Cyprus-Forum.com

[Sotos]

It is NOT implied that people who are not native should leave. That is like saying that almost all Americans should leave from the USA because they are not Native Americans or that all Whites should leave from South Africa. I will ask you the same question as I asked Erolz: Are the children, grandchildren etc of the Settlers "Cypriots"? In your case I will go a step further: Are they NATIVE Cypriots? I think the answer is clearly that they are NOT native Cypriots, so there is a cut-off point somewhere, otherwise everybody born in Cyprus would be "native Cypriot". The Turks came to Cyprus at about the same time that the English, Spanish, French etc were colonizing America, Africa, Australia, Asia etc... and those Europeans are clearly not considered native in those parts of the world. The native people could certainly have some additional rights in the cases that those people are now minorities... but in our case that we are the majority we don't need any additional rights other than the standard Human and Majority Rights.

That's how you come across Sotos, "they should not be here" - that being the case they should be elsewhere. I said earlier "I agree those that arrived after 1974 should not be here", however Human Rights legislation, I'm afraid, does give them, or their off spring, certain rights even though they came to the ROC illegally.

You appear to confuse majority rights with "native" rights. Turkish Cypriots who have been in Cyprus for generations should have exactly the same individual rights as Greek Cypriots even though they, according to you, are not "native". However how a minority community of 18% can be equated to the majority is beyond me.

Jerry I think you make too many assumptions. I never said that non-natives should have less individual rights. Turkey is responsible for the human rights of its own settlers, not us. The same way they brought them illegally to Cyprus they can take them back, and it is their responsibility to do it in a way that doesn't violate their human rights (they can offer them better housing in Turkey, compensate them etc)

Really? perhaps you can explain this "The native people could certainly have some additional rights in the cases that those people are now minorities... " As to the settlers rights, I believe that they may have acquired some simply by setting up a home in Cyprus, certainly their offspring's Human Rights will be infringed if they are made to move to Turkey against their will.

I am talking about "some additional rights" NOT about "additional HUMAN rights", and I repeat that those could apply in cases those people are now a minority (so not us, because we are the majority). Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Am ... vil_rights. The Human Rights of the Settlers can not be greater than the Human Rights of the Cypriot people. Therefore if compensation and resettlement of Cypriots can be OK by the ECHR and the UN, then certainly it would be OK for the Settlers who don't even own the properties they use and were brought to Cyprus in violation of the Geneva Convention and their presence in Cyprus constitutes a war crime committed by Turkey.

[GreekIslandGirl]

No, again! I quoted exactly from the document itself and presented it for you above which you choose to ignore.

No you EXPLICITLY claimed the document was produced FOR the Ministry of Defence. You exact words. Yet Mallinson EXPLICITLY says it was produced FOR the Policy Committee.

Nope, again! I said the document stated "This paper has been prepared at Ministry of Defence instigation".

Yet you said it was produced "by" the Ministry of Defence.

The document was prepared BY the ministry of defence

(That's your exaggerated 'BY', BTW)

Then, you showed a Mallinson quote that stated 'Mottershead submitted on 27 April 1964 ..."

In the end, what matters are the contents of the document and what the "British Aims for Cyprus" were - and that is what you are trying to BURY in a cloud of twists and changes!

The quotes were absolutely correct!

The sources were absolutely correct!

Your interpretations and searches to find a 'by' in the rest of Mallinson's book are pathetic! (And, still wrong! )

[Lordo]

this is very confusing.

you have always wanted enosis and now you have it. here we are with the tcs saying we wish to join with your enosising and you are moaning. either you want us to enosise with you or you dont.

which will it be. bbf will in effect enosise tcs with greace. what more do you want.

[GreekIslandGirl]

... what more do you want.

I want this part of "British Aims for Cyprus" to be given due consideration:

5. ... efforts should be concentrated on easing the path to the unitary state, e.g. by providing U.N. safeguards for the minority and by giving financial and other assistance for the resettling of those Turkish Cypriots to whom Cyprus may no longer appear a tolerable home.

If we'd done that in 1964, then we'd never have suffered 1974!

[Sotos]

GiG, I didn't follow your discussion with Erolz (not enough time) but how are the "British Aims for Cyprus" and what is RIGHT related? If something is right we don't need any British documents to tell us that is right, and conversely if something is written in a British document it doesn't mean it is what is right. So fuck the British and their aims for Cyprus.

[cypriotnado]

... what more do you want.

I want this part of "British Aims for Cyprus" to be given due consideration:

5. ... efforts should be concentrated on easing the path to the unitary state, e.g. by providing U.N. safeguards for the minority and by giving financial and other assistance for the resettling of those Turkish Cypriots to whom Cyprus may no longer appear a tolerable home.

If we'd done that in 1964, then we'd never have suffered 1974!

If if if .........

If Cyprus had been made into the new Israeli state also under discussion 1974 would not have happened

If Ottoman Turkey had not sold Cyprus to The UK 1974 would not have happened

If Greece had joined the war in 1915 and accepted the British offer for Enosis 1974 would not have happened

And finally the reason that counts If spank me boy Sotos mate Nicos Sampson had not staged a coup then 1974 would not have happened.........if if if

[erolz66]

No you EXPLICITLY claimed the document was produced FOR the Ministry of Defence. You exact words. Yet Mallinson EXPLICITLY says it was produced FOR the Policy Committee.

Nope, again! I said the document stated "This paper has been prepared at Ministry of Defence instigation".

Lies again. Your words exactly verbatim were

Defence and Oversea Policy (Official) Committee D.O. (O) (64) 26 Brief.

A paper prepared for the Ministry of Defence!

You said EXPLICITLY that the paper was prepared for the Ministry of Defence. You now claim you did NOT say this. Your source Mallinson explicitly says the opposite to YOUR claim above (that you now just lie and say you did not say even though it there in black and white you saying it). This is EXACTLY how you behave on these forums and always have done. Truth means nothing to you.

In the end, what matters are the contents of the document and what the "British Aims for Cyprus" were - and that is what you are trying to BURY in a cloud of twists and changes!

There can be no sensible discussion about the contents of the document with you because you LIE about what the document IS in order to try and promote false impressions. To give one example you distorted what the document was, who wrote and why and who said what within it, to try and crate an impression that it was official British policy in 1964 to offer TC financial aid to settle outside of Cyprus. Not only is this clearly a blatant attempt to distort the reality of what the document represents it so blatantly and obviously not true based on the fact than in 1964 not a SINGLE TC received financial aid to re settle outside of Cyprus from the British Government - yet through distortion and manipulation you try to make out that this was official British policy. This is what you do.
The quotes were absolutely correct!

No comment on this piece of made up bullshit by yourself I see

The brief was on "British Aims for Cyprus" to present to various Ministers and the UN Mediator in Cyprus.

Still I guess you can just stick to your usual tactics and say you never said it !

[GreekIslandGirl]

GiG, I didn't follow your discussion with Erolz (not enough time) but how are the "British Aims for Cyprus" and what is RIGHT related? If something is right we don't need any British documents to tell us that is right, and conversely if something is written in a British document it doesn't mean it is what is right. So fuck the British and their aims for Cyprus.

I was surprised the British had such an idea in their 1964 "British Aims for Cyprus" document which was recently released under the Freedom of Information Act, I believe, as asked for by Mallinson and presented in his book. Its origin may give some weight behind it should our government be in a position to consider such a bold move for permanent peace. Certainly, it would make resettling the Anatolian settlers a viable and acceptable proposal.

There was a moment in our history when the British seemed to regret what had come out of the 1960 Constitution and were discussing such 'aims' as possible enosis, majority rule, unitary state under Greek Cypriots and suchlike, and the above 'resettling' of TCs as movements for peace in Cyprus. (This is my summary impression that I got from reading that part of the book nearly 2 years ago - I don't have time to look at it just now - so if a word doesn't suit Erolz, I don't want to set him off looking for a 'by' or a 'for' to waste time again ). But, that's my gist, anyway.

[GreekIslandGirl]

The UN Mediator to Cyprus that the Ministers were being briefed for with the "British Aims for Cyprus" was Mr Tuomioja. Go on, twist that!

And for the last time, my document quotes were 100% correct and you can lift things from all over the place but it doesn't alter the facts. It was your own quote from Mallinson from which you wrongly inferred knowledge!

[erolz66]

I am not saying that you being an ethnic minority means that you don't belong to Cyprus. I am saying that your rights as an ethnic minority should be the same as all other ethnic minorities.

If you are saying to me that despite our obvious differences above and beyond all else is our Cypriotness despite our other differences, that make us a Cypriot people, then fine I have no problem with a status of ethnic minority within such a Cypriot state. However this is not what 'you' said as British Colonial rule was coming to an end. My original assertion was

Cyprus is today divided because Cypriots sought a post colonial Cyprus based not on their commonalities as Cypriots regardless of their ethnic background but ones based on their differences that were mutualy exclusive as such and proved all to willing to use illegal violence and murder against entirely innocent Cypriots in the pursuit of these goals. Cypriots intimidated and murdered Cypriots of their own communities that advocated creating a united Cyprus. Cypriots killed and murdered innocent Cypriots for no other reasons that they were from the 'other' community. No group is more responsible by their choices, their actions and their lack of actions, for the division we have today in Cyprus than Cypriots. One of the many commonalities that many GC and TC share is the tendency to instinctively seek to blame everyone and anyone but themselves for everything and anything.

The choice by GC to pursue enosis after the end of British rule rather than independence, was an example of our collective failure as Cypriots to place being Cypriot despite our differences above and beyond our being GC or TC. Just as Taksim was likewise just such an example. My argument is that this failure to CHOSE to place being Cypriot regardless of other differences ahead of an above our differences as GC and TC is at the core of how we have ended up in the situation we are in today and not continuing to do this into the future is at the core of if we can create a better and different future for all Cypriots or not. My view is that this is something we as Cypriots, all of us, must face up to head on if we are to have any chance of creating a different future. Creating a different future for all Cypriots requires us AS Cypriots to do something differently as far as I am concerned. Blaming 'world powers' or anyone other than ourselves, whilst continuing to fail to chose to recognise our greater commonality as Cypriots than our differences as GC and TC is just not good enough imo.




And if you want to form a single Cypriot ethnicity which we will all be part of, so there will be no ethnic majorities and ethnic minorities... no problem with me. But that is something which will take time to be created. You can't blame us that a single Cypriot ethnicity doesn't exist when for centuries the Ottomans kept as divided. It is not like we could flip a switch in the 50s and from Greeks and Turks become of the "Cypriot ethnicity".[/quote]