Cyprus-Forum.com

[Maximus]

Yeah but the TC's were not being attacked by GC's so they could achieve enosis.

Denktash created the animosity with false flags so the TC's could turn on them and create the pretexts for Taksim. He admitted to it in a BBC interview. I saw and heard him say it with my own eyes and ears.

So please dont tell me the TC's wanted a Cyprus that was ruled by Cypriots. They never did, they fought against the GC's with the British and then they wanted Taksim from Turkey because they didnt want to live in Cyprus under GC majority (or Greek) rule.

Pre 1960, pre British rule, TC's were known as ottomans. The TC identity was given by the British to further their agenda of divide and rule. Just stating facts.

[Sotos]

So if you want to say that taking away those privileges from the TCs was illegal, then yes it was illegal, but it was not wrong. The murder of your uncle on the other hand was both illegal and most importantly wrong. Taking away unfair privileges given to a group of people is by no means equivalent to taking the lives of innocent people.

If you look, what I said was that it was illegal. If you take something from someone illegally then by definition that is, in law, theft. How do you think you can take something away from someone that is theirs in law without being able (or willing) to use the law to do so ? The 'easy' way, if you are dominant, is by force up to and including murder. Was that 'right' ? You appear to accept that it was right, so by your own standards that makes you as guilty as those who used such force and did such murders, does it not ? That is how the GC community took the TC rights in law away that you deem were unfair and that is how Turkey took away peoples rights to property and life, using the justification that what had been done to TC in the previous 10 years was 'wrong'. The only real difference is who does the deciding, outside of legality, as to what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' and has the dominance to be able to use force to rectify what they deem is 'wrong'.

The right to life and right to property aren't rights I made up, they are universally accepted human rights! On the other hand the privileges granted to the TCs were made up by foreigners and imposed selectively on Cyprus. Those privileges are not some universally accepted rights.

So who decides what is right and what is wrong and what should be legal and what should not should be? (a) Applying all universally accepted human rights, (2) for everything else the people of the country choose democratically. Individual foreign countries shouldn't get a say in what our constitution should be, or what is right and what is wrong for our country. What kind of freedom and independence is that?? If Turkey thinks that ethnic minorities should have certain rights then Turkey can lead by example by offering those same rights to its own ethnic minorities.

[erolz66]

The right to life and right to property aren't rights I made up, they are universally accepted human rights! On the other hand the privileges granted to the TCs were made up by foreigners and imposed selectively on Cyprus. Those privileges are not some universally accepted rights.

I really do not want to get bogged down in all this but the right to self determination, to not be ruled by those 'other' than yourselves, is the basis for all fundamental human rights, including the right to life. The rights granted to the TC community in the 60's agreements was an attempt to protect this fundamental right for TC without them having to have their own separate nation state.

https://www.un.org/press/en/2013/gashc4085.doc.htm

Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion

https://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/ ... kayuki.htm

This International Covenant on Human Rights is divided into “International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” (A Covenant) and “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” (B Covenant). The language in Article 1 of both A Covenant and B Covenant shows the same “peoples’ right of self-determination.” Article 1, item 1 is as follows:

All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Why is the peoples’ right of self-determination emphasized to this extent? Because if the right of self-determination of people as a group is not secured, then the basic right of each individual in the group will not be secured.

Under enosis GC would not have been ruled by those 'other' than themselves. TC would. To me it is simply and clearly disingenuous to argue that a majority of a unitary 'Cypriot people' wanted to be ruled by Greece, when it was only Greek Cypriots who wanted this and the achievement of it would mean there was no 'Cypriot people' with self determination as a result. TC can have their fundamental human right to self determination as part of a Cypriot nation and state. For Cyprus to be a part of Greece requires that the TC can have no self determination as a people who's homeland is Cyprus but who are not Greek. That is the problem the 60's agreements sought to address.

[erolz66]

Yeah but the TC's were not being attacked by GC's so they could achieve enosis.

Well we will have to agree to disagree on this one. My uncle was murdered by those who still sought a route to enosis and were more than prepared to use murder of innocents to try and achieve that aim.

Denktash created the animosity with false flags so the TC's could turn on them and create the pretexts for Taksim. He admitted to it in a BBC interview. I saw and heard him say it with my own eyes and ears.

He, to his credit imo, admitted that this specific attack was carried out by TC but at the time blamed on GC. He did not admit that he himself order such in order to create animosity in order to create a pretext for Taksim. He actually claims in that interview that he did not order such and that it made things worse and that if he had have had prior knowledge he would have tried to stop the bomb being placed. Do you really believe that no GC, in the pursuit of achieving enosis ever tried to construct a false flag operation ? That this was something that only TC extremists did ? Or that without this singular incident there would have been no animosity between the communities and their different desires for Cyprus post colonial rule ?

So please dont tell me the TC's wanted a Cyprus that was ruled by Cypriots. They never did, they fought against the GC's with the British and then they wanted Taksim from Turkey because they didnt want to live in Cyprus under GC majority (or Greek) rule.

There were Cypriots from both communities, throughout the 40 and 50, that argued respectively against enosis and taksim and warned of the dangers the pursuit of the ideas would have for all Cypriots and for their trouble they were intimidated, beaten and even murdered by their own respective communities. Just stating facts.

[repulsewarrior]

...my uncle, my cousin, my great uncle, his son, met the same fate, because they did not leave, they were not "Greeks", and they did not feel the need to, they did not believe that Turkey would stoop as low as that, this was not "their" coup, when they were taken and made to disappear.

...i know now that the family in my grandmother's house is welcoming, from my father who had the courage that i did not, went to visit the village, at the time when the gates were recently opened; i still fear of murder, given that my uncle's home, my great uncle's home and many in my family, house people not at all welcoming.

Yet from many who still live in the village, i am heartened, that for over forty years now they demonstrate their solidarity with us; it is Cypriots like them that have gathered together to ask for a monument to be built, for all the missing and disappeared, honoured by all of us the living, as Cypriots, for who they are: Cypriots, (not "Turks" and "Greeks"), which is the most recent signal of Hope to me.

...i know when it comes to Cyprus, i may be way too serious. Indeed a set of fantasies to those who think they know the fault rests with one, or the other, it seems in such an argument i don't fit in. I feel you guys avoid me, sometimes, hell bent to prove "your" point. You in particular Erolz; this post is mostly in reply to you, because i feel your angst, but because it does not fit in to the ranting, i feel more ignored by you than anyone else, and after all these years, the word, ignored, is not far from the truth, given what i have been saying. You are not alone.

But, no worry really, it's for Cyprus I/i'm here, the Freedom of this land from the subjugators who know only how to plunder, i will continue to remind them, and you, every day that "They" are not alone in this debate, there are tens of thousands like me who put their own dignity before "being" anything but who they are as Individuals, as a Citizen of the World, just Cypriots, and in their own constituency (be it a village or the island), a dweller.

...i seek to better the Human condition, for Cypriots (by "being" Cypriot). And you may speak of "Greeks" and/or "Turks" and their injustice. We can discuss this ad nauseam, as "Greeks" or "Turks", but it really misses the point when you think of who were their victims.

...just saying, (again).

[erolz66]

You in particular Erolz; this post is mostly in reply to you, because i feel your angst, but because it does not fit in to the ranting, i feel more ignored by you than anyone else, and after all these years, the word, ignored, is not far from the truth, given what i have been saying. You are not alone.

Well some what ironically I had sent you a PM a couple of days ago but you have not opened it to date. I do respond to you directly less than others for a couple of reasons. Firstly whilst I disagree with you on some things I just do not see you as someone that is that far from my own vision of what Cyprus could be and thus do not want to get in to 'arguing' with you when there are people with much more fundamental differences that I choose to argue with (learn from). Secondly I feel, for whatever reason, that I often only understand a fraction of what you are saying. I am not sure why this is so but there is something about the way you express yourself that makes it hard for me to grasp what it is exactly you are saying. This has been true for the decades plus I have been on forums with yourself.

[Robin Hood]

I have given you my reasons as to why I interpreted the lady being Turkish and not TC, because I used the direct and unambiguous description of the lady by HR. You on the other hand used the indirect and ambiguous description of the lady by HR. While you were left in the “fog” to her nationality by choosing the ambiguous statement, I was in “clarity” with my choosing of the unambiguous statement. It is not to say that the conclusion of her nationality were correct or incorrect regardless which of the ambiguities were used by either one of us, but the fact that you wanted to use the ambiguous statement to make your argument, you have failed to see the other side of the unambiguous statement. It is like a prosecutor who would use only the unsubstantiated evidence he feels he needs to convict someone in a court of law and ignore more substantive evidence which may actually acquit someone from prosecution.

As I see it

For there to be no ambiguity there has to be no ambiguity. You just ignore the ambiguity that was and is and always will be there in the post in order to reach the conclusion you did. Yet the ambiguity is still there in the post regardless of you choosing to ignore it. The use of quotes was not a mistake or an accident, it was done with some kind of specific intent.

Actually Erolz, I don't even think there were any ambiguities in the way RH wrote "Turkish" with quotes, question mark and with nothing at all with, but just Turkish. In ALL 3 times Turkish was written in one form or the other to address the lady at the house in the north, therefore, to any impartial jury, we have to believe that this was written deliberately by RH because he believed her to be Turkish, because at no time did RH even address the woman in the slightest way to be a TC, but kept referring to her as "Turkish".

3 x Turkish of some sort
0 x TC of any sort

CASE CLOSED!

I didn't have a clue what she was! She seemed to understand some Greek but not English and she wasn't dressed the way they do in the GC part of the Island! My conclusion was that she was more likely to be 'TURKISH' than 'GREEK' .... as she was certainly not English. So any nationality that was 'TURKISK' related seemed a goods guess. She could have been Anatolian?

Had she been playing the Bag Pipes, I might of guessed at her being Scottish from a wild Clan in the remote mountains! She was very pleasant and welcoming but certainly wasn't my type at all!

[Sotos]

The right to life and right to property aren't rights I made up, they are universally accepted human rights! On the other hand the privileges granted to the TCs were made up by foreigners and imposed selectively on Cyprus. Those privileges are not some universally accepted rights.

I really do not want to get bogged down in all this but the right to self determination, to not be ruled by those 'other' than yourselves, is the basis for all fundamental human rights, including the right to life. The rights granted to the TC community in the 60's agreements was an attempt to protect this fundamental right for TC without them having to have their own separate nation state.

https://www.un.org/press/en/2013/gashc4085.doc.htm

Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion

https://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/ ... kayuki.htm

This International Covenant on Human Rights is divided into “International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” (A Covenant) and “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” (B Covenant). The language in Article 1 of both A Covenant and B Covenant shows the same “peoples’ right of self-determination.” Article 1, item 1 is as follows:

All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Why is the peoples’ right of self-determination emphasized to this extent? Because if the right of self-determination of people as a group is not secured, then the basic right of each individual in the group will not be secured.

Under enosis GC would not have been ruled by those 'other' than themselves. TC would. To me it is simply and clearly disingenuous to argue that a majority of a unitary 'Cypriot people' wanted to be ruled by Greece, when it was only Greek Cypriots who wanted this and the achievement of it would mean there was no 'Cypriot people' with self determination as a result. TC can have their fundamental human right to self determination as part of a Cypriot nation and state. For Cyprus to be a part of Greece requires that the TC can have no self determination as a people who's homeland is Cyprus but who are not Greek. That is the problem the 60's agreements sought to address.

I think you are misunderstanding the concept of self-determination. If it was as you suggest, Greek Cypriots in the UK or Greeks in Turkey (to give just a few examples) could demand separate municipalities just for themselves, to vote separately their representatives and have veto powers, to have 30% of government and 40% of the police positions in those countries etc. So clearly you are misunderstanding the whole concept. According to Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights:

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Self-determination is about determining what is yours (yourself). For TCs this could be their language and culture, areas where I would have no problem for TCs to determine on their own. But when it comes to territory, TCs do not have any separate part of Cyprus which is just or even mostly their own. A territory where you are just a minority could not possibly fall under your self-determination. Such territory belongs to all its inhabitants, and those inhabitants should elect their government democratically, one person one vote (and not one group one vote)

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

https://www.un.org/en/universal-declara ... an-rights/


Furthermore, here we are not discussing the rights of TCs in the case of enosis, we are talking about unfair privileges granted to them in the case of independence. Your concerns regarding enosis were addressed by not having enosis and explicitly prohibiting it. Those privileges and the given constitution as a whole was unfair, divisive and institutionalized racism, and its aim was to serve the interests of the foreigners who made it instead of offering our new state a solid basis on which we could have a successful country.

[Sotos]

You in particular Erolz; this post is mostly in reply to you, because i feel your angst, but because it does not fit in to the ranting, i feel more ignored by you than anyone else, and after all these years, the word, ignored, is not far from the truth, given what i have been saying. You are not alone.

Well some what ironically I had sent you a PM a couple of days ago but you have not opened it to date. I do respond to you directly less than others for a couple of reasons. Firstly whilst I disagree with you on some things I just do not see you as someone that is that far from my own vision of what Cyprus could be and thus do not want to get in to 'arguing' with you when there are people with much more fundamental differences that I choose to argue with (learn from). Secondly I feel, for whatever reason, that I often only understand a fraction of what you are saying. I am not sure why this is so but there is something about the way you express yourself that makes it hard for me to grasp what it is exactly you are saying. This has been true for the decades plus I have been on forums with yourself.

Personally I might read just the first sentence of what he writes. A Chinese text about string theory, auto-translated by Google to Swahili and then to ancient Greek would be easier to comprehend than what repulsewarrior writes... and I am only slightly exaggerating!

[erolz66]

I think you are misunderstanding the concept of self-determination. If it was as you suggest, Greek Cypriots in the UK or Greeks in Turkey (to give just a few examples) could demand separate municipalities just for themselves, to vote separately their representatives and have veto powers, to have 30% of government and 40% of the police positions in those countries etc. So clearly you are misunderstanding the whole concept.

And with sincere respect I think it is you that is choosing to understand these concepts in a way that supports the narrative you want to believe. The concept of the right to self determination of people, that is the fundamental protection of all other individual human rights, is both simple and complex. At the simple level it is the idea that people should not be forced against their will to live in their own homelands under the rule of those that are 'other' to them and the people they belong too. Where it gets complex is firstly in defining what the commonalities are that make a group a 'people' and in the mechanism by which they can exercise their right as that group.

Your comparison with GC in the UK is invalid because GC were not a people that had lived in the UK, itself under foreign rule, for centuries as a significant minority population and then when the prospect of self rule for the UK came along the majority population chose to want to exercise their self determination as a group that explicitly excluded GC by uniting the UK with some other existing foreign nation, like say Turkey.

The situation in Cyprus at the end of colonial rule was entirely different and unique because of the choice of GC to seek their right to self determination as part of the wider Greek people. I know you do not what to accept this and indeed may not be able to accept this but to me it remains clearly the case. I say thin not in terms of attributing 'blame' but merely in terms of understanding the past and how it has led us to where we are today. Both communities in Cyprus had lived under foreign rule for millennia. By the mid 1900's the world was turning and finally they both had the chance to no longer be ruled in their own homeland by those they considered 'other' than themselves. GC by choosing to seek to exercise their right to self determination as part of the existing Greek people by uniting Cyprus with the Greek state effectively closed off the possibility for TC to exercise their right to self determination as part of a unitary Cypriot people. For TC enosis would not have been the end of foreign colonial rule. It would have been to just replace one colonial ruler, the relatively benign British, with a different colonial ruler of Greece which was at that period far from 'benign' towards them as a people. Enosis would have required that TC people lost their right to self determination entirely, either by the mechanism of being part of a unitary Cypriot people that ruled themselves or by any other mechanism.

Furthermore, here we are not discussing the rights of TCs in the case of enosis, we are talking about unfair privileges granted to them in the case of independence. Your concerns regarding enosis were addressed by not having enosis and explicitly prohibiting it. Those privileges and the given constitution as a whole was unfair, divisive and institutionalized racism, and its aim was to serve the interests of the foreigners who made it instead of offering our new state a solid basis on which we could have a successful country.

In many ways and to significant degrees the 60's agreements were discriminatory in the ways you describe. I accept and understand that. However the idea that they were in no way what so ever connected with the 'conundrum' of trying to ensure all Cypriots could enjoy their fundamental right to self determination in a post colonial era in the face of a GC numerical majority choosing to want to exercise their right to self determination not as part of a unitary Cypriot people and state but as part of the Greek people and state, is to me disingenuous. I understand why you need to believe this as your entire narrative is based on this notion. I just do not think it 'stacks up'. You say that TC had already got their protection against enosis happening and thus needed no further protections against this. At some level you must be able to see how unrealistic this argument is. Constitutions can be changed. Legally. They can also be ignored on the basis they are 'unjust'. You talk about if TC as a community had not got the privileges it did under the 60's agreements, we could have had today a successful country. Yet surely you must be able to see that had TC not got those legal rights in the 60's agreements , then almost certainly Cyprus would not exist at all as a sovereign state and no Cypriots would be able to exercise their right to self determination port of a Cypriot people. If such had of led to us today having a successful stable country, then that county would be Greece.