able to come to Cyprus illegally and we would have no way to stop them or deport them since we would have no control over the north part of Cyprus. So how is that "solution" going to solve the Settler issue?

It's not going to solve it. It's going to make it less intense, by turning it into a problem of illegal immigration. If some nationalist organizations try to import settlers in the North with illegal means in order to change the demographics, if they are found they will be arrested by the police and go through a trial.

Turning the problem of the Turkish Settlers (a crime of war against the Geneva Convention) to merely "illegal immigration" is actually making the problem worst not better.

And who is going to arrest and judge the Prime Minister of Turkey and the "TC President" of Cyprus for trying to change the demographics? The "nationalist organizations" that are trying to change the demographics of Cyprus are none else from the Turkish and the TC leadership. Or you haven't realized this yet?

You always talk about "North Cyprus" (with capital N), about TRNC (without quotes) and in general you seem to accept the Turkish position that Cyprus belongs to them. Do you deny this?

The north part of Cyprus is not Turkish (yet again you claim it is Turkish and then you claim that you never said such thing!). The north part of Cyprus is under illegal Turkish occupation. Yes, the illegal Turkish occupation might continue for many more years, but that is not as bad as making north Cyprus officially Turkish which is what will happen if we accept your "solution".

As I said, this word game is getting really tiring. I’ll try to make things clear, in order to get on with the essence of the discussion:

- North Cyprus is legally a part of RoC-territory. Practically, it is controlled by Turkey and TC elites. Under these conditions, to whom it belongs and if it’s turkish or not, is a philosophical debate. Again, tell me your perfect verbs, and I’ll try to use them when I discuss with you.

One thing is to whom something belongs and totally different thing is who illegally occupies it. If I kidnap your child and I keep it in my home does this means the child belongs to me?

- I talk about North Cyprus, in the same way I speak about North Greece or East Germany: as a part of a geographical entity with clearly different characteristics to the rest. If the N is capital or not, isn’t something that should concern serious persons.

But it concerns you, since you insist on using a capital N, just like the Turks do.

- I don’t use quotation marks to TRNC, because it’s something that exists. It may be never recognized, it may be fully illegal, it may have been the result of invasion and ethnic cleansing, it may be unable to survive even for one day without Turkey’s help, but it’s there. Our politicians and journalists do well that they use quotation marks or the pseudo- prefix, it’s part of the game. But we, as normal people, don’t need to have such concerns, we can keep a minimum honesty.

What exists in the north part of Cyprus is 40.000 Turkish troops which are illegally occupying our territory. No other state exists in Cyprus apart from Republic of Cyprus. So no, a "trnc" doesn't exist, which is why it used within quotes. I could also declare that I have a state called PS (Piratis State) and that I am the president, but this doesn't mean that "PS" actually exists.

So, no that we’ ve cleared this up (I hope) let’s move to the essence: under a BBF, North Cyprus will be above all Cypriot, and secondarily Turkish Cypriot to around 70% and Greek Cypriot to 30% (I mean, beginning from today's TRNC territory). If the situation remains as today, 100% of it will be theoretically RoC-terrirory and practically Turkish (not really Turkish Cypriot). We choose and we take.

The Turks do not agree to give back to us the 30% of the land they illegally occupy, so I don't know where you got that number. Furthermore, in order to give to us some small percentage of land back, not only they want the remaining part to be officially recognized as Turkish, but they want 50% of the rule of Cyprus as a whole.

As I said earlier, there are BBF solutions that I would accept. If the Turks would give back 30% of the occupied territory, and the federation would be a strong one, with the president elected democratically by the Cypriot people as a whole and with the central government having power over the individual states in all essential issues, then I would accept it.

As I said, I have very few hopes that anything will change. If you want to leave North Cyprus in Turkey's hands, do it. If you want to break Cyprus into two, do it. But be clear about it. By talking about liberations in an undefined distant future, when nothing will be the same any more, we're just making the situation worst.

With something like Annan plan north Cyprus would be officially in Turkish hands. If you have something to propose that would put north Cyprus in our hands, then please do, I will have no problem to accept it.

P.S. I read your answer to another post, where you made a comparison with Czechoslovakia and practically threatened TCs with an ethnic cleansing (correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the impression I got). Do you actually believe that the ethnic cleansing of Sudete Germans was a fair thing to do? If yes, this shows exactly the difference between a national and a humanist way of thinking.

On the contrary I am the one who keeps saying that the solution should not be based on ethnic cleansing. Unfortunately most TCs don't seem to agree with me. They insist that the solution should be based on ethnic cleansing and that GCs and TCs should live in separate states. They think this can be a good way to solve the problem. What do you think?

[Viewpoint]

The Cypriot people have been Greek long before they became Christian Orthodox. It is the foreign invaders that tried to destroy our identity, but they failed. The Greek Cypriot dialect is, as the name implies, a dialect of the Greek language, like the many other dialects that exist within Greece (or the many German dialects that exist within Germany). Therefore the Greek Cypriot dialect was never something that was in any conflict with our Greek identity, but on the contrary it was yet another element of our Greek identity that goes back 1000s of years.

What a Greek is and how long such a thing exists is an endless debate, it’s by no means clear. The point is, the hellenic national identity is a new thing (as every national identity), and it needed to be imposed on the Christian Orthodox population of Cyprus (not to greek-speakers in general, the greek-speaking Muslims were exempted), as it had been imposed on other Orthodox populations of East Med, many of whom didn’t even speak greek. A part of every nationalist project is also to impose a common language, in case of Cyprus this was the official Greek, and for this purpose the GC dialect had to be suppressed.

We could also have an endless debate whether the moon is made of cheese if you insisted on such position. What is true for the Greeks is what is true for every other nation. Nations evolve and gradually change and this is a perfectly normal phenomenon that can happen even within 1-2 generations, let alone 4000 years.

All EU countries are democratic countries. We are not talking about some "perfect" Utopian kind of democracy, but about a realistically possible kind of democracy. Just because we can't have an unrealistically perfect democracy this is no excuse to abandon democracy all together.

Well, if you ask me, the EU-countries are about 20-30% democratic, and the reason they aren’t more isn’t because it’s impossible, it’s because they don’t want to be. But let’s not move too much out of the subject. Even this 20-30% is better than nothing, and we should try to have in Cyprus as much as possible of it. The main thing is we realize that’s a quantitative and not a qualitative target.

Well, maybe in some Utopian kind of democracy they would make a referendum for every decision taken. What I am talking about here is democracies as they actually exist. Democracy as we have in Cyprus today, for example. What we should have in Cyprus after a solution should not be any less democratic than what we have in Cyprus now. A "solution" that doesn't even maintain the level of democracy we have now would be a regress and not progress.

Therefore you should not say that our "elites" want BBF or supposedly some of them want partition. What most of us (including GC "elites") want, is a unitary state.

These word games are getting tiring. What is relevant for us is what the GC or TC elites are trying to achieve out of what is realistically possible, not what they like to dream about in their free time. You can choose the verb you prefer to name this, if you don’t like “want”.

It is not a word game at all. It is totally invalid to say that "GCs want BBF". We don't want it at all. We were just blackmailed and forced to accept to negotiate a possible solution based on it. There is a HUGE difference between the two.

I don't think we "simply stand there and cry". We have progressed and our standards of living are much higher than those of the Mafia-Boss, even if he stole from us our most valuable belongings.

Just because we currently can not get our belongings back this doesn't mean we should stop having any claim on what is ours and let the Mafia Boss to fully enjoy what he stole from us. The Mafia Boss should continue to have some problems due to the crime he committed, and when the balance of power changes we will have every right to take back what is ours (a right we wouldn't have if we made a contract and singed our belongings to the Mafia Boss).

And land, unlike a car, never gets too old. If anything lands gets more valuable as time passes.

If you want to make the Mafia Boss suffer for his crime just for the sake of moral satisfaction, you can do it. If you want to reject his offer he makes you on using the car, in order to keep your pride, you can do it. But by keeping illusions that you may get the car back and think about it the whole time, when you know that police is corrupt and the Mafia-boss is strong, you only harm yourself. Just buy a new car and get on with your life.

As I said: We are moving on with our lives and our standards of living are better than the ones of the Mafia Boss. But why shouldn't we also make the Mafia Boss suffer, and why should we throw away the keys of our stolen car? At the very least the Mafia Boss suffers a bit, at the very best the balance of power changes and we get our car back. So why not?

In some decades, the last refugees will have died. Their children will have built their lifes on their hometowns, and only a few of them will be ready to abandon them in order to go back and live in the lands of their fathers, who will be totally different compared to what their fathers have told them. At the same time, you’ll have to deal in these lands with a population which feels much more connected to them, which is foreign and hostile to you, and which will wait every chance that the balance of power changes again to take their revenge.

So yes, if contrary to all expectations, the time comes that we get the car back, it will almost for sure be too old to be used.

Ask the Turks how they did it in 1974 without them having any roots in Cyprus. If the Turks could ethnically cleanse us and steal our lands from us, then surely we can also reverse the process and take back what is ours.

The land is billions of years old. It will only become "too old" when it becomes uninhabitable due to natural reasons.

They might have more rights that other foreigners but they are still foreigners. The north part of Cyprus is to us what Lion is to the French, not what Madrid is to them. There is a huge difference.

If we think of it better, the difference is actually a minor one.

Not minor at all. I am also an EU citizen and I traveled to many EU countries. I am a foreigner there and that is how the local people see me. When I go to north Cyprus I don't want any Turk to think of me as a guest to "his" territory.

We will be able to impose absolutely nothing to north Cyprus since the TCs will be able to block the federal government from taking any decision that they don't agree to.

In some subjects yes and in others no.

In all important matters.

I don't have the Annan plan in front of me now to quote you things from it. But that is how it is. Turkey would be off the hook completely and some donors would give a promise for some money which are peanuts compared to the amounts needed for compensations. So who would pay the compensations if not us? The only other possibility is that nobody would pay any compensations and therefore those entitled to compensation will not get any.

So, it seems the Annan-Plan doesn't explicitly mention that compensations are going to be payed by GCs, it's your interpretation of it.
Anyway, if the mechanism of paying the compensations is unclear in Annan-Plan, it's a problem of Annan-Plan. How's this relevant to what we are discussing now?

Do you think that today we can reach a BBF "solution" that will be much better than Annan plan?

Earlier you claimed that BBF would supposedly solve the Settler issue. Today Settlers come to Cyprus illegally (but they don't get the Cypriot citizenship). After the "solution" you propose Settlers will still be able to come to Cyprus illegally and we would have no way to stop them or deport them since we would have no control over the north part of Cyprus. So how is that "solution" going to solve the Settler issue?

It's not going to solve it. It's going to make it less intense, by turning it into a problem of illegal immigration. If some nationalist organizations try to import settlers in the North with illegal means in order to change the demographics, if they are found they will be arrested by the police and go through a trial.

Turning the problem of the Turkish Settlers (a crime of war against the Geneva Convention) to merely "illegal immigration" is actually making the problem worst not better.

And who is going to arrest and judge the Prime Minister of Turkey and the "TC President" of Cyprus for trying to change the demographics? The "nationalist organizations" that are trying to change the demographics of Cyprus are none else from the Turkish and the TC leadership. Or you haven't realized this yet?

You always talk about "North Cyprus" (with capital N), about TRNC (without quotes) and in general you seem to accept the Turkish position that Cyprus belongs to them. Do you deny this?

The north part of Cyprus is not Turkish (yet again you claim it is Turkish and then you claim that you never said such thing!). The north part of Cyprus is under illegal Turkish occupation. Yes, the illegal Turkish occupation might continue for many more years, but that is not as bad as making north Cyprus officially Turkish which is what will happen if we accept your "solution".

As I said, this word game is getting really tiring. I’ll try to make things clear, in order to get on with the essence of the discussion:

- North Cyprus is legally a part of RoC-territory. Practically, it is controlled by Turkey and TC elites. Under these conditions, to whom it belongs and if it’s turkish or not, is a philosophical debate. Again, tell me your perfect verbs, and I’ll try to use them when I discuss with you.

One thing is to whom something belongs and totally different thing is who illegally occupies it. If I kidnap your child and I keep it in my home does this means the child belongs to me?

- I talk about North Cyprus, in the same way I speak about North Greece or East Germany: as a part of a geographical entity with clearly different characteristics to the rest. If the N is capital or not, isn’t something that should concern serious persons.

But it concerns you, since you insist on using a capital N, just like the Turks do.

- I don’t use quotation marks to TRNC, because it’s something that exists. It may be never recognized, it may be fully illegal, it may have been the result of invasion and ethnic cleansing, it may be unable to survive even for one day without Turkey’s help, but it’s there. Our politicians and journalists do well that they use quotation marks or the pseudo- prefix, it’s part of the game. But we, as normal people, don’t need to have such concerns, we can keep a minimum honesty.

What exists in the north part of Cyprus is 40.000 Turkish troops which are illegally occupying our territory. No other state exists in Cyprus apart from Republic of Cyprus. So no, a "trnc" doesn't exist, which is why it used within quotes. I could also declare that I have a state called PS (Piratis State) and that I am the president, but this doesn't mean that "PS" actually exists.

So, no that we’ ve cleared this up (I hope) let’s move to the essence: under a BBF, North Cyprus will be above all Cypriot, and secondarily Turkish Cypriot to around 70% and Greek Cypriot to 30% (I mean, beginning from today's TRNC territory). If the situation remains as today, 100% of it will be theoretically RoC-terrirory and practically Turkish (not really Turkish Cypriot). We choose and we take.

The Turks do not agree to give back to us the 30% of the land they illegally occupy, so I don't know where you got that number. Furthermore, in order to give to us some small percentage of land back, not only they want the remaining part to be officially recognized as Turkish, but they want 50% of the rule of Cyprus as a whole.

As I said earlier, there are BBF solutions that I would accept. If the Turks would give back 30% of the occupied territory, and the federation would be a strong one, with the president elected democratically by the Cypriot people as a whole and with the central government having power over the individual states in all essential issues, then I would accept it.

As I said, I have very few hopes that anything will change. If you want to leave North Cyprus in Turkey's hands, do it. If you want to break Cyprus into two, do it. But be clear about it. By talking about liberations in an undefined distant future, when nothing will be the same any more, we're just making the situation worst.

With something like Annan plan north Cyprus would be officially in Turkish hands. If you have something to propose that would put north Cyprus in our hands, then please do, I will have no problem to accept it.

P.S. I read your answer to another post, where you made a comparison with Czechoslovakia and practically threatened TCs with an ethnic cleansing (correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the impression I got). Do you actually believe that the ethnic cleansing of Sudete Germans was a fair thing to do? If yes, this shows exactly the difference between a national and a humanist way of thinking.

On the contrary I am the one who keeps saying that the solution should not be based on ethnic cleansing. Unfortunately most TCs don't seem to agree with me. They insist that the solution should be based on ethnic cleansing and that GCs and TCs should live in separate states. They think this can be a good way to solve the problem. What do you think?

All this bullshit from the man who still claims Cyprus is Greek, the enosis dream is still alive and kicking dont fall for their bullshit long live the TRNC.

[Lit]

The Cypriot people have been Greek long before they became Christian Orthodox. It is the foreign invaders that tried to destroy our identity, but they failed. The Greek Cypriot dialect is, as the name implies, a dialect of the Greek language, like the many other dialects that exist within Greece (or the many German dialects that exist within Germany). Therefore the Greek Cypriot dialect was never something that was in any conflict with our Greek identity, but on the contrary it was yet another element of our Greek identity that goes back 1000s of years.

What a Greek is and how long such a thing exists is an endless debate, it’s by no means clear. The point is, the hellenic national identity is a new thing (as every national identity), and it needed to be imposed on the Christian Orthodox population of Cyprus (not to greek-speakers in general, the greek-speaking Muslims were exempted), as it had been imposed on other Orthodox populations of East Med, many of whom didn’t even speak greek. A part of every nationalist project is also to impose a common language, in case of Cyprus this was the official Greek, and for this purpose the GC dialect had to be suppressed.

We could also have an endless debate whether the moon is made of cheese if you insisted on such position. What is true for the Greeks is what is true for every other nation. Nations evolve and gradually change and this is a perfectly normal phenomenon that can happen even within 1-2 generations, let alone 4000 years.

All EU countries are democratic countries. We are not talking about some "perfect" Utopian kind of democracy, but about a realistically possible kind of democracy. Just because we can't have an unrealistically perfect democracy this is no excuse to abandon democracy all together.

Well, if you ask me, the EU-countries are about 20-30% democratic, and the reason they aren’t more isn’t because it’s impossible, it’s because they don’t want to be. But let’s not move too much out of the subject. Even this 20-30% is better than nothing, and we should try to have in Cyprus as much as possible of it. The main thing is we realize that’s a quantitative and not a qualitative target.

Well, maybe in some Utopian kind of democracy they would make a referendum for every decision taken. What I am talking about here is democracies as they actually exist. Democracy as we have in Cyprus today, for example. What we should have in Cyprus after a solution should not be any less democratic than what we have in Cyprus now. A "solution" that doesn't even maintain the level of democracy we have now would be a regress and not progress.

Therefore you should not say that our "elites" want BBF or supposedly some of them want partition. What most of us (including GC "elites") want, is a unitary state.

These word games are getting tiring. What is relevant for us is what the GC or TC elites are trying to achieve out of what is realistically possible, not what they like to dream about in their free time. You can choose the verb you prefer to name this, if you don’t like “want”.

It is not a word game at all. It is totally invalid to say that "GCs want BBF". We don't want it at all. We were just blackmailed and forced to accept to negotiate a possible solution based on it. There is a HUGE difference between the two.

I don't think we "simply stand there and cry". We have progressed and our standards of living are much higher than those of the Mafia-Boss, even if he stole from us our most valuable belongings.

Just because we currently can not get our belongings back this doesn't mean we should stop having any claim on what is ours and let the Mafia Boss to fully enjoy what he stole from us. The Mafia Boss should continue to have some problems due to the crime he committed, and when the balance of power changes we will have every right to take back what is ours (a right we wouldn't have if we made a contract and singed our belongings to the Mafia Boss).

And land, unlike a car, never gets too old. If anything lands gets more valuable as time passes.

If you want to make the Mafia Boss suffer for his crime just for the sake of moral satisfaction, you can do it. If you want to reject his offer he makes you on using the car, in order to keep your pride, you can do it. But by keeping illusions that you may get the car back and think about it the whole time, when you know that police is corrupt and the Mafia-boss is strong, you only harm yourself. Just buy a new car and get on with your life.

As I said: We are moving on with our lives and our standards of living are better than the ones of the Mafia Boss. But why shouldn't we also make the Mafia Boss suffer, and why should we throw away the keys of our stolen car? At the very least the Mafia Boss suffers a bit, at the very best the balance of power changes and we get our car back. So why not?

In some decades, the last refugees will have died. Their children will have built their lifes on their hometowns, and only a few of them will be ready to abandon them in order to go back and live in the lands of their fathers, who will be totally different compared to what their fathers have told them. At the same time, you’ll have to deal in these lands with a population which feels much more connected to them, which is foreign and hostile to you, and which will wait every chance that the balance of power changes again to take their revenge.

So yes, if contrary to all expectations, the time comes that we get the car back, it will almost for sure be too old to be used.

Ask the Turks how they did it in 1974 without them having any roots in Cyprus. If the Turks could ethnically cleanse us and steal our lands from us, then surely we can also reverse the process and take back what is ours.

The land is billions of years old. It will only become "too old" when it becomes uninhabitable due to natural reasons.

They might have more rights that other foreigners but they are still foreigners. The north part of Cyprus is to us what Lion is to the French, not what Madrid is to them. There is a huge difference.

If we think of it better, the difference is actually a minor one.

Not minor at all. I am also an EU citizen and I traveled to many EU countries. I am a foreigner there and that is how the local people see me. When I go to north Cyprus I don't want any Turk to think of me as a guest to "his" territory.

We will be able to impose absolutely nothing to north Cyprus since the TCs will be able to block the federal government from taking any decision that they don't agree to.

In some subjects yes and in others no.

In all important matters.

I don't have the Annan plan in front of me now to quote you things from it. But that is how it is. Turkey would be off the hook completely and some donors would give a promise for some money which are peanuts compared to the amounts needed for compensations. So who would pay the compensations if not us? The only other possibility is that nobody would pay any compensations and therefore those entitled to compensation will not get any.

So, it seems the Annan-Plan doesn't explicitly mention that compensations are going to be payed by GCs, it's your interpretation of it.
Anyway, if the mechanism of paying the compensations is unclear in Annan-Plan, it's a problem of Annan-Plan. How's this relevant to what we are discussing now?

Do you think that today we can reach a BBF "solution" that will be much better than Annan plan?

Earlier you claimed that BBF would supposedly solve the Settler issue. Today Settlers come to Cyprus illegally (but they don't get the Cypriot citizenship). After the "solution" you propose Settlers will still be able to come to Cyprus illegally and we would have no way to stop them or deport them since we would have no control over the north part of Cyprus. So how is that "solution" going to solve the Settler issue?

It's not going to solve it. It's going to make it less intense, by turning it into a problem of illegal immigration. If some nationalist organizations try to import settlers in the North with illegal means in order to change the demographics, if they are found they will be arrested by the police and go through a trial.

Turning the problem of the Turkish Settlers (a crime of war against the Geneva Convention) to merely "illegal immigration" is actually making the problem worst not better.

And who is going to arrest and judge the Prime Minister of Turkey and the "TC President" of Cyprus for trying to change the demographics? The "nationalist organizations" that are trying to change the demographics of Cyprus are none else from the Turkish and the TC leadership. Or you haven't realized this yet?

You always talk about "North Cyprus" (with capital N), about TRNC (without quotes) and in general you seem to accept the Turkish position that Cyprus belongs to them. Do you deny this?

The north part of Cyprus is not Turkish (yet again you claim it is Turkish and then you claim that you never said such thing!). The north part of Cyprus is under illegal Turkish occupation. Yes, the illegal Turkish occupation might continue for many more years, but that is not as bad as making north Cyprus officially Turkish which is what will happen if we accept your "solution".

As I said, this word game is getting really tiring. I’ll try to make things clear, in order to get on with the essence of the discussion:

- North Cyprus is legally a part of RoC-territory. Practically, it is controlled by Turkey and TC elites. Under these conditions, to whom it belongs and if it’s turkish or not, is a philosophical debate. Again, tell me your perfect verbs, and I’ll try to use them when I discuss with you.

One thing is to whom something belongs and totally different thing is who illegally occupies it. If I kidnap your child and I keep it in my home does this means the child belongs to me?

- I talk about North Cyprus, in the same way I speak about North Greece or East Germany: as a part of a geographical entity with clearly different characteristics to the rest. If the N is capital or not, isn’t something that should concern serious persons.

But it concerns you, since you insist on using a capital N, just like the Turks do.

- I don’t use quotation marks to TRNC, because it’s something that exists. It may be never recognized, it may be fully illegal, it may have been the result of invasion and ethnic cleansing, it may be unable to survive even for one day without Turkey’s help, but it’s there. Our politicians and journalists do well that they use quotation marks or the pseudo- prefix, it’s part of the game. But we, as normal people, don’t need to have such concerns, we can keep a minimum honesty.

What exists in the north part of Cyprus is 40.000 Turkish troops which are illegally occupying our territory. No other state exists in Cyprus apart from Republic of Cyprus. So no, a "trnc" doesn't exist, which is why it used within quotes. I could also declare that I have a state called PS (Piratis State) and that I am the president, but this doesn't mean that "PS" actually exists.

So, no that we’ ve cleared this up (I hope) let’s move to the essence: under a BBF, North Cyprus will be above all Cypriot, and secondarily Turkish Cypriot to around 70% and Greek Cypriot to 30% (I mean, beginning from today's TRNC territory). If the situation remains as today, 100% of it will be theoretically RoC-terrirory and practically Turkish (not really Turkish Cypriot). We choose and we take.

The Turks do not agree to give back to us the 30% of the land they illegally occupy, so I don't know where you got that number. Furthermore, in order to give to us some small percentage of land back, not only they want the remaining part to be officially recognized as Turkish, but they want 50% of the rule of Cyprus as a whole.

As I said earlier, there are BBF solutions that I would accept. If the Turks would give back 30% of the occupied territory, and the federation would be a strong one, with the president elected democratically by the Cypriot people as a whole and with the central government having power over the individual states in all essential issues, then I would accept it.

As I said, I have very few hopes that anything will change. If you want to leave North Cyprus in Turkey's hands, do it. If you want to break Cyprus into two, do it. But be clear about it. By talking about liberations in an undefined distant future, when nothing will be the same any more, we're just making the situation worst.

With something like Annan plan north Cyprus would be officially in Turkish hands. If you have something to propose that would put north Cyprus in our hands, then please do, I will have no problem to accept it.

P.S. I read your answer to another post, where you made a comparison with Czechoslovakia and practically threatened TCs with an ethnic cleansing (correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the impression I got). Do you actually believe that the ethnic cleansing of Sudete Germans was a fair thing to do? If yes, this shows exactly the difference between a national and a humanist way of thinking.

On the contrary I am the one who keeps saying that the solution should not be based on ethnic cleansing. Unfortunately most TCs don't seem to agree with me. They insist that the solution should be based on ethnic cleansing and that GCs and TCs should live in separate states. They think this can be a good way to solve the problem. What do you think?

All this bullshit from the man who still claims Cyprus is Greek, the enosis dream is still alive and kicking dont fall for their bullshit long live the TRNC.

Can i assume that you are not enjoying the bitchslapping that Piratis is giving?

[Gasman]

Why not invite some GREEKS from the many GREEK discussion forums on the web to decide the question of whether 'Cyprus is Greek'?

I think I know why it wouldn't be a popular idea! I've been on those forums!

How very sad to keep maintaining you 'belong' to another country that, basically, doesn't want you, sees you as an embarrassment these days in the light of their continuing better relations with Turkey and who turned down the offer of 'owning' you way back in about 1915.

Or ... just ask why GREEKS are classified as Aliens in Cyprus when they come here to live? Why would that be - if Cyprus is a Greek Island?

[Lit]

Why not invite some GREEKS from the many GREEK discussion forums on the web to decide the question of whether 'Cyprus is Greek'?

I think I know why it wouldn't be a popular idea! I've been on those forums!

How very sad to keep maintaining you 'belong' to another country that, basically, doesn't want you, sees you as an embarrassment these days in the light of their continuing better relations with Turkey and who turned down the offer of 'owning' you way back in about 1915.

Or ... just ask why GREEKS are classified as Aliens in Cyprus when they come here to live? Why would that be - if Cyprus is a Greek Island?

What are you doing in Greek discussion forums, Gassy? Have you created sock puppets in those forums as well?

BTW The year is 2011 not 1960. The RoC is trying to truly unify this island...not join it with Greece. Please get your head out of your ass and pay closer attention.

[Viewpoint]

Not at all Lit Piratis claim is the motto of the enosis fighters and his post are no longer to be taken seriously because his under lying aim is not to share with TCs but to turn the whole of Cyprus into a Greek island.

[Oracle]

Why not invite some GREEKS from the many GREEK discussion forums on the web to decide the question of whether 'Cyprus is Greek'?

I think I know why it wouldn't be a popular idea! I've been on those forums!

How very sad to keep maintaining you 'belong' to another country that, basically, doesn't want you, sees you as an embarrassment these days in the light of their continuing better relations with Turkey and who turned down the offer of 'owning' you way back in about 1915.

Or ... just ask why GREEKS are classified as Aliens in Cyprus when they come here to live? Why would that be - if Cyprus is a Greek Island?

What are you doing in Greek discussion forums, Gassy? Have you created sock puppets in those forums as well?

BTW The year is 2011 not 1960. The RoC is trying to truly unify this island...not join it with Greece. Please get your head out of your ass and pay closer attention.

Now we know where it gets its anti-Greek trash - "Macedonina" fora!

Besides, Greeks had to apply for British nationality to enter Cyprus in the 50s and this "alien" business is a relic of that.

The last thing a pro-partition propagandists wants is for us to think we have some support to remove the Turks. Such shallow tactics. How else did the Greek population, language and religion, survive for so long, centuries through invasions, if it wasn't for the continuing communication between Greece and Cyprus? I don't know of any Greeks who don't reciprocate on this identity of Cyprus.

Perhaps these Brits should concentrate on why Britain still holds onto so many territories which have zero ties with the UK except for recent colonisation.

[Gasman]

lol! If Cyprus is GREEK - why would Greeks be classed as anything other than citizens of CYPRUS?

Why would Cypriots have to show a passport to enter Greece?

But hey - I'm not wasting time with someone who doesn't understand the situation vis a vis the SBA territory here!

Won't further embarrass Horrorcall by repasting her posts about that one!

Cyprus is Greek. Yeah right!

Cyprus is a Greek Island. Yeah right!

Horrorcall is the only TRUE Greek Cypriot coz she has one Greek parent and one Cypriot parent (with a bit of German thrown in - could that smack of collaboration with the enemy hmmm?)

Insane, hate filled racist nutter!

[Afroasiatis]

What is true for the Greeks is what is true for every other nation. Nations evolve and gradually change and this is a perfectly normal phenomenon that can happen even within 1-2 generations, let alone 4000 years.

To these two statements I agree 100%. Did I say anything contradicting these?

Well, maybe in some Utopian kind of democracy they would make a referendum for every decision taken. What I am talking about here is democracies as they actually exist. Democracy as we have in Cyprus today, for example. What we should have in Cyprus after a solution should not be any less democratic than what we have in Cyprus now. A "solution" that doesn't even maintain the level of democracy we have now would be a regress and not progress.

A solution that would give to Cypriots more rights in their land than what they have now, would be a progress.

It is not a word game at all. It is totally invalid to say that "GCs want BBF". We don't want it at all. We were just blackmailed and forced to accept to negotiate a possible solution based on it. There is a HUGE difference between the two.

No, it's a word game. If someone tries to achieve something, if he has it as a target, then I sometimes use the verb "want" to describe this. Ok, obviously you don't use this verb, and that's perfectly Ok. Then why do you say that I "want" BBF? In your definitions, BBF is nothing near to the solution I want (which is also no partition, no con-federation and no unitary state).

As I said: We are moving on with our lives and our standards of living are better than the ones of the Mafia Boss. But why shouldn't we also make the Mafia Boss suffer, and why should we throw away the keys of our stolen car? At the very least the Mafia Boss suffers a bit, at the very best the balance of power changes and we get our car back. So why not?

As I said, you can make the Mafia Boss suffer a bit, if that makes you feel better. What you shouldn't do is keep illusions that you'll the car back, because it's damaging your mental health - facing the reality is what someone should so.

Ask the Turks how they did it in 1974 without them having any roots in Cyprus. If the Turks could ethnically cleanse us and steal our lands from us, then surely we can also reverse the process and take back what is ours.

I don't need to ask the Turks how they did, I know how. The question is how you're going to do it. Can you describe the process, how you'll overcome the problems I mentioned?

Not minor at all. I am also an EU citizen and I traveled to many EU countries. I am a foreigner there and that is how the local people see me. When I go to north Cyprus I don't want any Turk to think of me as a guest to "his" territory.

I lived in Germany, for some time as an EU-citizen. I could work there under the same status as German, I voted in the local elections, and most importantly: Germany didn't have the right to deport me. People might have seen me as a foreigner, and I myself too (because I wanted to; that's not the case with North Cyprus), but practically, there was little difference between me and a German.

Do you think that today we can reach a BBF "solution" that will be much better than Annan plan?

Not much better than Annan Plan as a total, but better in some key issues which are of great importance to GCs, like the one I mentioned.

And who is going to arrest and judge the Prime Minister of Turkey and the "TC President" of Cyprus for trying to change the demographics?

You can't do anything to the Prime Minister of Turkey, but if the TC president violates the constitution, there should be a process to kick him out of his office, like I guess there is in all states based on a constitution.

- North Cyprus is legally a part of RoC-territory. Practically, it is controlled by Turkey and TC elites. Under these conditions, to whom it belongs and if it’s turkish or not, is a philosophical debate. Again, tell me your perfect verbs, and I’ll try to use them when I discuss with you.

One thing is to whom something belongs and totally different thing is who illegally occupies it. If I kidnap your child and I keep it in my home does this means the child belongs to me?

If the child thinks of you as the father instead of me and you fulfill all your functions as a father, then the question, who's the father isn't easy to answer, even if it legally belongs to me.

- I talk about North Cyprus, in the same way I speak about North Greece or East Germany: as a part of a geographical entity with clearly different characteristics to the rest. If the N is capital or not, isn’t something that should concern serious persons.

But it concerns you, since you insist on using a capital N, just like the Turks do.

I use the capital N, because that's the way I write. I had never noticed that this is so important for Greeks or Turks. If it is, then they obviously have some problems with themselves to deal with.

What exists in the north part of Cyprus is 40.000 Turkish troops which are illegally occupying our territory. No other state exists in Cyprus apart from Republic of Cyprus. So no, a "trnc" doesn't exist, which is why it used within quotes. I could also declare that I have a state called PS (Piratis State) and that I am the president, but this doesn't mean that "PS" actually exists.

What exists in the north part of Cyprus is 40.000 Turkish troops which are illegally occupying RoC-territory, on which a state was found, which is called TRNC, and which is recognized by no other state than Turkey. That's the truth, if we like it not. The state is there. The politicians have the reasons to use quotation marks, that's what they should do, but the reality is there.

And yes, as long as you are the one who exercises the real power on the territory of PS, the state exists. There are several states in the world which exist/existed without being internationally recognized.

The Turks do not agree to give back to us the 30% of the land they illegally occupy, so I don't know where you got that number. Furthermore, in order to give to us some small percentage of land back, not only they want the remaining part to be officially recognized as Turkish, but they want 50% of the rule of Cyprus as a whole.

As I said earlier, there are BBF solutions that I would accept. If the Turks would give back 30% of the occupied territory, and the federation would be a strong one, with the president elected democratically by the Cypriot people as a whole and with the central government having power over the individual states in all essential issues, then I would accept it.

30% was indeed a wrong calculation I made in my mind, correctly it's about 20% (though I guess in the better deal possible it could approach 30%). And as I said, what they want and what they'll get is a different thing.

As to how the final deal will exactly look like (if there is one), let's wait and see, and then judge it.

With something like Annan plan north Cyprus would be officially in Turkish hands. If you have something to propose that would put north Cyprus in our hands, then please do, I will have no problem to accept it.

With a BBF North will be officially in all-Cypriot hands primarily and in Turkish Cypriot (not Turkish) hands secondarily.

P.S. I read your answer to another post, where you made a comparison with Czechoslovakia and practically threatened TCs with an ethnic cleansing (correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the impression I got). Do you actually believe that the ethnic cleansing of Sudete Germans was a fair thing to do? If yes, this shows exactly the difference between a national and a humanist way of thinking.

On the contrary I am the one who keeps saying that the solution should not be based on ethnic cleansing. Unfortunately most TCs don't seem to agree with me. They insist that the solution should be based on ethnic cleansing and that GCs and TCs should live in separate states. They think this can be a good way to solve the problem. What do you think?

It WAS a bad way to solve the problem, almost the worst possible.

Now the ethnic cleansing has already taken place, and it's almost 37 years old. Out of the 4 alternatives possible for the near future (BBF, con-federation, agreed partition, unofficial partition), I think BBF is the best. Of course, there are different opinions on this, which are respectable.


But then, could you explain to me how did you mean the comparison with the Sudete Germans?