Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kikapu]

Why do you assume that the woman was Turkish and not Turkish Cypriot ?

I didn’t assume anything, Erolz. I just repeated what RH stated in his post, that’s all.

RH's initial description of the woman was

The ‘Turkish’ lady occupant

Why do you think he used quotes round the word Turkish in that description ? To me it seemed clear that he used the quotes to denote some degree of ambiguity over her actual status. Yet you then went on to describe her as a Turk that had come from another country to live in Cyprus as if that was known and definite fact.

And if you continued reading RH’s long post, he states very clearly later her being a Turkish woman without any ambiguity.

[erolz66]

Why do you assume that the woman was Turkish and not Turkish Cypriot ?

I didn’t assume anything, Erolz. I just repeated what RH stated in his post, that’s all.

RH's initial description of the woman was

The ‘Turkish’ lady occupant

Why do you think he used quotes round the word Turkish in that description ? To me it seemed clear that he used the quotes to denote some degree of ambiguity over her actual status. Yet you then went on to describe her as a Turk that had come from another country to live in Cyprus as if that was known and definite fact.

And if you continued reading RH’s long post, he states very clearly later her being a Turkish woman without any ambiguity.

Yes further on he drops the quotes but to me that just seemed like 'brevity' ? That he does so still does not account for the use of them in the first instant does it ? Why do you think in the first instance he used quotes ? For no reason at all ?

[Maximus]

People occupying someones else property or home are the ones in the wrong here. Whether it is their fault or not it is simply wrong.

And when the borders opened there were TC who went to revisit their former homes to find people living in them. To find the remains being used as animal barns. To find whole villages that have literally just disappeared entirely.

The GC's have always maintained that TC property can be reclaimed and returned but the TC's want to keep what they stole.

A TC can only reclaim their former pre 74 property in the south, if they first become resident in the south, though not in their former home, for at least 6 months. When a TC did this and then tried to reclaim their former home that was being occupied by a GC refugee it took them over ten years of fighting in the RoC courts and then the ECHR before they finally got return of what was always theirs and this was done days before the ECHR was due to rule specifically so that there would be no forced change in the laws in the RoC and thus require the next TC to do it to have go through the same process. It is also a fact that all be it in tiny numbers some GC refugees were given legal freehold title to pre 74 TC properties in the south.

As well as making claims to property they abandoned in the south. They are not thinking straight and this is pervasive in their position and the debate.

No TC who had received GC property in the North in compensation for that they lost in the South is able to reclaim their property in the South. In order to reclaim their property in the south, provided it was not one of the exceptional cases where freehold title had already been given to a GC refugee and provided they first reside in the south for 6 months would have to prove that they did not have compensating GC property in the north. The burden of this proof is on them.

This is one major obstacle the TC's maintain that prevents finding a feasible and just solution to the problem.

The idea that the reason we have not found a solution is because TC are greedy thieves and GC are all honest victims sounds and smells like convenient BS to me.

Long....

People occupying other people's homes is simply wrong. Period.

It is a known fact that turkey and the t.c have in their possession more property now since the invasion than they did before.

It is also a well known negotiating position of turkey and the t.c.s that they are reluctant to respect gc property ownership rights.

I am stating facts.

If I am wrong then show me where any t.c or Turkish leader has ever said the gc can reclaim.or have their property back.

vast amounts of property is still in turkeys and the t.c possession as you write. there has been no intention to give it back.

The gc position has always been that all property belongs to it's rightful owners. Once turkey and the t.c agree, then action can be taken to remedy the situation.

This property and illegal occupation is an obstacle to a feasible and just solution, that is maintained by turkey and the t.c. Period.

[Kikapu]

Why do you assume that the woman was Turkish and not Turkish Cypriot ?

I didn’t assume anything, Erolz. I just repeated what RH stated in his post, that’s all.

RH's initial description of the woman was

The ‘Turkish’ lady occupant

Why do you think he used quotes round the word Turkish in that description ? To me it seemed clear that he used the quotes to denote some degree of ambiguity over her actual status. Yet you then went on to describe her as a Turk that had come from another country to live in Cyprus as if that was known and definite fact.

And if you continued reading RH’s long post, he states very clearly later her being a Turkish woman without any ambiguity.

Yes further on he drops the quotes but to me that just seemed like 'brevity' ? That he does so still does not account for the use of them in the first instant does it ? Why do you think in the first instance he used quotes ? For no reason at all ?

I have no idea for his reasons in using quotes in one instance and not the second or third. It left everything for interpretation for the reader to make, right or wrong. At the same time, you yourself cannot reach a conclusion that she was not a Turk in the form she was described by RH, and yet you want to believe she is not a Turk but a TC, which would bring a different sets of sentiments to the discussion. I am not calling you out in your interpretation because the use of quotes in one instance, so I don’t know what gives you the moral standing in calling me out on my interpretation without the use of quotes. Regardless which is correct and which is not, at the end of the day, the reaction of the GC Lady would have been the same, so how much further do you want to stretch this, Erolz?

[Maximus]

Erolz loves debating the fringe irrelevant issues.

Look how pedantic the conversation has become with Kiks.

What difference does it make whether the occupant was Turkish or Turkish Cypriot in RH's story? post after post trying to iterate, correct and establish whether it was Turkish or Turkish Cypriot or not.

The issue and point here is that people are illegally occupying other peoples homes and this is an obstacle to a feasible and just solution.

[cyprusgrump]

Erolz loves debating the fringe irrelevant issues.

Look how pedantic the conversation has become with Kiks.

What difference does it make whether the occupant was Turkish or Turkish Cypriot in RH's story? post after post trying to iterate, correct and establish whether it was Turkish or Turkish Cypriot or not.

The issue and point here is that people are illegally occupying other peoples homes and this is an obstacle to a feasible and just solution.

Indeed... When Erolz is (invariably) proved wrong on any subject he resorts to pedantry and straw man arguments to try (unsuccessfully) to avoid embarrassment...

[erolz66]

I have no idea for his reasons in using quotes in one instance and not the second or third. It left everything for interpretation for the reader to make, right or wrong. At the same time, you yourself cannot reach a conclusion that she was not a Turk in the form she was described by RH, and yet you want to believe she is not a Turk but a TC, which would bring a different sets of sentiments to the discussion. I am not calling you out in your interpretation because the use of quotes in one instance, so I don’t know what gives you the moral standing in calling me out on my interpretation without the use of quotes. Regardless which is correct and which is not, at the end of the day, the reaction of the GC Lady would have been the same, so how much further do you want to stretch this, Erolz?

But I did not state categorically that she must have been a TC and not a Turkish main lander. I accepted that it was ambiguous. She could have been either as far as I interpreted RH post and initial use of quotes. To me it was unknown. Now clearly some think it is irrelevant in any case but it seems that you do not think this and nor do I in the context of your reply. I have no moral standing, no superiority. I just accepted it was ambiguous and that is why I questioned your interpretation that seemed sure she was Turkish and not Turkish Cypriot. I do not see that as 'calling you out'. I sought clarification in case I had missed something. I am sorry that appears to have upset you.

[erolz66]

Indeed... When Erolz is (invariably) proved wrong on any subject he resorts to pedantry and straw man arguments to try (unsuccessfully) to avoid embarrassment...

When I am wrong about something I admit it, unlike many here. The evidence this is the case is clear and there for any to see in my posting history. That you claim or perceive the opposite, to me, says more about you than it does about me.

[Robin Hood]

Robin Hood:

Our GC friend virtually ignored her and pushed the woman’s curious children away. It was a side of her character I had never seen before and took me by surprise, I found her attitude embarrassing! She toured the house in anger and was most off-hand to the Turkish(?) occupier, although she tried to be friendly, even offering us a drink, which our friend rejected with a wave of the hand

B25:

Easy for an outsider to say. Let me ask you this RH. Do you own your own home here in Cyprus? If yes, did you work all you life to be able to buy this? If yes, then how the fuck would you feel if a couple of large GC fellas came to yours , raped your wife and daughter, murdered your son and brother, then let the house to complete strangers??

I guess you would be happy about that situation, yes? Like fuck you would even if it were not thee present occupants that were to blame.

So be fore you preach this BS to us, just take a moment and reflect what many, over 200,000 people went through during that time and you just calmly brush it of a we hate them, they hate us scenario.

Your extremist GC reply is one reason I normally avoid any debate of The Cyprus Problem! You demonstrate the very hatred I saw on that day and with hatred so intense and ingrained there can never be a united Cyprus!

It's got nothing to do with extremist behaviour.

Your GC friend (I'm amazed you have any to be honest), is NOT an extremist. A victim yes, but no extremist. People handle their grief in different ways. And whilst you yourself said that your "friend" is a rather nice person, she basically got violently uprooted from her property. And whilst the TC occupant might be dealing with her own grief and loss for whatever reason, it isn't beyond the realms of reality for your GC "friend" to be overcome with some anger and disbelief and various other tough emotions and memories and possibly quite severe PTSD. There is no doubt your GC "friend" is finding it difficult to cope with the anger but she would certainly not be the only person in that boat. You, since you proclaim to be an educated man, should have displayed humility and understanding. perhaps explain this to the TC occupant who I am sure would show some understanding as she too might also be struggling with the same emotions. That would have gone a long way as well in making the TC occupant feel better, and then after that you could have offered support to your "friend" for what are COMPLETELY NORMAL emotions of anger under such circumstances and make her feel better.

It happens all the time, even among veterans who have lost friends, and seen some gruesome things or suffered a loss. So much so, to the point of suicide even. these things can drive many people over the bend towards very severe depression and into some astounding dark places sometimes. They can do without the judgement.

As usual, you miss the point completely!

There is nothing extreme about our GC friend, nor did I suggest there was. B25 first reply and the last one, are both driven by hatred and anger and in my opinion extremist! That sort of reply shows just why, sadly, Cyprus will never become a single State ........... at least not in the foreseeable future. Those with extreme views and on both sides, will prevent it ever happening.


Had our friend broken down into tears I would have understood it completely and I think the 'illegal' occupier would also have understood. I felt sad for our friend, who incidentally we have been close friends of her and her family, for over 25 years, as obviously by conversation, all those memories were still there. What I found hard to understand was her arrogant distain for someone who was trying to extend the hand of understanding and compassion, someone who was much younger than she was so could not have been involved in those events.

Last word on The Cyprus Problem from me ........

[Sotos]

Are you serious? To say "thank you" to some thieving foreigners because they let her see her OWN home??

It wasn't their fault? Really? If you accept something which you know is stolen then you are just as criminal as the one who stole it.

As for the possibility of being TCs: Well, how about this: TCs get their own land back, we get ours back. Or if you want to keep a property owned by a GC then pay whatever the owner wants for it. Who are the ones who refuse this and insist in forceful separation by ethnic cleansing? It is the TCs who insist on this since the 1950s and unfortunately nothing has changed since then.

It goes without saying that in any solution most settlers should go. And those who stay should buy their own properties with their own money (if TCs / Turkey wants to pay for them they are welcomed)