Cyprus-Forum.com

[Maximus]

If you had to put a figure on this sum, how large would you make it?

I have no idea. I do know however that the idea that it is only the sum of all lost GC land as a result of 74 is a flawed idea and that the amount is the net difference between this and the value of TC land in the south that those TC who chose to, handed over to the TRNC in exchange for land given to them in the North post 74.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Have you devised Turkish formulas for land appropriation?

Yes, this is not the correct way to go about it.

the TC's have already been compensated by Turkey in terms of the exchange. And theirs waits for them in the republic once the occupation ends.

What we have here is circ 200,000 GC's that were ethnically cleansed from the north of Cyprus, by Turkey and are being prevented from returning to their property for 40 years.

That's 200k GC's that had to start again, from zero, with help from the RoC.

You can also add loss of income for the RoC from the north to the figure...

[Maximus]

Put a figure on this...

In a judgment delivered on 10 May 2001 the Court (Grand Chamber) found numerous
violations of the Convention by Turkey, arising out of the military operations it had
conducted in northern Cyprus in July and August 1974, the continuing division of the
territory of Cyprus and the activities of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (the
“TRNC”).

[Maximus]

add compensation for death to the families of all those killed after 1974 as a result of the Turkish invasion to the figure too.

[erolz66]

the TC's have already been compensated by Turkey in terms of the exchange. And theirs waits for them in the republic once the occupation ends.

Some TC chose to sign over their rights to the land they owned in the south pre 74 to the TRNC in exchange for land in the North. They can not now claim compensation for that land in the South. That land is now available to the IPC to use in settling GC claims via agreed exchange with the GC party and indeed such exchanges have formed part of settlements that the IPC has made with individual GC claimants. The RoC has tried to obstruct such settlements as much as it can but it knows that ultimately it will be forced by the ECHR to accept them.

Other TC did NOT sign over their land in the South after 74 and they are entitled to redress for that land just as GC are. That the RoC tries to say they can only have redress as part of a comprehensive settlement whilst at the same time insisting that GC should get redress now regardless of a settlement just shows the kind of double standards at play here. The TRNC will try and extend the mandate of the IPC to allow it to address such TC claims and then the ECHR will decide if this is 'legal' or not. If they do then it will give these TC the same rights and ability to seek redress as GC now have.

That's 200k GC's that had to start again, from zero, with help from the RoC.

Just as 10,000 of TC had to restart again from zero, for the second time and some for the third time since 64 and 67 and whilst the RoC got massive aid from the international community post 74, the TC got aid only from Turkey and a handful of other states. I know you think that only GC suffering counts and matters but others do not share this myopic view.

add compensation for death to the families of all those killed after 1974 as a result of the Turkish invasion to the figure too.

But not compensation for those TC killed from 64 -74 not during war but by illegal militia thugs many of which were run out of the Interior Ministry of an all GC run government ? Or those TC killed by GC as a result of the events of 74 ? What about compensation for those GC killed by other GC both pre 74 and during the 'coup' ? Compensation for them as well ?

[erolz66]

What the fuck are you talking about?

Have you devised Turkish formulas for land appropriation?

It is really not that complicated GR. You do accept that TC owned land in the South pre 74 right ? So take a case where such a TC signed over that land to the TRNC in exchange for land in the North. Now imagine that the pre 74 GC owner of that land in the North has sought and agreed and accepted redress from the IPC. Lets say the redress was monetary compensation of 150,000 sterling. So there is a cost there to Turkey of 150,000 but it also has the land in the south that the TC signed over to the TRNC post 74. Lets say that is worth 140,000. So the cost to Turkey is not 150,000 but in fact 10,000. Surely this is not to complex for you GR ? Cleary some GC want to believe the cost to Turkey in such a settlement is 150,000 so they just believe that regardless of the reality that actually its a cost of 10,000. If the pre 74 TC land in the south is worth 160,000 then its a net profit of 10,000 for the IPC / Turkey.

I do apologise if reality causes some of you distress but I am afraid that reality does not bend to the desires of individuals no matter how hard those individuals try and tell themselves it is so and scream and wail it is so.

[Sotos]

The TRNC will try and extend the mandate of the IPC

You mean TURKEY, the illegal occupier of the north part of the Republic of Cyprus, will try to extend the mandate of the IPC. The ECHR doesn't deal with pseudo states. You should pay compensation for murdering at least 30.000 Cypriot people since you first invaded us and then rent for our land which you have been using without our permission for the last few centuries.

[erolz66]

Put a figure on this...

In a judgment delivered on 10 May 2001 the Court (Grand Chamber) found numerous
violations of the Convention by Turkey, arising out of the military operations it had
conducted in northern Cyprus in July and August 1974, the continuing division of the
territory of Cyprus and the activities of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (the
“TRNC”).

It is not my job to put a figure on that. It is the job of the ECHR. When they put a figure on it (make a ruling on 'just satisfaction'), I will accept it, where as you will laud it if it suits you and deride it if it does not, just as you do with the IPC that was created as a result of a ruling of the ECHR and has been validated by the same as a valid means of redress for GC individuals loss re property as a result of Turkish action in Cyprus in 1974. You laud the judgment of the ECHR above whilst slating the same body over the IPC and will no doubt slate it again if you do not like the ""just satisfaction" determination due to be made on Monday. Basically your position is 'if what the ECHR says agrees with my world view then it is the greatest body in existence who's wisdom and judgments and fairness can not be questioned but if it does not it is a pile of shit out to get GC' and you will hold both views simultaneously, switching back and forth between each as necessary to maintain your illusions.

[erolz66]

The TRNC will try and extend the mandate of the IPC

You mean TURKEY, the illegal occupier of the north part of the Republic of Cyprus, will try to extend the mandate of the IPC. The ECHR doesn't deal with pseudo states.

The ECHR considers the TRNC an agency of Turkey in this regard. It does not require that the decisions about the IPC be made in Turkey and not in the TRNC. It only requires that Turkey provide a solution using whatever local agent it deems suitable (in this case the TRNC). This has all been ruled on by the ECHR already. The RoC argued that the IPC as a Turkish body had to be implemented within Turkey and not the North of Cyprus and the ECHR told the RoC what it could do with such arguments.

You should pay compensation for murdering at least 30.000 Cypriot people since you first invaded us and then rent for our land which you have been using without our permission for the last few centuries.

Why stop there. Why not rent and compensation from the British and the Lusignana and then the British again (Richard the lionheart) and the Byzantines (or maybe not as they were 'greek' ?) and the venetians and the and the and so on. Hell add all that up and it will make the 'gas finds' seem like nothing. This is the kind of 'argument' you use and you expect to be taken seriously ?

[Sotos]

The ECHR considers the TRNC an agency of Turkey in this regard. It does not require that the decisions about the IPC be made in Turkey and not in the TRNC. It only requires that Turkey provide a solution using whatever local agent it deems suitable (in this case the TRNC). This has all been ruled on by the ECHR already. The RoC argued that the IPC as a Turkish body had to be implemented within Turkey and not the North of Cyprus and the ECHR told the RoC what it could do with such arguments.

The ECHR doesn't recognize any "trnc" for anything. What it recognizes is that Turkey is the occupier of the north part of Cyprus and that its commission can be established on this occupied part.

Why stop there. Why not rent and compensation from the British and the Lusignana and then the British again (Richard the lionheart) and the Byzantines (or maybe not as they were 'greek' ?) and the venetians and the and the and so on. Hell add all that up and it will make the 'gas finds' seem like nothing. This is the kind of 'argument' you use and you expect to be taken seriously ?

There is nothing "not serious" about the genocides you committed in Cyprus. The compensation can be in the form of a formal apology like the one you own to Armenians, Kurds, and all the other native people you have oppressed.... and keep oppressing!

[erolz66]

There is nothing "not serious" about the genocides you committed in Cyprus.

You want me to apologise for the Ottomans 500 years ago restoring the power of the Greek Orthodox church in Cyprus, ending serfdom, granting religious freedom and not wiping out the 'native' GC population or culture of the Island in a manner similar to the contemporary European colonisers like the Spanish in South America and so many others in so many other parts of the world at that time in the worlds history ? Sure Ill say sorry if you want but this is all just plainly a bullshit distraction as far as I am concerned. One that is often resorted too when needed.