Cyprus-Forum.com

[famagusta1]

A genocide is what Turkey did to many peoples in Asia Minor. Earlier you said:

the end result is enosis with Greece by the political removal of an ethnic group then that would fit the definition of "destruction" in the above definition.

This is where you are wrong. Having just your human and maybe some minority rights and no other political powers is the what is NORMAL in all democratic countries for minorities such as yours.You call what is JUST, and NORMAL a "genocide", while the Turks hold the record of the greatest number of REAL genocides!

I'm surprised to note an attitude which appears to imply that a Turkish nation would deserve a genocide because they are historically the perpetrators of some, in a sensible discussion. I am just pointing out what your writing appears to imply. Given how many posts have been fully anti-genocide thus far I am hopeful that you have simply misrepresented yourself. Regardless, much like earlier posts by others where current geography was not being considered you have not considered the current facts of the situation and the result, is again, an ill-founded perspective.

To elaborate there are currently thought to be roughly 1.1Million people in Cyprus and roughly 500,000 are in the North and so it is not possible for one to consider them a minority in any case (http://worldpopulationreview.com/countr ... opulation/, this is the most recent information I could find).

Irrespective of population numbers this argument about population size and minority/majority rights is also conveniently glossing over a very important aspect to be considered which is the history of the Cyprus problem. The minority rights for someone in a Country such as Britain may be considered 'just' as you have worded it. However, in a Country where the prospective minority were victim to the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the majority (during the process of instructed Enosis) it is simply wrong to give all power to the perpetrators of such a goal, lest history repeat itself.

Even in the event you or others here takes objection to the above points regarding ethnic cleansing as a result of a political goal (although it is still on record of the goal of Enosis and other aforementioned points) and you would rather consider the events of the past a 'consensual war' then the situation remains the same, giving all political power to one of the warring sides is nothing short of moral criminality - by all moral standards.

If you would dispute that I could only liken it to another situation where a political goal was the cause of ethnic cleansing such as Rowanda where the Tutsi's ethnically cleansed the Hutu's. If that had been successfully halted by a third party, no one of any moral integrity could then put only the Hutu's in power - lest history repeat itself. The only time one would advocate that would be if they were unconcerned over the eventuality that the Tutsi's would once again be persecuted.

[Get Real!]

I'm surprised to note an attitude which appears to imply that a Turkish nation would deserve a genocide because they are historically the perpetrators of some, in a sensible discussion. I am just pointing out what your writing appears to imply. Given how many posts have been fully anti-genocide thus far I am hopeful that you have simply misrepresented yourself. Regardless, much like earlier posts by others where current geography was not being considered you have not considered the current facts of the situation and the result, is again, an ill-founded perspective.

What on Earth are you mumbling about here?

To elaborate there are currently thought to be roughly 1.1Million people in Cyprus and roughly 500,000 are in the North and so it is not possible for one to consider them a minority

The vast majority of which are ILLEGAL IMPORTS in contravention to international law so they don't count. Try again...

....in a Country where the prospective minority were victim to the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the majority (during the process of instructed Enosis) it is simply wrong to give all power to the perpetrators of such a goal, lest history repeat itself.

Problem is you’re quoting from the Turkish history book… but mine says that the TMT was a TERRORIST organization set up and backed by Turkey with the purpose of causing trouble in Cyprus for Turkey’s gain. Hardly the “victims” in Cyprus eh…

...giving all political power to one of the warring sides is nothing short of moral criminality - by all moral standards.

Well then, you might want to have a word with ErdoCunt murdering Kurds on a daily basis and for years... talk about double standards!

If you would dispute that I could only liken it to another situation where a political goal was the cause of ethnic cleansing such as Rowanda where the Tutsi's ethnically cleansed the Hutu's. If that had been successfully halted by a third party, no one of any moral integrity could then put only the Hutu's in power - lest history repeat itself. The only time one would advocate that would be if they were unconcerned over the eventuality that the Tutsi's would once again be persecuted.

Oh you poor little fuck...

At least learn how to spell Rwanda before drawing the world's most ludicrous "parallel", you idiotic clown!

[Zenon33]

A genocide is what Turkey did to many peoples in Asia Minor. Earlier you said:

the end result is enosis with Greece by the political removal of an ethnic group then that would fit the definition of "destruction" in the above definition.

This is where you are wrong. Having just your human and maybe some minority rights and no other political powers is the what is NORMAL in all democratic countries for minorities such as yours.You call what is JUST, and NORMAL a "genocide", while the Turks hold the record of the greatest number of REAL genocides!

I'm surprised to note an attitude which appears to imply that a Turkish nation would deserve a genocide because they are historically the perpetrators of some, in a sensible discussion. I am just pointing out what your writing appears to imply. Given how many posts have been fully anti-genocide thus far I am hopeful that you have simply misrepresented yourself. Regardless, much like earlier posts by others where current geography was not being considered you have not considered the current facts of the situation and the result, is again, an ill-founded perspective.

To elaborate there are currently thought to be roughly 1.1Million people in Cyprus and roughly 500,000 are in the North and so it is not possible for one to consider them a minority in any case (http://worldpopulationreview.com/countr ... opulation/, this is the most recent information I could find).

Irrespective of population numbers this argument about population size and minority/majority rights is also conveniently glossing over a very important aspect to be considered which is the history of the Cyprus problem. The minority rights for someone in a Country such as Britain may be considered 'just' as you have worded it. However, in a Country where the prospective minority were victim to the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the majority (during the process of instructed Enosis) it is simply wrong to give all power to the perpetrators of such a goal, lest history repeat itself.

Even in the event you or others here takes objection to the above points regarding ethnic cleansing as a result of a political goal (although it is still on record of the goal of Enosis and other aforementioned points) and you would rather consider the events of the past a 'consensual war' then the situation remains the same, giving all political power to one of the warring sides is nothing short of moral criminality - by all moral standards.

If you would dispute that I could only liken it to another situation where a political goal was the cause of ethnic cleansing such as Rowanda where the Tutsi's ethnically cleansed the Hutu's. If that had been successfully halted by a third party, no one of any moral integrity could then put only the Hutu's in power - lest history repeat itself. The only time one would advocate that would be if they were unconcerned over the eventuality that the Tutsi's would once again be persecuted.

Near 400.000 people lives in North and the GDP per capita is only 15.000 $, much less than the GDP per capita of the Republic of Cyprus, who is near 30.000 $.
So the economy of the north is underdeveloped, thanks to Turkey.

[Sotos]

I'm surprised to note an attitude which appears to imply that a Turkish nation would deserve a genocide because they are historically the perpetrators of some, in a sensible discussion. I am just pointing out what your writing appears to imply.

Never said anything like that. On the contrary it is you who claims that GCs deserved to be ethnically cleansed and have their properties stolen just because your own Turkish history books are filled with lies about us. The Turks did commit several genocides and this is a historical fact. On the other hand your claims about GCs committing an ethnic cleansing against you is just a LIE which you made up to excuse even more crimes against us.

To elaborate there are currently thought to be roughly 1.1Million people in Cyprus and roughly 500,000 are in the North and so it is not possible for one to consider them a minority in any case

Most of those are foreign Settlers who were brought to Cyprus illegally in violation of the Geneva convention and their presence on our island constitutes a war crime. When we are talking about Cypriots we are the vast majority and also the native people of Cyprus.

The minority rights for someone in a Country such as Britain may be considered 'just' as you have worded it. However, in a Country where the prospective minority were victim to the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the majority (during the process of instructed Enosis) it is simply wrong to give all power to the perpetrators of such a goal, lest history repeat itself.

Your whole argument is based on a LIE. The victims in Cyprus are and have always been the Greek Cypriots. The Turks have always been the aggressors in Cyprus. From the very first time when they invaded our island killing 10s of thousands of people, to their oppressive rule over the native Cypriot people for centuries which included several massacres, to the more recent events where the Turks attacked the native Cypriots to deprive from us our right to democratically choose where our own should belong (first massacres after the end of Ottoman rule was committed by the Turks against Greek Cypriots on June 12, 1958 near Gönyeli) and later invaded killing 1000s and ethnically cleansed 100s of thousands of people. In the UK where some of the minorities are actually victims (e.g. black people that used to be slaves) and the minorities still don't have any special privileges... and in Cyprus that in reality you are and you have always been the aggressors you are trying to excuse your racist demands based on nothing more than LIES which you made up. The ONLY thing we ever did was defend ourselves and fight back when we were attacked.

Even in the event you or others here takes objection to the above points regarding ethnic cleansing as a result of a political goal (although it is still on record of the goal of Enosis and other aforementioned points) and you would rather consider the events of the past a 'consensual war' then the situation remains the same, giving all political power to one of the warring sides is nothing short of moral criminality - by all moral standards.

The goal of Enosis was simply Enosis. Just like we all lived in Cyprus under British rule and under Ottoman rule we would all live in Cyprus under Greek rule... the only difference being that Greek rule would be democratically chosen by the native people while Ottoman and British rule where imposed on us by force. Had you not attacked us to deprive us from our right to choose where our island should belong there would be no conflict with you about enosis. Our loses and your loses in that conflict are a result of your aggression and refusal to respect the democratic choices of the Cypriot people. And if it is "moral criminality" to give "all" political power to one of the warring sides then Turkey must be the most immoral and criminal country ever, since the Turks had a war with virtually all other ethnic groups of their country (Greeks, Armenians, Kurds etc) and yet those other groups have no power in Turkey.

If you would dispute that I could only liken it to another situation where a political goal was the cause of ethnic cleansing such as Rowanda where the Tutsi's ethnically cleansed the Hutu's. If that had been successfully halted by a third party, no one of any moral integrity could then put only the Hutu's in power - lest history repeat itself. The only time one would advocate that would be if they were unconcerned over the eventuality that the Tutsi's would once again be persecuted.

The Rowanda example is not at all similar to Cyprus since you are the aggressors who have committed crimes against us. It would apply for Turkey, since the Turks have committed genocides against Armenians and Greeks and have massacred 10s of thousands of Kurds. Conclusion: You NEED to make up a FAKE history where we are the aggressors and you are the victims in order to support your claims. Because with the TRUE history (from the first time you set your foot on our island until today) it is clear that you have always been the aggressors in Cyprus and we are the victims of the Turkish aggression and expansionism.