Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

EU calling on Turkey to be more democratic whilst allowing the continued occupation against an EU State, whilst the EU try to undermine the British Demoicratic Process in the oldest democracy on the face of earth.

Shame on the EU! Shame! And shame on all the blinded supporters,

[miltiades]

Why dont you just shut it stupid !!
Ypu are a fucking idiot. Now clear off stay out of politics. Concentrate on your million debts tax ...deductible!!

[Mustiejodu]

now you call it occupation of EU state. That happened in 1974 when Cyprus was not part of EU. It’s a matter of opinion as all political views are. In my opinion EU communism has occupied Cyprus. There are many forms of occupation. One is my military occupation or in the way EU OPERATES POLITICAL OCCUPATION. Where is your Cypriot identity gone. Your money is now euro, your flag is blue with stars etc etc. During ottoman rule you had more Cypriot identity. Under EU occupation you are no longer Cypriot just a part of a UNION. The sad thing is you don’t see it your so blind.

[Maximus]

There are only two types of occupation musti;

1. Your job or profession.
2. the state, action or period of occupying a premises or being occupied by military force.

Like the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus.

Cyprus being an EU state or not then is immaterial to the fact that Turkey occupies Cyprus and Cyprus is an EU state.

There is no such thing as political occupation and occupation is definitely not a political view, its a physical act of being in a space or a job.

You are a poor spin doctor Musti.

Paphitis does have a point though.

The EU has displayed levels of hypocrisy but they have always "supported" Cyprus.

[erolz66]

Maximus does the existence of TC in Cyprus and their seeming support for Turkey's military presence make any difference to the use of the word 'occupation' or degree to which it is an 'occupation' ? If there were no TC at all and never had been and Turkey had the same military presence in the northern part of Cyprus, that would not be any sense more an 'occupation' by Turkey ? Just asking.

[Maximus]

Maximus does the existence of TC in Cyprus and their seeming support for Turkey's military presence make any difference to the use of the word 'occupation' or degree to which it is an 'occupation' ? If there were no TC at all and never had been and Turkey had the same military presence in the northern part of Cyprus, that would not be any sense more an 'occupation' by Turkey ? Just asking.

Not in my view, this is immaterial to the definition of the word occupation.

Their existence in Cyprus does not change the fact that they are occupying other peoples homes.

Like, I can exist in the same country as you but if I break in to your home with my mates and prevent your from entering it. That is an occupation, beside all the illegal ramifications of doing so.

if I refuse to get out and give it back and continue to keep it in my possession, its called theft.

I could also squat in your garden while you are present. Even though you still have access, it is an occupation and I would be doing so illegally if you are requesting that I leave.

[Kikapu]

Maximus does the existence of TC in Cyprus and their seeming support for Turkey's military presence make any difference to the use of the word 'occupation' or degree to which it is an 'occupation' ? If there were no TC at all and never had been and Turkey had the same military presence in the northern part of Cyprus, that would not be any sense more an 'occupation' by Turkey ? Just asking.

The presence of TCs in Cyprus or not cannot be the deciding factor as to calling Turkey’s presence in Cyprus an occupation or not. Turkey is holding land by force against the wishes of vast majority of Cypriots and against the wishes of legal government of Cyprus and the U.N. on land which does not belong to Turkey. By all definition that is an occupation. The fact that the occupied area now consist mainly TCs who by and large does accept Turkey’s presence in the north and do not call it an occupation, but the problem with that is, 80% of the north never belonged to the TCs in the form of direct land ownership and not owners as a Cypriot Citizens. The displayed GCs of those 80% do not accept Turkey’s presence in the north, so they rightfully call it an occupation of their land and country. If those 80% of the GCs were still in the north and accepted Turkey there, then the claims of occupation would be less but not entirely non existence, since the remaining Cypriots living in the non occupied areas can still claim occupation by Turkey if it’s not what they want their country to be in, which they don’t want.

[Pyrpolizer]

EU calling on Turkey to be more democratic whilst allowing the continued occupation against an EU State, whilst the EU try to undermine the British Demoicratic Process in the oldest democracy on the face of earth.

Shame on the EU! Shame! And shame on all the blinded supporters,

As already mentioned turkey's occupation dates back to 1974
The EU accepted the whole of Cyprus while also accepting it was under occupation hence the aquis would not be implemented in the occupied.
Actually we were very lucky to even get in, because no one with border disputes can.
We joined because we had smart people plus Greece striking a deal actually blackmailing the EU in vetoing it's 2004 enlargement unless Cyprus was in.
The deal was a)Cyprus in together with Malta and a number (8?) of ex communist countries b) Turkey could start accession negotiations on some chapters only.

We hoped the EU would help solve the Cyprob. It was just a dream...
Moreover Turkey has "friendly" nations inside the EU the UK been the leader followed by Scandinavians.
We will see next week if the EU would at least impose trade sanctions on Turkey for violating Cyprus' EEZ

Imo you don't understand what the EU is all about. Of course it allows Turkey to continue occupying part of Cyprus. We got in with that problem remember? And the EU did us a favor, while never promised to solve it for us. The EU can only apply limited pressure considering Turkey's proxies inside the EU.

[erolz66]

Maximus does the existence of TC in Cyprus and their seeming support for Turkey's military presence make any difference to the use of the word 'occupation' or degree to which it is an 'occupation' ? If there were no TC at all and never had been and Turkey had the same military presence in the northern part of Cyprus, that would not be any sense more an 'occupation' by Turkey ? Just asking.

The presence of TCs in Cyprus or not cannot be the deciding factor as to calling Turkey’s presence in Cyprus an occupation or not. Turkey is holding land by force against the wishes of vast majority of Cypriots and against the wishes of legal government of Cyprus and the U.N. on land which does not belong to Turkey. By all definition that is an occupation. The fact that the occupied area now consist mainly TCs who by and large does accept Turkey’s presence in the north and do not call it an occupation, but the problem with that is, 80% of the north never belonged to the TCs in the form of direct land ownership and not owners as a Cypriot Citizens. The displayed GCs of those 80% do not accept Turkey’s presence in the north, so they rightfully call it an occupation of their land and country. If those 80% of the GCs were still in the north and accepted Turkey there, then the claims of occupation would be less but not entirely non existence, since the remaining Cypriots living in the non occupied areas can still claim occupation by Turkey if it’s not what they want their country to be in, which they don’t want.

I do not disagree with anything you are saying and it certainly was not my point that Turkish presence in Cyprus is not an occupation in any sort of definitive black and white binary way. Quite the reverse. If I was making any point it was that these things that appear binary rarely are. For me the word 'occupation' is just a label for an idea and concept. It is the underlying idea that matters, is what we have to get to grips with if we are to find better ways forward. Arguing about the label in some binary fashion to me seems a waste of time and energy. Once you get away from arguing about the rightness or wrongness of applying a given label in a binary fashion then you have, imho, a better chance of understanding what needs to be understood, from all perspectives that at least gives a chance of making better choices going forward.

[Kikapu]

Maximus does the existence of TC in Cyprus and their seeming support for Turkey's military presence make any difference to the use of the word 'occupation' or degree to which it is an 'occupation' ? If there were no TC at all and never had been and Turkey had the same military presence in the northern part of Cyprus, that would not be any sense more an 'occupation' by Turkey ? Just asking.

The presence of TCs in Cyprus or not cannot be the deciding factor as to calling Turkey’s presence in Cyprus an occupation or not. Turkey is holding land by force against the wishes of vast majority of Cypriots and against the wishes of legal government of Cyprus and the U.N. on land which does not belong to Turkey. By all definition that is an occupation. The fact that the occupied area now consist mainly TCs who by and large does accept Turkey’s presence in the north and do not call it an occupation, but the problem with that is, 80% of the north never belonged to the TCs in the form of direct land ownership and not owners as a Cypriot Citizens. The displayed GCs of those 80% do not accept Turkey’s presence in the north, so they rightfully call it an occupation of their land and country. If those 80% of the GCs were still in the north and accepted Turkey there, then the claims of occupation would be less but not entirely non existence, since the remaining Cypriots living in the non occupied areas can still claim occupation by Turkey if it’s not what they want their country to be in, which they don’t want.

I do not disagree with anything you are saying and it certainly was not my point that Turkish presence in Cyprus is not an occupation in any sort of definitive black and white binary way. Quite the reverse. If I was making any point it was that these things that appear binary rarely are. For me the word 'occupation' is just a label for an idea and concept. It is the underlying idea that matters, is what we have to get to grips with if we are to find better ways forward. Arguing about the label in some binary fashion to me seems a waste of time and energy. Once you get away from arguing about the rightness or wrongness of applying a given label in a binary fashion then you have, imho, a better chance of understanding what needs to be understood, from all perspectives that at least gives a chance of making better choices going forward.

And I too do not disagree with your above post.

My post was merely was to state that presence of the TCs in the north/Cyprus or not would not change the status of Turkey’s presence in Cyprus as an occupying power.