 |
| Author |
Message |
Alexios
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 976
|
|
| Sorry i meant comprehend fully....bad day today... |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Alexios wrote: |
Erolz i am a simple man and your first paragraph is too complicated for me to apprehend fully.. plus i had a busy day....Please try to put it in simpler lunguage...this is not a rarcastic comment..really i am confused....  |
I will try and put it another way.
How 'viable' do you think life would have been and would be for ordinary Turkish Cypriot after 74 if approx 80% of those that owned land pre 74 had since 74 only had temporary leashold use of land since 74?
Or to put it another way, if 80% of the land that the Greek Cypriot controlled after 74 had of been Turkish Cypriot owned pre 74 do you really think they would have or even could have done anything except issue freehold deeds to that land to Greek Cypriot that lost such in the north?
If the north and it's people were to have any chance of survivial indvidualy and as a state, it could not do so with 80% of the terriorty it controlled only being available for temporay 'leashold' usage. The issuing of deeds to indivduals for this appropriated land was a matter of necessity, given how much of the land in the north post 74 was of this type. That is what I am saying. If we had not issued such deeds then we may as well have not tried to created an autonomus state at all in the first place, for such a state where 80% of the land is only useable on a temporary leashold basis (with no indication of when or if or how this might change in the future) is simple not viable.
I hope that is a little clearer ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Alexios
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 976
|
|
Yes thanks.
Do you know how much of the G/C land in the north has been exploited in some form or another??Put aside that "confiscated" for public use purposes.Put aside also the hectarage of land T/Cs left behind.
One needs to know these facts to support an argument on your lines of rationalist thought, assuming one is prepared to do away with any moral or ethical issues involved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Alexios wrote: |
Yes thanks.
Do you know how much of the G/C land in the north has been exploited in some form or another??Put aside that "confiscated" for public use purposes.Put aside also the hectarage of land T/Cs left behind.
One needs to know these facts to support an argument on your lines of rationalist thought, assuming one is prepared to do away with any moral or ethical issues involved. |
I do not know how much pre 74 Turkish Cypriot land in the south has been exploited for use of private indivduals, either under a leashold or some other form of 'ownership' and I do not think anyone knows this. The preception in the noth however is that the vast majority of pre 74 Turkish Cypriot land in the south that is of significant value today has been and is being used by private indivduals in the south and the often under very dubious ownership.
However this does not impact on the 'argument' I was making. In it's simplest form it is - if you are trying to create a viable state you can not do so when 80% of the land in that state is only useable under a temporary and uncertain 'freehold status'. Either you give up attempts to create such a state or you approriate the land and assign it for 'permanent' freehold usage. We did the later. Again I stress this is not a moral or legal argument, just an attempt to explain why the options available to those in power in the north re 'appropriated' land were not the same as those available to those in power in the south, for the mere reality that the % of what was 'disputed/approriated' were so vastly different between the two. |
|
| Back to top |
|
halil
Villager
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 25
|
|
Dear Kifeas,
Well once again you are looking at the whole issue in which is made up from only one side.
Please tell us all of Enosis… wasn’t this cleansing of the Turkish Cypriotes and the unification of Cyprus as a whole with Greece?? (During the 1960) well before Turkey came.
Mr. Makarios was on of the leaders and people like Papadopoulos were his followers, please come to the North one day and view the museums of were people (children) had been shoot down brutally in there own home while hiding from Greek forces in the bath tub.
Plus if Turkish army was so scary and broke so many laws in which caused Turkey to be embargoed for a few years, why didn’t they take over the whole of the island rather then just 30% of it?
You maybe right, maybe the so called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus didn’t have the right to hand over land to people who didn’t own it, but lets remember this:
The current land is being used until there is a solution, once both communities reach a solution both T and G Cypriotes shall get there land back (this is happening on both sides, this was also the case in the Annan, the Turkish troops would have left as the Greek troops would have left as well, land would have been distributed back and forth but the Greek Cypriotes highly voted no.
I would also like to state that my granddad was also a POW, Greek forces broke into his home and took him away and left my mum, and 3 uncles with my Grandma at home.
Do you know why he is still alive today?? Because my grandma is English and the Greek Cypriote officer was ordered to let him go, this was many years before Turkey invaded.
Plus when you walk from the north to the south, do we have horrible pictures of people killed during the war or after the war?? No but its all posted everywhere on the border of the South…
Well all we can wish for is for each side to reach an agreement in the near future before incidents like the Orams case blow everything out of order!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Alexios
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 976
|
|
Thanks.
The perception in the North is totally wrong though.But anyhow, even if i agree that that perception is right, you have said it yourself.That land is USED for whatever reason.OWNERSHIP, dubious or not does not come into examination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Alexios wrote: |
Thanks.
The perception in the North is totally wrong though. |
Is it? With respect how would you know? I have seen an abandoned village in the south that used to be Turkish Cypriot pre 74. Clearly this land is not being used today - but then it is of little value today. I have heard stories from Turkish Cypriot that owned prime seafront land in the South and when they visit this land since the borders have been opened they find restaurants, hotels and businesses have been built on this land.
| Alexios wrote: |
But anyhow, even if i agree that that perception is right, you have said it yourself.That land is USED for whatever reason.OWNERSHIP, dubious or not does not come into examination. |
When a Turkish Cypriot goes to the South and sees their seafront land pre 74 has been used to build say a hotle, they do not know if the person who owns and built the hotle has a Republic of Cyprus deed for this land or not. All they see is the hotel. The assumption is that the person who built the hotel feels pretty safe that they have control of this land, safe enough to invest the building of a business on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Alexios
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 976
|
|
| Difference being, that the hotelier, entered into a signed agreement with the Committe for the Administration of T/C properties and the Ministry of Interior that the land on which he built his hotel is under administration by the said committee and that it does not belong to him.I think this fact is so well known now, that all T/Cs should be aware of it, especially those who have a vested interest to find out all about valuable land belonging to them. Of course there are complications that will suffice if and when the Cyprus problem is solved.Compensation to current users both North and South is one of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dhavlos
Warnings : 1
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 4697
Location: Birmingham
|
|
| Quote: |
| Please tell us all of Enosis… wasn’t this cleansing of the Turkish Cypriotes and the unification of Cyprus as a whole with Greece?? (During the 1960) well before Turkey came. |
erm, i would need someone to clarify, who is better in the know, about what i say:
but i think that the aim of enosis did not mean the extermination of the Turkish Cypriots. it purely was a political aim, ie unification with greece. Where it does get confusing, is the methods used to try and achieve it.
Obviously, as Turkish Cypriots (and some/many Greek Cypriots) were against enosis, they then became obsticals for the political acheivement of enosis(because of Republic of Cyprus arrangements of constitution), and if you look, before EOKAB it was only politically that Turkish Cypriots were taken out. Once EOKAB came about, it was then that the 'social' aspect of killing people (Turkish Cypriot or Greek Cypriot) happened.
But by that time, enosis had been given up by the people and by the poltical leadership, that is why the aim of enosis went underground into terrorist groups!
Proof of it not being supported, is the fact that in the presidential elections of 1968(? ) makarios not supporting enosis, won with like 80+% of the vote against a man who was campaigning in support of enosis!
If any of what i say above is WRONG and can be proved to be wrong, then i will retract what i say and apologise, but this is my understanding of the situation.
on erols point:
| Quote: |
| The preception in the north however is that the vast majority of pre 74 Turkish Cypriot land in the south that is of significant value today has been and is being used by private indivduals in the south and the often under very dubious ownership. |
THe same goes for the perceptions in the south about the north. Odd really how we all think the same  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
| erolz wrote: |
When a Turkish Cypriot goes to the South and sees their seafront land pre 74 has been used to build say a hotle, they do not know if the person who owns and built the hotle has a Republic of Cyprus deed for this land or not. All they see is the hotel. The assumption is that the person who built the hotel feels pretty safe that they have control of this land, safe enough to invest the building of a business on it. |
Erol, please stop this nonsense lie! There absolutely no hotel in the south that was built on Turkish Cypriot land! If you know, then give me the name of it! As for restaurants, yes some Turkish Cypriot land was given to Greek Cypriot refugees on a rental basis (not with an ownership title,) in which they built (assembled) some seaside catering facilities, near popular beaches. However, if you take a close look at such facilities, they are not permanent constructions with foundations, steel and concrete, but rather made up mostly of cheap, nevertheless easily re-assemblable materials such as metal and wood sheets. In some case they are so well put together that they even give the impression that they are permanent constructions, but this is not the case. Nevertheless, no one holds the Turkish Cypriot owners back to claim their possessions back, either by coming and living for the 6 months in the south, should they moved north after 1974, and then applying for their re-possession, or by going directly to the court to challenge the 6 month regulation, or both. Some have already done so, and they won their cases as well. There is also the possibility that some Turkish Cypriot properties have actually been sold by their Turkish Cypriot owners to Greek Cypriots, if those Turkish Cypriots have left Cyprus before 1974, and came back and exercised their property rights, but because this fact is not broadly known to the rest of the Turkish Cypriots that used to know them as Turkish Cypriot properties before 1974, they simply assume that those properties were somehow usurped and are now developed by Greek Cypriots in an illegal way, while the truth is that they were acquired (bought) in a legal way, directly from their Turkish Cypriot owners.
I ask you again, if you know something contrary to the above, tell me which one it is, and in 2 days, maximum, I will tell you the real story of it. You may also just post a snapshot from Google earth of the location in which it is situated, but pleased stop this unsubstantiated propaganda! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
| Dhavlos wrote: |
on erols point:
| Quote: |
| The preception in the north however is that the vast majority of pre 74 Turkish Cypriot land in the south that is of significant value today has been and is being used by private indivduals in the south and the often under very dubious ownership. |
THe same goes for the perceptions in the south about the north. Odd really how we all think the same |
Is it really the same Davlos? Is it? Are the two situations really parallel and equivalent, in a sense? |
|
| Back to top |
|
macketterry
Villager
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 31
|
|
Earth calling Cyprus!
There will be NO political settlement and there will be NO legal settlement.
Moral arguments, interpretations of history and who did what to whom is all irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the de facto reality.
So please form an orderly queue and start claiming your compensation at the north's committee. What have you got to lose?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dhavlos
Warnings : 1
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 4697
Location: Birmingham
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
| Dhavlos wrote: |
on erols point:
| Quote: |
| The preception in the north however is that the vast majority of pre 74 Turkish Cypriot land in the south that is of significant value today has been and is being used by private indivduals in the south and the often under very dubious ownership. |
THe same goes for the perceptions in the south about the north. Odd really how we all think the same |
Is it really the same Davlos? Is it? Are the two situations really parallel and equivalent, in a sense? |
no, im not saying they are the same, im saying the perception that the other side has built on the best land (which they dont own) is generally the same! |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Dhavlos wrote: |
| Obviously, as Turkish Cypriots (and some/many Greek Cypriots) were against enosis, they then became obsticals for the political acheivement of enosis(because of Republic of Cyprus arrangements of constitution), and if you look, before EOKAB it was only politically that Turkish Cypriots were taken out. Once EOKAB came about, it was then that the 'social' aspect of killing people (Turkish Cypriot or Greek Cypriot) happened. |
Well my uncle was 'taken out' from his place of work in 64 by a group of armed Greek Cypriot 'irregulars' and never seen again. The intercommunal violence and the disproportionate violence suffered by the Turkish Cypriot community from 63- the forming of EOKA B was intrinsicaly linked to the persuit of enosis and taksim by the two leaderships. For me it is just not accurate to say from 63- formation of eoka b violence was not used as a means of achieveing enosis by Greek Cypriot leadership (or taksim by Turkish Cypriot leadership for tha matter) and that such use of violence only happened after the formation of eoka B. The reality is that in the 50's EOKA used violence as ameans of achieving enosis (maybe for some it was to achieve the end of british rule but for Grivas the eoka leader clearly it was for enosis). In the 60's and befor the formation of eoka b violence was still being used - by the Greek Cypriot leadership and still as a means of gaining enosis and after the formation of eoka b it was also used. There is no clear cut division between 'peacefull' persuit of enosis pre formation of eoka b and violent persuit of it after. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
I ask you again, if you know something contrary to the above, tell me which one it is, and in 2 days, maximum, I will tell you the real story of it. You may also just post a snapshot from Google earth of the location in which it is situated, but pleased stop this unsubstantiated propaganda! |
As I say these are 'stories' that have been related to me. My families land in Cyprus was in the north pre 74 so I do not have a personal example. I will however try and find more details from those Turkish Cypriot that make such claims for I am as keen as anybody to now the reality in the individual cases and how widespread these issue may be, if they exist at all. When I get any more detailed info I will relay it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
 
 
Link Partners
3400 Attacks blocked
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home