PtePike on 
I Veli on 
Hector on 
Thomas on 
miltiades on 
Thunderbox on 
Pauline Read on Archbishop Chrysostomos II – Christmas is about…
“a plan is afoot in the next few months and left to understood by various directions that the plan will be worse than Annan Plan which rightly the Greek Cypriots rejected.” The Archbishop went on to warn that “Turkey is trying to legitimize its illegal plans for Cyprus and uses the talks to deceit Europe and the whole world.”
This is in complete contrast to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s non-political “plea for childhood.” He spoke out against the exploitation of young people, “abducted, brutalised, turned into killers, used as sex slaves.”
number of views: 445
Malcolm,
Every religious leader talks about problems that have to do with their people.
Archbishop Chrysostomos’ people, for example, live with the consequences of the Turkish invasion, therefore his speech.
It seems like Archbishop of Canterbury’s people are increasingly involved in abducting young people, brutalizing them, turning them into killers and using them as sex slaves because a couple of months ago he was more concerned about Iraq.
TITLE
lair and Brown listen as Archbishop of Canterbury condemns Iraq war decisions
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
October 09, 2009 “The Times’ – -The Archbishop of Canterbury condemned policymakers for failing to consider the cost of the Iraq war ……
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Malcolm, if you p****d off out of our houses and stopped helping the oppressive Turkish regime from occupying our land and culturally cleansing the north of all things Cypriot and Christian, then maybe our Archbishop wouldn’t feel the need to make such Christmas speeches.
Now why don’t you stop publishing these cheap Turkish-propaganda articles and find something decent to write.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
I assume GP, that in the article you found a criticism of the Archbishop. It would be interesting to hear what you imagined was there, in a completely factual article.
No I did not find criticism of the Archbishop but I do find criticism in your attempt to paint his speech in a negative light by making comparisons with the Archbishop of Canterbury’s supposed non-political speech, which Kyri put you right upon.
The occupation of Cyprus is this county’s national cause. The battle with anti-social behaviour is the UK’s national cause.
What was your point of comparing a Greek Orthodox Archbishop’s speech with that of the Anglican Archbishop’s speech, that the Anglican Church which accepts female and gay priests, is more Christian?
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Malcolm,
This is a general comment and it has nothing to do with this article even though GP’s response encouraged me to write.
I believe that there is nothing wrong in having different opinions, me and you, for example, disagree about most things.
If, however, you truly mean what you say (that you support the peace process, that you want to see GC and TC living together and so on) you should consider changing your attitude a bit.
Deliberately trying to wind up and provoke the other side does not promote peace, nor encourages reconciliation between the two people.
You cannot claim that you want to see peace and at the same time be so biased and provocative. You cannot comment about all the wrong doings of GC (even if we did them) while at the same time you deliberately turn the blind eye to the wrongdoings of TC. Even worse, you cannot lie and twist events in order to support the side you chose to be with.
What do you really believe that you can achieve this way? Reconciliation? Peace? In fact, you and your website serve the opposite purpose, that of hatred and division. You post your provocative articles. TC cheer you. GC post their responses which are often over the top thanks to your provocations. This in turn starts a fight between GC and TC which by no means promotes compromise and understanding. Said it before, will say it one more time: There are always three sides of any story. His, hers and the truth. Unless you seek the truth you will always cause friction between him and her ! You can even believe that one of the two has a bigger part of the blame. Fair enough. However, say what you want to say without offeding the other part !
In my opinion reconciliation requires understanding and accepting each others history and culture, admitting our mistakes and apologising to each other and finally forgiving each other.
I really do not think that you are helping this even for a bit.
We, Cypriots, have all seen it before unfortunately….and we still live the consequences !
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
GP, in my opinion there is nothing wrong with female or gay priests…we, straight men, obviously failed in making good priests, let someone else try
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Kyri, you say provoke, I say stimulate. You respond to something you see in these articles, even the question “was Father Christmas Turkish?” NCFP doesn’t create the divisions, it exposes them. I haven’t the faintest what you Cypriots intend to do about YOUR problem, I haven’t a vote but you have. Go ahead and blame everyone for the problems but in the end the solutions only lie in your hands. What form that solution takes, again, has nothing to do with me.
Don’t get me started about religions or strongly held beliefs that oppress human beings. I don’t think you have quite worked out why I started NCFP, if you had you would have seen that it is to do with the abuse of power and the sooner the current system in Cyprus is changed, the better in my view.
Malcolm,
It seems that we finally found something we agree on, religions.
While I cannot know why you started NCFP if I accept your word for it I can clearly see that you are doing it the wrong way.
You could have stimulated a decent exchange of opinions and ideas if you were not that provocative. You fail to realize that these are a very sensitive issues for most, therefore, what you might think of as “stimulating” is in fact really upsetting.
I agree that your website does not create the division but it makes it worse even though it could have helped making things better.
Therefore, if you really want to see an improvement think about my words and try to be a little bit more tactful and unbiased. Present both sides of the story and be fair. You will then see how these emotionally changed and often bitter and vengeful responses change to something more promising.
Like I have said before you could have helped both sides understand each other, apologize to each other for what they have done and forgive each other. Instead of that you chose to wind up each other which results in exchanging nasty comments. This by no means promotes what you claim to be your purpose.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
OK Kyri, one of my favourite sayings is, “what you do speaks so loud, I can’t hear what you say.” Write an article for NCFP, one which follows your own advice.
Why don’t you send me your next article so that I make some changes? I will send it back to you and if you like it you can post it like that !
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Nice evasion but perhaps we can co-write something?
Not an evation at all…I just do not know how to start a story ! I beleive that if I have a story I can work on it and produce something decent but I wouldnt know how to start one !
Co-write…this is what I meant
So….pick the story, start it and send it to me
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
I think that what you are suggesting is that you become editor. The start of an article would be to produce a plan which you, as a Cypriot, would submit to a national referendum. Maybe only 10 points. We could even create a poll to see if it is acceptable to NCFP readers.
Hey guys, I’ll be the patsy….
1. The UN troops to be packed up and p***ed off.
2. The green line to turn clear.
3. The border posts to disappear.
4. All Turkish troops bar 1000 to return home.
5. All Greek troops bar 1000 to return home.
6. All National Guard and reservists to turn in their weapons.
7. TRNC to be admitted to the EU.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
I think you may be over simplifying it there, Ian.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
I bet Ian’s plan will be more popular than the one that the Two Presidents come up with
You English folk who occupy Greek Cypriot houses are a big part of the problem. By not doing the right thing (leaving the house for it’s legal owners and indigenous Greek Cypriots) you are continuing the stumbling block of a solution.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
GP, as soon as there is a settlement I’m sure all the property problems will be sorted out. As the GC government keeps saying to TCs who want back their property in the south, they’ll get it when there is a solution. I’m not sure what shape it would take but I’m sure we are in agreement that to aggravate the situation by saying that property in the north should be returned, or compensation paid to the owner, before property in the south is returned, is a bit one sided. As one Brit put it to me, “we may have received stolen goods but we didn’t steal them. Why is there no talk of prosecuting the Turkish Cypriots who sold it to us. They knew the score. How many of them are crossing into the south without a word being said?” I think that justice will prevail if the extremists don’t inflame the situation and prevent a settlement.
Mr Proctolis,
You seem to keep harping on the same theme, that all Btits should get out of their stolen houses and leave. Talk about an oversimplification…
But I digress. Can you tell me, because I’m curious, what Australians who live in houses built recently on formerly vacant land should do? There is no GC house we can vacate, so what process should we follow? Additionally, GP, what should the original GC owner of the land do with the land he was given in the south?
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Malcolm,
I am not suggesting that I want to be the editor. I only said that I can make a black or a white article more grey, therefore make it more “reconciliation friendly” : ) I will give it a try with your idea, however, it might take some time as I am not much into oversimplified bullet points.
Regarding your reply to GP I disagree with comparing the situation in the south with that in the north. Despite what you believe any TC is allowed to get his property in the south, live here, work here and so on (I challenge anyone who disagrees to tell me why). No GC is allowed anything in the north apart from tourism. Additionally no TC property in the south has been given to any GC or sold to any foreigner. All GC property in the north has been taken by the occupying force, some is kept by the administration but most has been given to people. Above all, do not forget that we are willing to give all their properties back and get ours back. Why don’t they accept?
In anyway, you will never hear any GC say or imply that we should get our properties in the north back while at the same time keeping TC properties in the south. For us TC getting the properties in the south back is not even an issue, it is taken for granted, it is not even said because it has never been doubted.
Regarding foreigners and property I have already said what I believe. TC are also victims of what has happened. They did not chose it. They had no options. Most foreigners came to take advantage of a situation and benefit from a tragedy. I believe that it is morally unacceptable. Also do not forget that the only reason TC are not prosecuted is because there is no way to execute such a court order, which is not the case with EU citizens as it can (possibly) be executed anywhere in Europe.
Ian, Edwards,
Oversimplified plan indeed as it does not address the main concerns of either of the two people.
I would also like to make a couple of comments regarding your reply to PG. Often words are used in a more general manner than what they actually mean literally so when PG, me or anyone else talks about “homes” they also mean land, shops, hotels and in general any immovable property or even businesses. So I suppose you should still vacate your home, or if possible move it on a plot of land that you legally own.
Please allow me to add something about property. The right of ownership is according to the UN a “fundamental human right”. This by definition means that it is the individuals right and that a third party (including governments) cannot compromise it, deny it, alter it and in general limit it. In essence this means that despite what the solution says NOBODY will have to accept it. Even if the solution says “compensation to all that lost properties” whoever wants to will be able to go to court and get his property back. There is no court who will rule against such an owner as the right to keep his property is a “fundamental human right” and nobody can tell him otherwise. Turkey knows it and therefore formed the so called “compensations committee” which aims to “close” as many cases as possible because they know that each and every square meter of land is a potential source of problems.
I believe that many (if not most) will choose to get their properties back rather than accept another form of settlement. For example I know extremely well someone who owns roughly 150,000 sq.m of prime coastal land. More than 70 houses have been build on this land. I also know that this person will never accept any deal as a matter of principle. For your own good I hope that the house you are talking about is not built on his land
This specific GC was given nothing in the south. Nevertheless, as you asked this question let me answer. No GC was given any TC property in the south, no GC (or in fact anyone) owns any property in the south that belonged to any TC before 1974. If you are referring to the refugees that were given houses/flats in the refugee estates I believe that the solution will address this issue. I am sure that there will be a way to take this into account. How about returning it to the federal government to be used for “housing benefits” ? Please note that ownership was only given for units built on government land and not on TC land.
May I ask where do you hear these stories that we were given land in the south and all these nonsense?
GP,
My views on foreigners buying in the north are already known, however, I do not think that this is a major issue as far as finding a solution is concerned.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Kyri,
“So I suppose you should still vacate your home, or if possible move it on a plot of land that you legally own.”
If that is a serious suggestion of yours, then I guess that says it all really. Clearly, you are simply not interested in the situation of someone like me, and many others, preferring to lump us all under the arrant nonsense of terms like “foreigners (who) came to take advantage of a situation and benefit from a tragedy.” I’ve already explained my position and motives in another post, and if you choose not to accept my word, then you are guilty of the same kind of blind obstinacy that you accuse us of.
If I vacated my home, Kyri, just who would then be entitled to occupy it – and the 13 other such villas on the same original piece of land?
And “move it”?! Do you realise how ludicrous a suggestion that is? What you mean, of course, is vacate it and build another, so my original question remains.
If you honestly believe the original GC owner should have clear title to the 14 villas now built on the land, or your friend to the 70 now on his old land, I suggest to you that you still have your head firmly positioned in Cloudcuckooland. It’s obvious you have no intention of trying to discover a workable solution to the Cyprob.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Kyri, another issue you always seem to gloss over is that of the TC properties which have been appropriated by the state. Please take the following as an attempt to make sense of the Cypriot problem by proposing theories of what has happened to property in Cyprus.
You rightly say that the state needed these properties in order to function, although the way they were taken was similar to that of a wartime situation, i.e. without seeking consent. Again, you could argue that Cyprus was/is at war and the temporary administration in the south took the actions it needed to survive. TCs would also argue that the temporary administration in the north did the same by appropriating land but in their case they saw themselves as never being able to return to a situation where a GC majority would again abuse the power it had over them.
I use the term temporary “administrations” although south Cyprus has currently been accepted as the only legal government in Cyprus. I personally find this legally odd and have suspicions that it is a religious thing based upon the decisions of a mostly Christian or non-Muslim club.
Kyri,
You almost had us believing you were a reasonable GC (rare bird) until you said:
“Also do not forget that the only reason TC are not prosecuted is because there is no way to execute such a court order,…” We all know that there is a law on RoC statute books that allows for the arrest and criminal prosecution of anyone dealing with GC property in the North. It would be quite easy to identify these TCs when they cross into RoC and deal with them accordingly. You choose not to, and say so publicly, expecting and hoping that the TCs will respond favourably to this divisive implied immunity.
You defend TCs by saying “TC are also victims of what has happened. They did not chose it. They had no options.” Quite right, they had no options because GCs didn’t give them any. So what you are saying is GCs made TCs steal and sell GC property to expats, but you excuse yourself and the TCs and choose to selectively persue the expats. We must all share culpability for the situation and I do not consider that anything else is in any way equitable.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Vaughan,
Please feel free to have your opinions about me or about any GC. I personally do not care about the opinion of someone with your code of ethics. I know that you will reply with more sarcasm, however, it is not me who saw dead meat and moved in to save a few quid.
Nevertheless, as many people read this website I feel compelled to reply.
I do not know the details of the criminal law you are talking about, however, I believe that you refer to a law that has to do with people involved in the property business, people who mass develop and sell properties belonging (or built on land belonging) to GC in the North. The average TC does not belong in this category of people and to my knowledge only a very small number of people (which also includes TCs) were prosecuted based on this law.
The reason of this law is pretty straight forward. If developers are allowed to build thousands of homes and sell them (to anyone) then the solution becomes even more difficult. Please note that the property issue is already one of the most difficult problems to deal with. TC by developing land are trying to strengthen the status quo and with this law we are trying to weaken it. I have to admit that there are also financial motives as the north is competing with the south in the property business, however, this alone would not be enough. On the other hand, financial motives encouraged individuals to gather information and pass them on to the government for prosecution.
The vast majority of cases against expats are “civil” cases (as opposed to “criminal”) where the defendant is taken to court by the GC legal owner of the asset he occupies.
What would be the point in suing any TC? Let’s say that I sue a TC called Oram-oglou for living in my house and the court rules that as the house is legally mine the Oram-oglous have to give it back and to also compensate me for all these years they occupied it. The Oram-oglous hear the judge, smile and then go back to the north. Then what? I will be holding a useless piece of paper which will only be good to use as toilette paper, a very expensive one indeed, unless you believe that the Oram-oglous will just pay me a visit one day with the keys of my house and a briefcase full of money.
On the other hand, if the defendant has assets in the EU the situation is totally different as we can apply to any EU court for executing the order issued by the Cypriot court. We can therefore go against his other assets should he fail to comply with the original judgment. This, I believe, explains why the vast majority of these court cases are against expats.
In addition to the above, the reasons stated to justify the existence of the criminal law are also applicable because there is no way to find a solution if they continue developing and selling GC assets in the north.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Kyri,
I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t cut it.
There is a law in RoC whereby ANYONE who has/had dealings in GC property in the North is liable to arrest and prosecution if they set foot in RoC. Your courts even increased the maximum sentence in order to comply with European arrest warrant regulations. The fact that you choose NOT to apply this law to TCs is as I have already stated.
The fact that TCs “stole” land, you choose to defend, by stating that they had no option. You have not commented on my assertion that these other options were denied to them by GCs and that ex-pats were only part of the equation, but the only part you want to address. You imply sympathy with TCs and that we ex-pats took advantage of them and their situation in order to “save a few quid”. As you have already stated the TCs had no option but to sell and we would argue that by buying what they sold we helped them to survive in a time when you gave them no other option.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Ian Edwards,
I cannot answer your questions I am afraid. However, I do believe that if someone built a house in your land (for example in your back garden in the UK) without your permission you would tell him to take it and stick it where the sun does not shine! Why should it be any different in Cyprus?
I believe that all these are issues that you had to consider before getting involved in this mess.
This is copy/paste from another post:
……………………………
Jerry Says:
December 30th, 2009 at 10:31 am
“Buying” disputed property on the island is, in effect, interfering in the Cyprus problem. Cypriots accepted that following the events of 1974 they had to have a roof over their heads so they “borrowed” each others property. Of course it is wrong for TCs to “sell” property that does not belong to them but why should a GC waste time and money going after the TC vendor when the object of litigation is occupied by an easier target. It’s up to the Brit to sue the TC who “sold” him the land if he wants justice.
The majority of foreign buyers who bought in the north did so for only one reason – because it was cheap. I have wanted to buy a flat in Cyprus for several years, I can easily afford one in the north but I know it’s very risky and wrong. I’ll wait for prices to stabilise in the ROC and buy one there.
The carpetbaggers that bought in the north displayed little sympathy for the real owners of the land they “bought”, they took a risk and it looks like they lost – hard luck!
…………………………
I am sorry to note that you perceive what I said as “arrant nonsense” although I have to admit that I do not remember your position and motives. Having said that I find it hard to see any apart from the ones I have already stated.
Regarding the 14 villas, as Jerry said whoever bought them decided to take a risk to potentially maximize their profit/benefit. On the other hand when you take a risk you also have to be prepared to lose. I do not think that the legal owner of the land should get the houses but should you end up having to vacate your house you will have three options: (1) Negotiate with him to buy the structures from you (2) Trash them but of course also clear the side from the debris (3) Leave the house and go.
Malcolm,
I have already written numerous posts about TC properties that have been appropriated by the state. My position is still the same. I actually treat TC properties in the south the same way as GC in the north. The difference is that in the south we do not claim that the TC properties are ours. As far as properties appropriated by the state for infrastructure are concerned there are legal ways to resolve such disputes for all citizens regardless of their ethnic origin, these are official objections, civil courts, Supreme Court, European court.
I really do not understand though why people insist to draw a parallel between the two cases. In one case a government following legal procedures took some land (which belonged to both GC and TC) in order to construct things like airports, roads, hospitals and schools. In the other case an occupying force took all assets belonging to people from one ethnic origin and gave them to others. Where do you see any similarities? I do not choose to ignore the issue here, I genuinely do not see one. In one case you have a government doing business like any other government in the world, in the other case you have a crime of war (literally, not metaphorically).
Not even the consent argument is a valid one as all procedures and laws were followed. Please note that according to laws applicable all over the world it is the citizens’ duty to inform the state about their address and it is also the citizens’ responsibility to know and follow the law. Having said that I would like to repeat one more time that any TC who feels done should seek justice in
courts, just like any GC should.
In my opinion you could not be more wrong regarding your last statement. To begin with “south Cyprus” does not exist anywhere but in the Turkish propaganda. In 1960 “The Republic of Cyprus” was established which is still the one and only legal government on the island. In the 60s there were trouble between the two communities, in 1974 there was a Greek inspired coup and in the same year Turkey invaded and occupied roughly 38% of the territory of the republic of Cyprus. What you call the south is the same “republic of Cyprus” as it has been recognized by all countries in 1960, it is the government for the whole of the island, GC and TC. The north is internationally treated as “territory of the republic of Cyprus temporarily not under its control due to Turkish occupation”. Similarly this is also our status in the EU. We joined as the government of the whole of the island even though the union accepted that the republic does not enforce “european union acquis communautaire” in the north as it cannot due to the Turkish occupation.
This is why we treat TC as citizens of the republic of Cyprus, they can come here, work, live, get passports, vote, get elected and in general be one of us.
So you have one country, someone invades and occupies a part of it and the rest of the world still does business as usual with the legal government. Where is the odd thing?
Vaughan,
To my knowledge this specific law is against those “trading” GC properties in the north. Are you aware of any arrests or criminal proceedings against anyone who owns one house? I do not. If you were correct why weren’t the Orams arrested when they set foot in the south or in the UK? Why were there only civil proceedings against them? Now I believe they can be arrested but if I am right it will only be because they did not comply with the courts decision.
If the law was against anyone occupying GC property in the north I would personally agree to exclude TC, not because I live in theirs in the south but because they had to survive somehow. There was a war, we had to come to the south, they had to go to the north, what were they supposed to do Vaughan? Live in tents?
I have already said what I believe happened in Cyprus and many are to blame, others more and others less (the word “more” refers to countries outside Cyprus unfortunately). Nevertheless claiming that it was the GCs fault is extreme, biased and inaccurate.
Please note that I hold the same position when I hear GC say that it is the TC (or in fact Turkey’s) fault. We all have a part of the blame.
I have already explained why expats are being taken to court. I do not understand what more you want me to say about this issue. However, I never said that expats took advantage of TCs and their situation. “To save a few quid” they took advantage of the whole situation, mainly at the expense of GCs.
On the other hand if you really did it for charity because you wanted to help TCs survive in a time we gave them no option I am afraid that you were taken for a ride mate. TC could always come to the south for a better life (as many did) as citizens of the RoC.
Dear Many of You,
In one of my first posts here I said one thing and I would like to repeat it here. You came here, you got my house knowing the risks involved, I moan about it and instead of hiding in shame you have the nerves to criticize me for moaning. You will soon ask for an apology. Shameless is not a strong enough word to describe those of you. You are totally unbelievable.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Kyri, I think one of the weaknesses in your arguments is concealed in the short phrase,”In the 60s there were trouble between the two communities.” My mother was shot at by a German who destroyed houses in the street where she lived. This sentence should suggest a court case for attempted murder and arson. No such case, nor charges, ever followed these actions. That is the nature of war. I wonder if the Orams case will settle for once and for all how the property issue is regarded in the UK. I for one will accept the outcome of this case,after any appeals, will you Kyri?
Hi Kyri, here’s something I just knocked up. Sorry for its length, but you use a bit of length yourself.
In terms of any kind of resolution to the Cyprus problem, the issue of a workable and reasonable compromise solution to the property ownership question is paramount. It is certainly an issue that has polarised the whole Cypriot community into what appears to be a major, sticking-point dichotomy. Both viewpoints, indeed almost polar opposites, are well known and widespread, and as a prelude to rational debate I declare my position is as an ex-pat who came to Cyprus as part of a worldwide search for a place to live. I discovered that of all the places on the island, the slopes east of Kyrenia was the most attractive area, the people there were warm, friendly and hospitable, and the villa I discovered was beautiful, affordable and available. So I bought it. I am now vilified as one of those “foreigners (who) came to take advantage of a situation and benefit from a tragedy.” This is an appellation I strongly refute.
There is on-going debate on various blog sites about the Cyprus problem. Discarding or ignoring the posters who suffer from the need to write unintelligent, emotive nonsense (on both sides), much of it is stimulating and entertaining. However, it appears to be the case that due largely to a systematic campaign of long standing, the Greek Cypriot viewpoint has crystallised into an automatic assumption of the following:
• there was a small number of extremist GCs who committed atrocities against Turkish Cypriots, but just as many or more extremist TCs who committed atrocities against the GCs – any other suggestions are simply TC propaganda.
• the TCs were housed in ghettos for their own protection, most going willingly.
• there was no need for Turkey to intervene in Cypriot affairs, because apart from a minor Greek-inspired coup there was no problem. No TCs had been exterminated for the previous six years.
• when Turkey did intervene (I believe the correct term is ‘invade’), it was an act of war which resulted in Turkey stealing the property of all GCs who had previously been living in the north of the island.
• because it is the GCs who have been wronged, the best and simplest solution to the problem is to allow all TCs to have their former property in the south back, and all GCs to have their former property in the north back.
• all 40,000 Turkish troops stationed in the north should be sent back to Turkey.
• all 15,000 Greek troops stationed in the south should remain, and all 88,000 armed reservists in the south should retain their weapons.
• Cyprus should be reunited under a government composed of two-thirds GCs and one-third TCs, in line with the approximate population demographic. The constitution and all statutes and laws relating thereto should be formed and voted upon democratically, thereby ensuring total GC control. This would of course cover such issues as language,religion, education, property ownership and military matters.
• Cyprus has its roots in Greece and is irrevocably connected to it religiously, culturally and emotionally. All other races and religions should be removed, except for tourists.
I’ve now read fairly extensively about the history of the Cyprus conflict, including the icons “The Genocide Files” and “The Cyprus Conspiracy”, and have concluded, from a complete outsider’s perspective, that there was a systematic campaign aimed at removing all TCs from Cyprus. In fact, during my travels in the south, I heard, on frequent occasions, TCs described as “Turkish dogs” quite casually and dismissively, and it is my belief that the enmity obviously felt by the GCs is racially, religiously and culturally based. It seems to be mirrored by the TCs toward the GCs, but I have not observed the same level of vitriol in their comments.
Additionally, there seems an unswerving belief held by all GCs that Cyprus belongs to them, and that anyone who does not speak Greek does not belong there. The fact that Turkish Cypriots were born and raised there too, and therefore have as much right to call Cyprus their homeland as the Greek Cypriots, is dismissed with an arrogance that almost ensures no compromise settlement will ever be effected. This I believe to be the crux of the problem, and it seems to be one that very few GCs can comprehend, let alone accept. I feel it was this attitude that caused the birth of the original campaign of Enosis, and the discriminatory actions of Makarios in unilaterally altering the then constitution to favour the GCs and disadvantage the TCs.
There seems little doubt that both Britain and the U.S. had their self-interested little fingers in the pie, always with their main focus on the establishment and maintenance of their bases, but the bigger picture was of little concern to the Cypriots. Their main focus, on the one hand, was to – if cleanse is too painful a word – remove all Turkish Cypriot influence from the island by fair means or foul (and not a lot of fairness was evident), and on the other to protect a peaceful lifestyle and live it as they chose, free from discrimination and aggression. The TC campaign of Taksim was clearly born out of the GC campaign of Enosis, but the major difference was that it was merely a campaign for partition, not the complete removal of Greek influence from Cyprus. It was a policy of defence, as opposed to the aggression of the Enosis campaign perpetrated by the thugs of EOKA, whose preferred method of attack, it appears, was to shoot people in the back – men, women and children.
So to 1974, the Greek coup and the Turkish intervention/invasion. The timing of the TI has always been conjectural, and there seems a case to be made for Turkey’s motives to lie more with its own strategic positioning than with sympathy and protection for the TCs. Be that as it may, the end result was just that, and for the past 35 years and counting, peace has reigned over the troubled little Mediterranean island. Following a short period of warfare, the Greek and Greek Cypriot forces were defeated and all GCs were moved south, thus being forced to leave their houses and land. The same thing happened to the TCs in the south, although their numbers were about one-third of the GCs.
In a time of war, this is called winning and losing. The winners take the spoils and the losers left alive pay the penalty and grin and bear it.
But since peace broke out, there has been a 35 year-long campaign of propaganda waged by the GCs aimed at painting the Turks as criminals who stole their land and homes, and who should give them back. Many of the TCs who had left their properties in the south were given homes and land formerly owned by GCs in exchange, and in the ensuing years some have sold them, mostly to British ex-pats. Others have developed vacant land and created residential villages, selling them also. Now, 35 years along an evolutionary path of development, there are a great many residences owned by foreign nationals who in the main enjoy a peaceful, comfortable and pleasurable existence.
Almost to a man, however, the current GC stance is that all such foreign nationals are “carpetbaggers”, “foreigners (who) came to take advantage of a situation and benefit from a tragedy”, “vultures who saw dead meat and moved in to save a few quid”. This widely-held GC view would have, as I said in bullet point 5, all formerly GC-owned property returned to the GC or his family, and the same for all formerly-owned TC property. In my own situation, this means that the 14 villas now existing on what was once a vacant piece of land with no lemon or olive trees, would simply be gifted to the original GC owner or his family. So instead of a penalty suffered as a consequence of a wartime loss, this person or his family would suddenly become wealthy beyond their dreams, and the lives of 14 ex-pat families would be destroyed. And this is a fair and rational outcome?
It seems to be about as fair and rational an outcome as the Orams verdicts to date. The case was brought against the British ex-pats who purchased the land in good faith, rather than against the TC who sold it to them, simply because it’s more rewarding to take cheap shots at easy targets. The verdict was for the GC plaintiff, unsurprisingly, as it was a GC court. What was surprising, however, was the judgement that the house should be razed to the ground and a large compensation should be paid. The plaintiff was quoted as saying that he would demolish the quarter-million pound villa and grow lemon trees, which smacks more of spite than good sense. The ECJ upheld the verdict and judgement, again unsurprisingly, given the make-up of the court (Mr Skouris and his ‘Grand Collar of Makarios’) and that it was ruling in a case involving an EU member suing a non-EU member. The judgement of course is blatantly unjust, but it was issued in the sure knowledge that it would be impossible to enforce. It is to be hoped that the UK Court of Appeal will see things in a clearer light, even if they refer it back to the ECJ. There is no criminality here, but even if there were, surely one should be suing the criminal, not the innocent receiver?
As far as a reasonable compromise solution is concerned, I offer the following:
Whatever the reasons, and whichever side one considers is right and just, Turkey intervened/invaded in 1974 and the resulting peaceful co-existence has been stable for 35 years. I believe it should stay that way. Nonetheless, should Turkey come to the conclusion that it should compensate those displaced GCs in a meaningful way, that is their right as victors in the original conflict. In my opinion, however, the GCs should have had to pay a penalty for what they were doing to the TCs, so any compensation should be fair but not excessive. Just what should constitute “fair” and “excessive” should probably be adjudicated by a third party, if one can be found.
If the property issue can be dealt with, I believe the other sticking points would eventually melt away. Clearly, the EU made a dreadful error in granting EU membership to part of an island, so it is, I feel, incumbent on them to fix the problem. My take is that now it needs Turkey more than Turkey needs it, so it should grant Turkey EU membership immediately, and then administer the necessary changes to create a Republic of South Cyprus and a Republic of North Cyprus. More equality, no blockades anywhere, no UN troops in a Green Line Zone, just a simple border crossing like there is in all other EU countries. And the massive force of 40,000 Turkish troops in the north? I’d be surprised if there are any more than 15,000, but the only harm they are actually doing is to cause headaches to GCs. It’s a non-issue, just like the existence of the Greek troops, the National Guard and the armed horde of reservists in the south. Unless, of course, the real reason the GCs keep insisting on the removal of the Turkish troops is so they can invade the north and take it over.
The whole point about this issue now is that it’s 35 years old. It’s of absolutely no consequence other than to fanatics and extremists whether Greeks or Turks held sway over the island hundreds of years ago, or what evils are being perpetrated in either Greece or Turkey today. What is cogent is that the island now contains two groups of indigenous people who have different languages, religions and cultures, and who have clearly demonstrated an inability to co-exist peacefully. The GCs have proved they are unable to govern the island fairly and without discrimination, so an alternative process must be derived.
The past is history. Get over it.
Happy New Year.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Kyri,
I’ll have to give you 10 out of 10 for the length and depth of your reply and would love to argue with you about this forever, but life’s too short.
I will finally reply that your summing up included the sentance “TC could always come to the south for a better life (as many did) as citizens of the RoC.” and offered this as the only other aoption GCs were going to give them at the time, other than selling GC property. Clearly they didn’t go for that kind of charity as since 1974 there have only been some few thousands of TCs who have gone down that route, many since disposing of GC land/property that they might have once been given.
I am not saying that expats are not part of the complex situation we all find ourselves in but I will say that we are not the only people who played a role. If you admit that GC and TC were also part of the problem then you should conceed that they must also be part of the reckoning.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Malcolm,
I am sorry to hear about your mother.
I also totally agree about the nature of war. I believe, however, that this is totally different as we are talking about property. Facts are concrete in this case. The legal ownership is easy to prove and who claims to own it now is still there for all to see.
This, coupled with the fact that property ownership is a fundamental human right makes it a rather straight forward legally.
On the other hand I never claimed that Turkish (or our) soldiers should be brought to justice. In war, unfortunately, atrocities do happen, however, some military and political leaders possibly should, just like the Germans did.
I would also like to point out that in the north there is a general misconception about the Orams case. I cannot understand why any house owner in the north would even feel the slightest sense of optimism as far as this case is concerned. What did the UK court say that justified Orams’ celebrations?
The UK court merely said that even though the land belongs to Mr. Apostolides and even though he is right and even though the Orams should demolish their house and return the land … and even though … and even though … we do not believe that we should execute this court ruling in the UK because we believe that even though the whole of Cyprus is in the EU the republic does not control the northern part of the island. The European Court, however, found this excuse to be nonsense so the case is back in the UK. The future will show.
Nevertheless, in essence the UK court, just like the Cyprus court and the EU court, totally agrees about who owns the land and what should the Orams do about it even though for a “technical” reason (or so they say, we all know why they invented this “reason”) they believe that they should not enforce it in the UK.
In essence they agree! What is in trial now is merely whether the Orams should be punished in the UK or not.
Regardless of the outcome this case only means one thing. That now (if the UK court rules in favor of Apostolides) or later (when there is a solution or when Turkey joins the EU or even when the island is divided once and for all and the so called “TRNC” joins the EU) Apostolides will find justice.
So Malcolm to answer your question if Apostolides looses the appeal I will accept that the Orams cannot be punished in the UK at least for the moment. Let me repeat though that the Cypriot, the EU and the UK court all agree about who is the owner and what the Orams should do.
Vaughan,
To set the record straight TC could always come to the south for a better life (as many did) as citizens of the RoC. This would be ONE OF THE FEW options TURKISH INVASION left them with, others being immigration (and many did) and staying here to fight with us to reunify the island. This, however, is a political and a historical statement so we are allowed to disagree.
On the other hand I find your next argument to be very superficial. Even if I agree with your prologue (that we are the bad guys etc) this does not give TCs the right to sell what they do not own. Is this what the poor and the needy do in the UK? Do they sell other people’s houses? If this was the case why didn’t the TC go to the UK to sell your houses instead of ours? How about selling houses in Turkey?
Of course we are all parts of the same complex problem, however, I believe that with property things are straight forward because the “human rights” label does not leave many options. Many individuals will accept what the solution proposes, many will not. Whoever does not will surely get his property back. If you happen to occupy one of those you will unfortunately have to leave and sue whoever sold it to you (or the state) I suppose. I know it might sound unfair but at the end of the day you took that risk.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Sorry for some of you being put into the spam queue, the offending word WAS “carpertbaggers.” This has now been corrected.
Kyri,
I thought I had posted my last on this but I can’t let this pass:
You said “Even if I agree with your prologue (that we are the bad guys etc) this does not give TCs the right to sell what they do not own.”
Whereas in one of your previous postings you said “TC are also victims of what has happened. They did not chose it. They had no options.” When referring to their occupation and subsequent disposal of GC property. You also later corrected you statement that TCs had “no options” to “ONE OF THE FEW options..”
Please make up your mind whether:
TCs had no option but no right to sell what they didn’t own, and:
TCs had only one option or they had a few options (I suppose one of them being starve to death?)
Despite our differences I wish you a happy and prosperous (not at my expense) new year.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Ian Edwards,
I understand the reasons you state for purchasing a property in the north. In fact I agree with you. The area is attractive, the people are warm and friendly and the prices are affordable. However, I am sure that you also knew that there was “something wrong” but you did not care for as long as you had the above at affordable prices. If you do not call it “taking advantage of a situation and benefit from a tragedy” how would you call it?
I totally disagree with your understanding about what we believe and I do not really think that you have any real knowledge about it to begin with. You admit that you get your information from blog sites. Do you really believe that blog sites and bulletin boards can give you a fair idea about what we believe? Don’t you realize that it is mostly people with extreme views and people filled with rage and hatred that really bother to write in these blogs?
I started answering your points one by one but I eventually decided to stop and delete what I wrote because I realized that one word would be enough, “Nonsense”. You have absolutely no clue Ian, none whatsoever !
You obviously gained your completely non biased opinion as an outsider reading lots of pro-Turkish information about the Cyprus problem. I cannot blame you for that. At the end of the day you had no other option as any publisher who would translate and distribute our side of the story in the north would be found dead in a dark alley (so would newspaper editors, journalists and so on). I suggest that you start with books by some moderate Turkish writers and journalists like Ali Berat (I am sure you know him) before you actually attempt reading anything more heavy weight.
Until you do so there is really no point in continuing this discussion because, to use your words, your “viewpoint has crystallized into an automatic assumption” that the Turkish side of the story is indisputably correct without even bothering to study the other side of the story.
Ian, I know that you did not bother to hear our side of the story because your conclusions are reached considering “the Turkish side of the story as expressed by the Turks” and “the Greek side of the story also as expressed by the Turks”. Every single statement that you make about what we believe is what Turkish propaganda says that we believe which has, unfortunately, nothing to do with the truth.
Regarding your villas I have already expressed my opinion.
Your arguments about losing a war and penalties are also unfounded because we are talking about a fundamental human right. In the 20th century there were many wars but none has affected property ownership. That should tell you something Ian. Loosing your homes is a totally rational outcome as they are built on land that does not belong to you. The sooner you understand it the better for you. Anywhere in the world it would be the same with or without a war. If you are not happy with this you can always sue whoever sold it to you. I am sure you will find justice.
The only unjust element in the Orams case is the political interference which proved that not even the UK justice is blind. You might not like how it sounds but this is the law. It is not my fault. The land belongs to Mr. Apostolides and nobody, no war, no settlement, no Orams, nobody but himself can waive his ownership rights. It is as simple as that Ian. Any other arguments would be strictly theoretical and philosophical. Please also note the UK court diction which confirms that the land belongs to Mr.
Apostolides and that the Orams should comply with the original decision of the Cypriot court!!! The whole issue is whether the Orams should be punished in the UK or not…..so regardless of the outcome now or later the Orams (and any other Oram) will be punished Ian.
Regarding your plan I will come up within the next few days with my proposal.
Vaughan,
When you get isolated bits and pieces from various messages and you ignore the context of each then you can easily get confused (or chose to misinterpret).
I believe that TC are victims of the situation just like us. The situation forced them to go to the north, live in our properties, get the title deeds of our properties, sell our properties and so on. At the beginning they had no other option, there was a war, they were moved to the north. During and just after the war this was the only option. In due time more options appeared. Therefore the singular/plural discrepancy. Even the other options I stated (for example immigration) in most cases would involve selling the properties they were given.
On the other hand doing something because you do not have any other option does not make what you do legal, fair or just ! Therefore not having any other option does not mean that they automatically gain the legal right to sell what they do not own.
On the other hand you had other options. You did not inherit this problem and you were not part of it. You chose to become so now enjoy the ride !
Despite our differences I wish you a happy and prosperous (not at my expense either) new year.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Kyri,
It is quite clear that no matter what argument is put to you, it will always be countered by more spin than a ferris wheel. Your self-righteous belief in a moral ascendancy over everyone else on the island, and your complete denial of GC wrongdoing in the cause of the conflict is the proof, if any were needed, that there is absolutely no hope for a satisfactory Cyprus solution.
There is therefore no further point in debating it with you.
I do, however, have two questions for you, and wonder whether you are capable of answering them honestly and sincerely, if at all:
1. What is the real reason that GCs want all Turkish troops off the island?
2. If Turkey had not intervened in 1974, or at any other time since, do you honestly believe there would be any TCs left on Cyprus?
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Ian,
If you actually read all my posts you will realize that you are talking nonsense as I by no means have a self-righteous belief in a moral ascendancy over everyone else on the island apart from you and your fellow vultures.
Regarding my complete denial of GC wrongdoing in the cause of the conflict I would again ask you to read my posts.
I have to admit that even though one of your questions is rather basic, even stupid, the other one is a very good one.
Let’s start with the bad one. Why would we want the Turkish army out of Cyprus. I do not know. I find it puzzling myself. At the end of the day all nations dream of a foreign army occupying their territory especially after committing murders, rapes and numerous other well documented crimes of war like changing the demographic data of the invaded country and altering the ownership status of the occupied assets. Why we would not trust the Turkish army and why we would not want it to stay is beyond me. Please do not come back to me with inaccurate arguments about the Greek army and the GC army because they too can go to hell (together with the British army of course) !!!
Regarding your second question the truth is that I really do not know ! Any outcome would be possible. You will never hear me say (or write) that Turkey did not have the right to interfere. Of course they should together with the UK which remained in its seat enjoying the movie they wrote, produced and directed.
I would, however, want to add two points. To begin with, even though Turkey had every right, in fact had the obligation, to interfere they should have done so in a different way. They should have re-instated order in the republic of Cyprus and leave. This was their job as a guarantor power, not to divide the country that they were supposed to defend and protect! Secondly, even though I cannot answer your question at the same time I cannot accept 100% of what might have happened. Hatred was instigated by the British (and before objecting to that check your own foreign office published records), then some stupid GC and TC armed and supported by the “mother countries” fell in the trap and did the rest.
PS….now that Turkey has invaded are there many TC left on the island ????
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Kyri,
Without pre-empting Ian and any reply he might make, please explain what you meant by “Please do not come back to me with inaccurate arguments about the Greek army and the GC army because they too can go to hell (together with the British army of course) !!!”
I won’t argue with you about them but I would ask you, once the TR army had left, just how would you make them “go to hell”?
You also stated that “They (Turkey) should have re-instated order in the republic of Cyprus and leave.”
How would you propose they would have re-instated order in the RoC? Without completely invading all of Cyprus, how could they re-instate order? As long as the status quo existed in the rump RoC they couldn’t leave and in fact were entitled to stay.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Hey Kyri,
I said there was nothing to gain by continuing the debate with you, but it seems that every time you post, lo and behold there’s something else you’ve written which is either a misapprehension, a misquote, some misleading misinformation (and that actually isn’t a double negative) or a mistake.
I didn’t think it would be necessary to point out that when I talked about “you” in the first paragraph I was actually referring to the collective GC population, not you personally. The rest of the message was for “you” personally.
Your reference to the Turkish army (my stupid question) and all of the terrible things you claim they have committed is puzzling, unless you mean they did all these things in 1974, and haven’t stopped! If not, can you tell me what bad things they have done to you (collectively) during the past 35 years?! Bad enough that you (collectively) would want them out of Cyprus?
Your points about my good question have already been addressed by Vaughan.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
And another thing, Kyri,
I just couldn’t let this one slide by: “Hatred was instigated by the British..” !! My God, Kyri, your bias knows no bounds! Hatred was instigated by all those who proposed and supported Enosis, and it was little more than the hatred of one church for another. You continue with the GC line, heard so often over the past 35 years, that “some stupid GC and TC armed and supported by the “mother countries” fell in the trap and did the rest.”, as though the cause of the conflict were equally divided between GCs and TCs. Even you must know, Kyri, that the GCs were attacking, and the TCs were defending. It was as basic as that, and the mass graves are a tragic testament to that fact.
Your last sentence is too stupid to deserve a reply.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Ian Edwards, how little you and your kind know!
No doubt you will dismiss this a Wikipedia biased propaganda but if I could be bothered I would find other sources for you, read on:-
The first signs of intercommunal conflict on the island appeared when the British conscripted Turkish Cypriots into the police force that patrolled Cyprus. Arif Hasan Tahsin a Turkish Cypriot that joined the Colonial police, a member of TMT and eventually rose as the number two in hierarchy of the Turkish Cypriots in his book[6] notes: “It is a fact that the Turks fought against Greek Cypriots not just because they wanted Enosis”. EOKA would target colonial authorities, including police. Both British and Turkish police would die in exchange of fire. The eventual death of Turkish Cypriot policemen were met with anti-Greek riots by the Turkish community while the British authorities remained passive. Greek stores and neighborhoods would be burned and Greek civilians would be injured or killed. Such events created chaos and brought the communities apart both in Cyprus and in Turkey.[7]
On 22 October 1957 Sir Hugh Mackintosh Foot replaced Sir John Harding as the British Governor of Cyprus. Foot suggested five to seven years of self-government before any final decision. His plan rejected both enosis and taksim. The Turkish Cypriot response to this plan was a series of anti-British demonstrations in Nicosia on 27th and 28th of January 1958 rejecting the proposed plan because the plan rejected partition. The British then withdrew the plan.
In June 1958 the British prime Minister Harold Macmillan was expected to proposed a plan to resolve the Cyprus issue. In light of the new development the Turks created fierce riots in Nicosia aiming to promote the idea that Greeks and Turks could not live together and therefore any plan that would promote that would not be viable, instead partition would be the only viable solution. This violence soon to be followed by bombing, Greek Cypriots deaths and looting of Greek owned stores and houses resulted in Greeks and Turks started to evade mixed populated villages that the respective were a minority in search of safety. This was effectively the beginning of segregation of the two communities.[8]. On the 7th of June 1958 a bomb exploded at the entrance of the Turkish Embassy in Cyprus. Following the bombing Turkish Cypriots looted Greek Cypriot properties. On June 26 1984 the then Turkish Cypriot Leader, Rauf Denktaş, admitted on British channel ITV that the bomb was placed by the Turks themselves in order to create tension.[9] On the 27th of January 1958 riots by Turkish Cypriots forced the British Colonial soldiers to open fire against the Turkish crowd, and for the first time intervene against the atrocities. The events continued until the next day. During the events Arif Tahsin met Rauf Denktaş and asked: “For God sake give the order for the killings to stop”. Denktaş replied : “These killings are useful, with these our voices will be heard”[10] By 1958 signs of dissatisfaction with the British increased on both sides, with Turkish Cypriots now forming Volkan, later known as the TMT paramilitary group as a means of promoting partition and the annexation of Cyprus to Turkey as dictated by the Menteres plan. TMT would also target Turkish Cypriots and then blame the Greek Cypriots for the killing and also accuse the British Colonial rule that effective measures were not taken to protect the Turkish minority.
You may also like to know that the first mass killing on the island, apart from the ones committed by the Ottomans of course, was of 11 Greek Cypriots in 1958 at Geunyeli.
Incidentally the Turkish Cypriots in Nicosia probably got the idea of burning GC property from their friends on the mainland – try Googling “Istanbul Pogrom 1955″, you may be surprised at the result.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Ian,
If it is such a given that there would be no Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus if Turkey hadn’t invaded in 1974, then why is there still a Turkish minority in northern Greece that have been there since before the time of the Greek junta.
…The rest of your post is more pro-British colonial rubbish. Get off our island, EOKA might not be around anymore but we still have the courts as our battlefield.
The more of these inaccurate statements posted on the internet…(Greek Cypriot attacked / Turkish Cypriot defended as a fine example. Did the Turkish Cypriots defend themselves in Gunyeli in 1958 or when they bombed their own buildings and mosques??)…the more our people will make you pay in the courts just like the Orams got theirs.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Dear Mr Proktolis,
I’m afraid your first paragraph is nothing more than irrelevant nonsense. What does a Turkish minority in Greece have to do with a TC minority in Cyprus?
You compound your folly with yet another misconception: Why on earth would an Australian ever find anything admirable about British colonialism?
And clearly you know things we mere mortals don’t. Just how exactly have “the Orams got theirs”?
Your posts, like Jerry’s, Get Real’s and others of your ilk, are simply a continuation of the GC attempt to rewrite history. There seems to be an implication that the “first signs of intercommunal conflict on the island appeared” somewhere around 1957, but according to the GC-funded “The Cyprus Conspiracy”, Enosis began around 1930 and in 1954 “George Grivas..organised EOKA to fight for enosis.” “The first signs”? I don’t think so…
Where all those quotes of Jerry’s came from is a matter of serious conjecture, but their language and structure demonstrate they weren’t part of any serious literary work. The poor old bugger couldn’t even get his chronology straight.
So guys, please don’t expect me to be swayed, or even influenced, by your party-line propaganda…it’s become very passe. The international community is now becoming better informed, and the only recourse you blokes seem to fall back on is that of insult, illogic, irrelevance and invective.
It’s very unimpressive.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Vaughan,
Ian asked me why we want the Turkish army to leave and I answered. I was afraid, however, that Ian would come back with comments like “ah, so you want the Turkish army to leave so that you can get rid of the TC”. This is what I meant with “inaccurate arguments” and I therefore added that together with the Turkish army all other armies should also go.
The answer to your next question is very straight forward. I do not believe, nor I hope, that the Turkish army would leave just like that. Leaving would be the result of a settlement I would like to see all other armies go at the same time. It is called “demilitarization” I believe.
Regarding re-instating order they could have done so at any time even today. Is there anything that stops them from saying “ok, we have the 1960 constitution, we are supposed to make sure that things run according to that constitution therefore lets go back to that”? I know that it is very difficult to do that now but back then (before they implemented their plan to permanently divide the island) it would be so easy. You might think “impossible”, “this is not an option” but think about it. Would it really be that difficult back then? Why didn’t they? Why did they just invade and divided the island in two pieces even though their duty was to protect RoC and guarantee its mere safety and existence?
Ian Edwards,
Like I have said study the other side of the story and then talk about misleading misinformation. By the way, the book I recommended you to start with is written by Mehmet Ali Birand, not Ali Berat as I mistakenly wrote (blame my translation of his name from Greek to English).
Regarding “you” in the first paragraph I have to admit that not all of us see you as vultures, however, the vast majority of us do admit our wrongdoings and accept our share of the blame. This is one of the reasons for saying that you do not know our side of the story and that you get your information from bulletin boards and the Turkish propaganda. These are the only sources that would lead you to believe that.
I cannot believe that you are coming back with a more stupid question than the original one unless your only intention is to annoy me. What have they done during the last 35 years that we would want them to leave? They came, they did what they did, they stayed, they took our land, they sold you my house and you are asking why we would them (together with all other foreign armies) to leave?
Regarding my comment that hatred was instigated by the British please check it out. Start with classified documents of the foreign office which are now released, then check a few of the many books written about the issue (find the ones that do not express biased opinions like mine but that simply present some of the documents I mentioned). If you do not have the time just google {Britain “divide and rule” Cyprus} to get your answers.
Regarding my last stupid sentence I insist. How many TC live in the North and how many left? Who controls the outcome of the so called elections?
Last but not least please read Jerry’s post.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Ian Edwards, as I said “how little you know”. The problem on Cyprus has everything to do with other Greek/Turkish conflicts in the Med. over the centuries. If you can’t see that then I suggest that you are “the silly old bugger”. Were you not aware that Greece sought its independence from the Ottomans in the 1830s and at that time 500 Greek Cypriot leaders were murdered in attempt to block such a move on the island.
I note you failed to comment on the 1958 Guenyeli massacre, I’m afraid your silence does not mean that it did not happen. Furthermore the call for ENOSIS came much earlier than 1930 – about 100 years earlier in fact, as a consequence the Ottomans decapitated/hanged 500 Cypriots. Are you aware that there is a difference between inter communal conflict (as between GCs and TCs in 1958) and conflict with the ruling colonial power as in 1930? Do you care to comment on the 1955 Istanbul Pogrom? The Greek Cypriots, only a few hundred miles away, saw it as a threat to themselves if Turkey became involved in the island.
My quotes came from Wikipedia, dispute them if you like I assure you they can be verified from other sources. I’m not very impressed with you Mr Edwards, you are stumbling and reduced to name calling, anything to justify your place in the sun,eh?
As for the Orams, having sat a few feet behind them in The Court of Appeal for two days I’m of the opinion that even they are aware that “the Orams got theirs”. You can tell a lot from body language you know.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Ian,
Please stop ignoring what I propose, read some literature expressing the other side of the story and then make up your mind. I even asked you to start reading some moderate Turkish books on the issue.
Your opinions and views are indeed extreme at least as far as Cyprus recent history is concerned.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Dear Mr Edwards,
…What exact history book are you reading from to have the view that Greek Cypriots are trying to rewrite history? Is it the same Turkish history book that claimed the Armenian genocide didn’t happen, that Saint Nicholas was a Turk, that many Turkish Cypriot ancestors were not Catholic Cypriots and that the Greeks in northern Greece bombed Kemal Ataturk’s house?
I see you must be into Turkish nationalism going by your unsubstantiated and simple posts.
The ‘irrelevant nonsense’ about the Turks living in northern Greece during the Junta reign goes to show that they were not wiped out by the Greek military dictatorship that also overthrew Makarios rule in Cyprus. Therefore, its not a forgone conclusion that Turkish Cypriots would’ve been wiped out in Cyprus if the Greek Junta’s rule had lasted. Even though, that still did not give Turkey an excuse to invade the second time when the Greek junta was overthrown and Turkey continued its mass human rights abuses and ethnic cleansing on the Cypriot people.
…and I keep hearing that the international community is better informed of the simplistic Turkish propaganda lies with regards to Cyprus, yet I do not hear the international community calling for the continuation of Turkey’s illegal colonialism of the north, or the European Courts of Human Rights and the European Courts of Justice reversing it’s judgements which have damned Turkey.
What’s unimpressive is your lack of knowledge and depth in the Cyprus Problem, which even your experienced use of English literature cannot hide.
Nice try Ian, you’d make a good author for kids books. Lovely to read if your dumb enough but no real depth.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Hey guys,
I mentioned a couple of points from “The Cyprus Conspiracy”, which in fact is a book commissioned and funded from “your” side, one which seems to be considered a sane and rational treatment of the issue. I think it is too.
Kyri, mate, it may be a “more stupid question” to you, but you do seem to be having trouble understanding it. All I can do is to repeat: What has the Turkish army done since the occupation to cause you so much angst? The resettlement of GCs in the south happened at that time, and it seems all you can complain about now is that “they sold you my house”! Well mate, I’ve got some news for you. “They” didn’t sell me, or anyone else, anything, and the only house I bought is 4 years old.
Your first paragraph, in your note to Vaughan, whinges about me making a comment like “ah, so you want the Turkish army to leave so that you can get rid of the TC”. You call it an inaccurate argument, but from where I sit, Kyri, if you added “and all ex-pats” to the end of that statement, you would have the real, unvarnished truth of the matter. No amount of insulting, gainsaying argument will alter that.
Jerry, I didn’t comment on the Guenyeli massacre because I really don’t think it would do any good to trade massacres with you. I don’t think you want that. But that event occurred after some GCs were captured by British soldiers and left 50 yards away from the village with the comment: “You wanted to bully the Turks? Well you can walk home from here!” Which puts a more realistic light on it, don’t you think?
And Jerry, do you consider that sitting a few feet behind the Orams in the Court of Appeal for two days somehow qualifies you as an expert on body language, or an expert on how the Orams were feeling, or indeed an expert on anything at all?
Guys, there is one other thing of which I’m confident: Vipers will start hissing and attacking if you stir them up and are perceived as a threat. If you keep clear of them and allow them to lie contentedly in the sun they will ignore you…
I have to say to all of you gentlemen, though, that you are all (I presume) arguing with me in your second language, which is something I cannot do, and for that alone you have my respect.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Kyri,
I’m afraid that answering my question with another question(s) doesn’t get us very far.
I asked you how the TR army could have reinstated the constitution in the rump RoC in 1974, and you replied “Is there anything that stops them from saying “ok, we have the 1960 constitution, we are supposed to make sure that things run according to that constitution therefore lets go back to that”? You also said “Would it really be that difficult back then? Why didn’t they? Why did they just invade and divided the island in two pieces even though their duty was to protect RoC and guarantee its mere safety and existence?”
I would suggest to you that they might have known what the answer might have been at the time and I also suggest that, as the occupied party, it would have been up to the rump RoC “government” to make that suggestion, rather than to retreat behind UN resolutions and its wrongly granted international recognition.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Ian Edwards,
I do not know the book I am afraid which is a shame especially since we, the taxpayers, commissioned it and funded it. So how do you know this detail Ian?
Even though I will ignore your stupid question because I beleive that I have already answered, I would like to ask if your 4 year old house was built on my land. I can ensure you that it was many sleepless nights await you
Thanks for openly admitting that you believe that if the Turkish army left we would have get rid of the TCs (and you of course). Now we all know what we have to deal with and how extreme your opinions are, in fact you redefine the meaning of “brainwashed”. I wish I met you a few years back because you could have provided the perfect research subject for a PhD. I, unfortunately, do not have so much time now.
On the other hand I have to agree with you that sitting a few feet behind the Orams in the Court of Appeal does not make Jerry the expert on anything. At the end of the day you are the expert on everything so please, you mighty one, tell us how they felt.
I will also have to agree on something else you said. “Vipers will start hissing and attacking if you stir them up and are perceived as a threat. If you keep clear of them and allow them to lie contentedly in the sun they will ignore you”. You obviously have a lot of knowledge about vipers, especially the kind that live in stolen homes. Nevertheless, I still believe that these vipers should be stirred up and removed from the premises despite their hissing.
Vaughan,
I believe that in this case my questions defined a clear answer, especially since there was an introduction that led to the questions. If you have any problems understanding what I meant, which I do not beleive, ask someone else to explain it to you.
When I met Ian I though that I was lucky to meet such an expert in everything. It seems that I found two. Your arrogance is enormous mate. You, Vaughan, knows that the UN (and in fact ALL countries apart from Turkey) wrongly granted the RoC international recognition. They were all wrong and Vaughan is right !
I am surprised that you forgot to mention that all those stupid EU countries did it again when they granted RoC EU membership. In fact, they accepted the RoC as the legal government for the whole of the island. How stupid of them not to ask you! At the end of the day you know better than everyone (excluding Ian, the two of you compete).
You are absolutely unbelievable. The more I write the more I realize that I am wasting my time.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Kyri,
Having answered my question with yet more questions you now accuse me of arrogance. Please don’t duck the issue Kyri – answer the question. Why didn’t the rump RoC “goverment” offer to go back to the 1960 constitution in 1974? Who knows, TR might have gone for it. After all, it was RoC that was on the back foot, not TR. As to the legality of the RoC “gov.”, doesn’t the 1960 constitution require a certain amount of TC participants as well as a vice-president? If it does, and there aren’t, surely that makes the constitution null and void? If so, then surely the RoC “gov.” is by, definition, illegal?
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Ian Edwards,
I think you will find it was the Turks doing the bullying in the 1950′s, as many of them who were paid to police Nicosia for the British army abused their authority.
Also, the Turkish Army is effectively in control of the north and has continued the cultural destruction of heritage in the land they illegally occupy and put Turkish flags and statues of Ataturk everywhere. They have ruined a large part of our homeland with their continual oppressive colonialism, which you are aiding.
You expats in the north of Cyprus are true lowlife. You are happy to see the ethnic cleansing and destruction of a culture and people from their homeland for the sake of keeping your cheap stolen land and property.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Vaughan,
Any decent human being reading the thread will understand.
To be honest with you I did not understand what you meant. I thought you meant something else, blame my English for that, but I have just realized that you suggest that the RoC did not offer and did not want to go back to 1960 constitution. Worse of wall, you believe it ! You are truly unbelievable. Anyway, your question cannot be answered as there is no valid question in the first place. How can anyone explain why someone did not do something that they actually did? I think you call it “oxymoron” right? Sorry, more questions…
About the legality issue please feel free and let the world know that they made a mistake….as we have already established only Vaughan (and sometimes Ian) know, everybody else are just stupid
By the way, where I come from we have some really stupid habits, for example….
-If my wife leaves me it does not automatically make our marriage null and void, we still have to get a proper divorce in the court. Might sound even more stupid but when she leaves she is not allowed to take with her all my assets and sell them. Stupid us.
-If my business partner leaves his job the company still goes on and by no means I can sell his shares. The law also has this stupid clause that says that even in voting you need 50% votes of the people present.
……I can write 100s of these stupidities we do, in your cuckooland apparently things work differently.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Ian Edwards, I did not post about the Geunyeli massacre in order to exchange horror stories, I did it in response to your assertion that the TCs were defending themselves. If you care to read the detail of the incident you would see that the GCs had been released, were no threat to anyone and on their way home. They were ambushed almost in sight of the British troops who had escorted them. Eight of the TCs were tried for murder but released through lack of evidence. I suggest you read the report of the Commission of Enquiry that looked into the incident instead of making up “quotations” that smear the name of the troops involved. The reason I mentioned Guenyeli was because it was the first serious inter-communal massacre. The first recorded inter-communal deaths occurred 5 days before Guenyeli whe two GCs were killed in a riot in Nicosia.
You may also wish to know that up until December 1958 the “defending” Turkish Cypriots suffered 56 fatalities and the GCs 60 fatalities in the inter-communal struggle, despite the fact that they were outnumbered 4 to 1. (Source, Britain’s Small Wars). http://www.britains-smallwars.com/cyprus/Davidcarter/ROH-2.html
Are you an expert on Cyprus Mr Edwards? I don’t think you are so why are you posting about the Cyprus Problem? According to your flawed logic one needs to be an expert to make a comment/observation on a matter. Do you get my drift? Are you not capable of reading body language? And besides you make the assumption that I am not an expert, do you know that for a fact?
You also presume that English is not my first language. Wrong again. I’m as British as you are but I am not allowed to live in my house in Cyprus. I wonder how you would feel if you could never occupy “your house” in Cyprus again.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Jerry,
Are you also Australian then?
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Kyri,
Please answer my questions directly. I’m sure you know better than I do, the history of Cyprus, and I stand to be corrected of any misconceptions that I may have. Instead of being sarcastic, try enlightenment and education.
1. Did RoC suggest to TR, in 1974 or since, that they return to the 1960 constitution?
2. Is the 1960 constitution still valid, since there is no TC representation, as it calls for?
3. If it isn’t valid, does that not make the RoC “gov.” equally invalid?
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Msg 54 VW,
You may find the answers you are looking for here:-
http://web.archive.org/web/20071018100620/cyprus-conflict.net/callaghan.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20071018100449/cyprus-conflict.net/Geneva+-+Aug+74.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20060810182530/cyprus-conflict.net/Table+of+Contents.htm
With regard to the validity/legality of the 1960 Constitution, I think you will find that the UN and others have accepted that some body should be seen as the legal government and since the GCs represent almost 80% of the population common sense and logic would suggest that the regime that represents them is the legal government. Who else could represent Cyprus?
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Actually Jerry, Vaughan won’t find the answers there. The argument that because 80% of Cyprus are GCs they should form a legal government for the entire country doesn’t work either, not in the case where it changed the 1960 Constitution. There would equally seem to be a good argument for TCs to set up a separate state based upon 1960 land ownership, probably somewhere between 30-40% of the Cyprus land mass? The UN’s black or white decision is not logical as it leaves out the other 20% of the population although it does make sense if the UN was completely non-Muslim and wanted a Christian government in control of the strategic island.
Malcolm, I’m talking about the situation today. When Makarios asked for UN intervention in 1963/4 and the UN obliged the TCs were not consulted. The United Nations had by mistake/omission/default, whatever you like to call it, recognised that the Makarios government represented the ROC and have continued to do so.
The references I quoted were in answer to VW’s question 1.
Incidentally, if you carefully read the extract from Callaghan’s book it becomes quite clear why the GCs blame the US and Kissinger for the division of Cyprus. If what Callaghan says is true it appears that the Amercans endorsed the Turkish advance across the island by refusing to back the British plan to oppose such a move by force.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Jerry,
Your 55.
You said:
“…since the GCs represent almost 80% of the population common sense and logic would suggest that the regime that represents them is the legal government.”
Well, that might be true for South Cyprus but it doesn’t make any other sense, or they might as well have made them (the GCs) the legal government in 1960.
Surely, that is the whole point: The TCs became unrepresented and disenfranchised and the constitution no longer provided that which it was set out to do?
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Malcolm,
What gives you the idea that Turkish Cypriots owned 30-40% of the land mass in Cyprus in 1960..!?!? I think you will find you are way off the mark.
More Turkish lies I see. Just like Ian Edwards one about the Guenyeli situation.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Oh GP, it was just a guess in the absence of any conclusive figures. I know that later figures will be a lot smaller because of the impact of the 1963 Civil War. I guess if the TC (were) moved into enclaves they must have abandoned property to do so. Do you have any figures for land ownership at the time of Cyprus’ independence in 1960?
Malcolm,
Try looking for the British census of land ownership made in the late 50′s. I think you will find Turkish land ownership was about 14%.
Any more fabrications you would like to make up to aide the Turkish ethnic cleansing of Cypriots??
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Vaughan,
Let me just add something to Jerry’s reply. The main reasons that the international community accepted the RoC as the legal government for the whole of the island are:
1.Cyprus is divided because of an invasion, therefore, the legal government simply fled to the south. The RoC is not the government of the south, as many of you chose to believe, but it is the original government of the island.
2.TCs voluntarily abstained and still abstain from the politics of the RoC even though they have always been welcome to return.
Consequently, the RoC could not be victimized because a community representing the 20% of the people decided to boycott it, nor because a foreign power invaded and occupied a significant part of its territory.
Therefore, even though there are discrepancies from the 1960 constitution the international community acknowledged that these were a necessity due to “force majeure” and accepted the RoC with these discrepancies temporarily until the Turkish occupation ends.
Malcolm,
I believe that you can find most answers in my reply above.
I would like to ask you something. What do you mean with “30-40% of the Cyprus land mass”. Are you suggesting that TCs owned 30-40% of the land throughout the island?
Please note that the UN’s decision is totally logical and it does not leave anyone. On the contrary, the 20% of the population decided to stay out even though they could always come back.
Regarding your “Muslim / non-Muslim” argument had this been the case things would be different. What we see now is the implementation of a plan which was conceived well before the first blood was shed.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Sorry GP but if anyone is fabricating “facts” it is you. My figure was an estimate, your figure is pretending to be a fact found in a non-existent “census of land ownership.” Are you sure that your unattributable 14% is verifiable? I would be very interested to be found wrong because such a database would sort out a lot of arguments. Please accept my apology if my estimate offends you but I have yet to find any accurate data for the 1950s, I am hoping that you will help me here.
The reason there have not been land ownership surveys conducted in Cyprus is explained here http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=5&ved=0CBgQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Feprints.gla.ac.uk%2F3313%2F01%2F2.pdf&ei=9U9DS5GqEYP00gToqZyTBQ&usg=AFQjCNFOFk9zlTaEMgNaEue_ZO6Kq0YovA&sig2=s-s2uBi8MPmcPWSQS5aJgQ
Malcolm,
In 1974 TCs owned around 14% of the land. Please also note that until 1974 nobody “lost” his property in Cyprus for any reason. On the contrary all ownership transfers were conventional(sales, inheritance and so on).
Consequntly, 1960 figures are meaningless.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Kyri, “Consequently, 1960 figures are meaningless!” GP is getting them for me and he believes they mean that TCs only owned 14% pre-1960 and then by some miracle they owned the same in 1974. You’re not both estate agents are you?
Msg 58 VW,
The reason the international community recognises the ROC as the legitimate government of the whole island is because the “trnc” was created illegally by armed force and contrary to numerous UN resolutions. There is no such place as “South Cyprus”.
You may claim that the TCs were disenfranchised, I say they cunningly manoeuvered themselves into a position whereby they could claim to be victims of the GCs to justify Turkish intervention.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Kyri, I personally avoid writing “South Cyprus” which is a a place and instead write “south Cyprus” to distinguish it from north Cyprus, a term commonly used. I wasted a lot of time today responding to unverifiable beliefs, we’re all welcome to have them but they won’t stand up in a court of law. I think I’ll collect all the questions we’ve been asking each other and create a list and see if there is any evidence for any of the answers. Things like:
“TCs owned 14% of the land pre-1960 and in 1974″ as opposed to “I estimate that TCs owned 30-40% around 1960.” Perhaps we can all join in and see what a jury would make of how well we substantiate our beliefs. I’m currently trying to verify the ownership figures but have discovered that they were impossible to collect because of the suspicion associated with such activities. I deal with such raw data regularly and use UK archives as a matter of course but as far as pre 1960 Cyprus is concerned I don’t know how to start.
With regard to property ownership in Cyprus Claire Palley’s book about the Annan Plan “An International Reations Debacle” gives detailed figures on land ownership on pages 174 and 175. The matter is complicated by the claim that as “equal partners” in the ROC a TC state should be entitled to half of State land (26.1% of the total) and the claim that Evkaf land (for which Denktash & co were paid £1.5million) still belonged to the muslims.
Apparently the census of 1960 shows that TCs owned 20.4% of AGRICULTURAL land. It is not clear however what percentage of the total land mass is/was agricultural land. According to a table of land ownership in 1964 GCs owned 59.2%, TCs 12.2%, 26.2% was public owned.
I quote from Claire Palley’s book:- “Tactfully, the Secretary-Generals report S/2003/398. 1 April 398, para 112,merely stated that – The property ownership was of roughly similar proportions to the population ie Turkish Cypriots about 18% and Greek Cypriots over 80%”
The above is correct for PRIVATELY owned land. If you distribute public land 50/50 between the 1960 census AGRICULTURAL figure you arrive at the claimed Turkish figure of 33.5%. However if you distribute public land in proportion to the ethnic groups plus the 1964 percentages of TOTAL land ownership you arrive a figure closer to the GC claim of 78.7%.
The land ownership issue really needs to be sorted and agreed by an international commission before serious negotiations can take effect. It’s not good enough for Turkey to say “we are keeping 38% of Cyprus because that’s what we conquered/want” Indeed had Turkey conquered say 20% of Cyprus in 1974 I’m sure the dispute would have been solve years ago, but then there would have been no place for carpetbaggers or settlers would there?
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Jerry, excellent source material showing that GP & Kyri’s 14% figure was fabricated. “Carpetbagger” in the sense of those with entrepreneurial skills who find bargains, as in an Abbey National windfall, but sometimes get it wrong, as in north Cyprus property – unless they are a Russian or a TC, for example?
Read it again Malcolm, second paragraph last sentance – “According to a table of land ownership in 1964 GCs owned 59.2%, TCs 12.2%, 26.2% was public owned”. Not 1974 figures i know but actually less than 14%.
I have just realised that my figure of 78.7% is based on dividing the public land into quarters, fifths is more precise so more accurately it should be 80.16%.
Most importantly the UN seems to have accepted figures of 18% and 80% leading up to Annan. Why did they think the Greek Cypriots should accept that the TCs would be allowed to keep 29% post Annan. Was it as a punishment for past “GC misdeeds”, a reward for Turkey’s “valour” in battle? Are you surprised the GCs rejected it?
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
By 1964, TCs were in enclaves and therefore the 1960 figure, I believe, is more accurate. As you wrote, “if you distribute public land 50/50 between the 1960 census AGRICULTURAL figure you arrive at the claimed Turkish figure of 33.5%. However if you distribute public land in proportion to the ethnic groups plus the 1964 percentages of TOTAL land ownership you arrive a figure closer to the GC claim of 78.7%.” So somewhere between 33.5% and 21.3% then but not 14%.
Malcolm, the 20.4% figure is not the total of TC land in Cyprus, it’s of agricultural. So this 1960 figure, when you take towns, mountains and forest into account is a smaller percentage. The TCs have used that figure (20.4%) and the claim for half of public land to maximise their share to about 34%. I ‘m sure Kyri can speak for himself but if he was not taking public land into account (and some quoted statistics don’t) then they owned less of the total land than 20.4% in 1960 – perhaps 14%, but would be entitled to about 20% if they were given their share of public land.
If the figures I extracted from Claire Palley’s book are accurate there can be absolutely no justification for the TCs to expect 34% of Cyprus, and as I said earlier the UN seems to have accepted 20% as their share but awarded 29% in Annan Plan to appease Turkey. No wonder the GCs feel they Annan was out to cheat them.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Jerry, what I find interesting about the book is that it seems to be praised by GCs as a source of information used to support saying NO in 2004. The figures seemed to be plucked out of the air and used to reject giving TCs the 29% of land that the Annan Plan suggested because this book says that TC owned 20% of agricultural land in 1960. I haven’t the book, but surely there is a footnote to these figures showing their source, otherwise they seem as dangerous of the WMD claims used as an excuse for invading Iraq.
Also found this quote about the book from a GC
“Claire Palley does indeed warn her reader that her views have been coloured by her experience as constitutional adviser to the President of the Republic of Cyprus and asserts that she is not shy to reveal her personal opinion. However, the book, which is full of documentary evidence and unnecessrily lengthy footnotes, is totally one-sided. It follows negotiations on the Annan Plan solely from the GC point of view and generally propagates the views of the GC President Tassos Papadopoulos. Though references to UN reports are plentiful and detailed documentation useful, when it comes to her opinions of UN negotiators such as Mr. De Soto, she resorts to mere ranting. It is unfortunate that an insider could not provide a more balanced account indicating why the parties involved, Turkish Cypriots, Turkey, Greek Cypriots and EU and UN could not genuinely see eye to eye on so many issues and the thorny, meaty debate that must have taken place on points of principle. An interesting book nevertheless, exemplifying the attitude and narrow-mindedness of some GCs, as one can find on all sides I am sure. (Before you attack this review bear in mind I am in fact a Greek Cypriot and have studied Government and International Politics so I am well equipped to understand the arguments presented in the book).”
Malcolm,
I am not aware of any 1960 figures.
I watched a TV debate abut the 2004 proposal and when they talked about exchanging TC property in the south with GC property in the north the land registry official mentioned that in 1974 TCs owned approximately 14% of the land in the south.
This is also in line with Jerry’s data as many, if not most, Turkish strongholds are in the south.
Regarding your next post I do not believe that there are any major questions to be answered by a court of law. UN resolutions are there, the decisions of international courts are also there, courts already have the answers to the major questions and they now only focus on technical stuff. For example with the Orams the issue became whether they should be punished in the UK or not. On the essence of the case, however, the ruling has been made.
I will and my post with a question. Why are you so desperate to show that we fabricate data, even though we do not, whereas at the same time you so stubbornly take for granted 100% of the Turkish propaganda?
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
“Why are you so desperate to show that we fabricate data, even though we do not, whereas at the same time you so stubbornly take for granted 100% of the Turkish propaganda?”
Kyri, strangely enough I asked my self the same question only yesterday. Then I realised that, much like GP, I was actually searching for verifiable truth amongst all the propaganda and that GCs only see me challenging their propaganda. My main focus had been TC propaganda relating to property, as they try to prop up their ailing construction industry. I asked myself whether I would accept the GC 14% figure if it was backed up by credible evidence and the answer is yes.
My current job is to monitor the standards of a selection of UK institutions who sometimes try to manipulate data in order to look better than they are. I have to write reports based on the data I collect and these reports could be challenged by the institutions. I’ve been doing this for over 10 years. I guess I bring the same attitude to whatever I’m confronted with.
Malcolm, you are quite right to query Claire Palley’s figures, her viewpoint is obvious from the title of the book. She says that the 20.4% agricultural land figure comes from 1960, presumably British, census figures. The other figures are estimates from 1964 Department of Lands and Surveys Planning Bureau. The Colonial administration carried out two census in 1946 and 1960, the statistics must be available somewhere. In his book, “The making of modern Cyprus” Dr Stavros Panteli gives figures and a map based on the 1946 and 1960 census district by district for land in private ownership.
GC percentages followed by TC and then “other”:- Kyrenia 70.5%, 16.5%, 13%. Famagusta 83.4%, 16.2%, 0.4%.Larnaca 74.6%, 23.3%, 2.1%.Nicosia 83.8%, 16.2%, 1.1%. Limassol 86.3%, 12.3%,1.4%. Paphos 78.8%, 21.1%, 0.2%. Obviously it is not possible to calculate a national figure from these because of the variation of district areas but Nicosia is by far the largest district followed by Famagusta, Kyrenia is the smallest and the other three appear to be of similar size. One can believe or doubt the figures because of their source and one’s point of view. The fact that the UN felt that 18% and more than 80% reflects the ownership proportions would indicate, to me at least, that they are the true figures.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Unfortunately I have had experience of people quoting other people who have done the same, only to discover that the original source had got it wrong. I would accept the original 1960 land ownership survey data, although I’m not sure what a census has to do with ownership, this has never been true of UK censuses.
The British government accepted information about WMDs but that doesn’t guarantee the information was correct, I apply the same reservations to the UN’s acceptance of the ownership figures. All these academics seem to have access to the raw data (you would hope) so the data should be out there somewhere. Again, I’m only interested in 1960 as by 1964 TCs were abandoning property to either leave the island or to live in enclaves.
To all of you!
There is no TC MINORITY! There are Turkish Cypriots who live in peace after brutal attacks of Greek Cypriots (or whatever you call them since their origins are unknown) and most of them dont care about your stupid british -GC blame game to satisfy your egocentric selfish beliefs which most of them are not even based on truth! That s why you dont see many TCs in this forum not that they cannot argue with you, but with this stupidity there is no ground and its only waste of time. So grow up, get a life you pathetic losers!!
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
You getting much snow in Kent, Mustafa? I hear the weather is quite bad in Britain at the moment. I hear many of the schools have been closed.
Mustafa,
I wonder why you chose cold Kent over sunny and warm Cyprus.
I would love to see you debate with Get Real….two sides of the same coin
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Kyri,
For slow people with “smiley faces” like you and others, I suggest you read my previous post. I will leave you and your :get real: in your small pathetic world.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Mustafa,
I never said I am fast (unless I am behind the steering wheel of my admittedly fast car).
Enjoy your large and frozen world in Kent my friend.
PS. Not too much chilly sauce please in the large doner !!!
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
As I said….
PS: I live in Girne.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
And I said not too much chilly sauce in the large doner !!!
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Dear all,
When I first joined this website I thought that I had to deal with reasonable and intelligent people willing to have honest discussions, open minded people who wanted to exchange opinions and ideas. I mistakenly though that these people would be interested in the truth and that concrete facts and correct arguments would help get closer to the truth.
On the other hand I found bitter and stubborn people who would use childish and stupid arguments to support things which are so obviously wrong. I found people who are willing to support a lie with passion simply because it suits their petty and poxy argument. I realized that the aim here is not to find the truth but to score points and piss off each other.
Your recent posts about “angry and bitter GCs” made me think and I have to admit that you are right. I have become bitter. I have been provoked, insulted and taken for an idiot and as a result I became one of you. Winning an argument became an issue, not the essence of the argument itself, something that I am not proud of.
I have recently found some other places on the web where the situation is different. Places were I can talk with people I disagree with and end up agreeing about most things. I therefore decided to stop wasting my time with you lot and leave you alone.
Good bye guys and keep enjoying your meaningless bitter arguments. At the end of the day despite what I or you say the Republic of Cyprus does exist and you live in stolen homes in the occupied north which is under the subordinate local administration of Turkey.
I wish from the bottom of my heart that you will eventually experience the kind of justice you so vigorously defend.
Good bye to you all.
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0
Kyri,
If you can still read this…
“I have recently found some other places on the web where the situation is different. Places were I can talk with people I disagree with and end up agreeing about most things….”
Wouldn’t care to share the web-address of these places?
Constructive or Abusive:
0 
0