Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

if he did nothing to protect TC from human rights abuses, or to try and stop those abusing TC rights in the period 63-74, then it is a bit 'rich' for him to decided that human rights are now paramount

I understand what you mean. Where I disagree is that you take it personally with the person called Papadopoulos. For me this person is the president, and who decided that human rights are paramount is not himself, but the great majority of Greek Cypriots.

However that does not mean I will not remain cynical of GC protestations of the supreme importance and supremacy of human rights above anything else

No, you should not remain cynical. You could be cynical if you were the angels that never harmed anybody, but you know very well that this is not the case. If you want to judge us negatively by choosing a specific time in history, we can choose 10 other times in history to judge you negatively. Is there a point for this?

I am cynical too sometimes (could not resist), but in general such attitude does not help.

[erolz]

I understand what you mean. Where I disagree is that you take it personally with the person called Papadopoulos. For me this person is the president, and who decided that human rights are paramount is not himself, but the great majority of Greek Cypriots.

No you misunderstand me. This is most certainly NOT personal. It most certainly IS aimed at the majority of GC population. In the period of 63-74 there was widespread and persistent human rights abuses in Cyprus. The vast majority of these (but not all) were perpetrated by GC on TC and GC state on TC. During this period there is very little evidence of a 'popular' GC passion for Human rights. After 74 when the tables turned and the GC became the majority victims then there was a sudden expression of the importance and primacy of Human rights from GC. I would like to believe that such expressions of the primacy of human rights are based on a genuine belief in them and not just something that matters only when you are a victim. However history would imply that the latter is at least and probably the larger element in GC passion for the primacy of human rights. This is why you should understand that lectures on Human Rights from GC to TC are hard for TC to take.

You could be cynical if you were the angels that never harmed anybody, but you know very well that this is not the case. If you want to judge us negatively by choosing a specific time in history, we can choose 10 other times in history to judge you negatively. Is there a point for this?

I am cynical too sometimes (could not resist), but in general such attitude does not help.

Again you miss the point. The difference between GC and TC in this case is that (for whatever reason) the TC are not shouting and lecturing and wailing about human rights in the way GC have been since 74. If we were then I think you would feel that such from TC, considering their own lack of concern for GC loss of human rights in the period 74 to date, was less than sincere. Which is how I largely feel about GC espousals of the absoloute primacy of indivduals human rights above all else.

[Piratis]

Erolz, its in the human nature that people complain about things when they don't have them.
What is also a fact, is that while you can claim that GC violated your human rights for some years and you are right, we are right also to say that Turks violated our human rights for centuries.

So stop pretending to be the angels, because I can becoming cynic too very easily and very successfully if I want to.

The point here is not to hit each other, but to come closer and find a solution, right?

[erolz]

What is also a fact, is that while you can claim that GC violated your human rights for some years and you are right, we are right also to say that Turks violated our human rights for centuries.

GC violate TC human rights because Turks (ottomans), not TC, violated your rights for centuries??? Oh well then I of course will no longer carry any cynisim about the genuine concern of GC for human rights (as opposed to using an impresion of concern for human rights as a convient means to an end) because of what the ottmans did! What a strange logic you seem to have ?

Again you twist or miss what I am saying. You agree that GC violated TC human rights. Good - a progressive acceptance that many GC are not willing to make and I thank you for it. My point, quite simply, is that I judge _anyones_ sincerity about commitments to human rights in light of their own records of protecting human rights of others and not on how loudly they wail at the loss of their human rights. Is that really so hard to understand?

So stop pretending to be the angels, because I can becoming cynic too very easily and very successfully if I want to.

If I were prentending to be an angel then I would gladly stop it. I am not pretending to be an angel. I am explaing why I have a degree of skeptisim with regard to GC expressions of a great concern for human rights.

The point here is not to hit each other, but to come closer and find a solution, right?

I am not htting anyone. I am trying to explain what I feel and think and why I feel and think it, in the hope it leads to better understanding and thus increases the chance of a solution.

[Piratis]

GC violate TC human rights because Turks (ottomans), not TC, violated your rights for centuries???

No, all I am saying is that you keep using those human violations against TCs, forgetting that GCs had their human rights violated 10x.

TC didn't come from Jupiter. TCs ancestors are either those Ottomans or GCs and other Cypriots that were forced to become muslims (equals a human right violation again).

The difference is that I am not telling you that you have to be punished because your ancestors did something bad to us. So why do you think that my generation (I was born after 74) and the future generations should be punished for crimes committed by a minority of GCs of some other time?

We all have to accept human rights as of paramount importance, and stop the excuses. What we want is progress, right?

[erolz]

The difference is that I am not telling you that you have to be punished because your ancestors did something bad to us. So why do you think that my generation (I was born after 74) and the future generations should be punished for crimes committed by a minority of GCs of some other time?

We all have to accept human rights as of paramount importance, and stop the excuses. What we want is progress, right?

~sigh~

I am not telling you that current GC should be punished for crimes of older GC. I am explaining why I remain a large dose of cynisim in regard to how genuine GC protestations about the primacy of human rights really are.

Yes we all should accept human rights are important. However the facts are in the real world that humand abuse other humanss rights. In the real world some express concern for human rights abuses when actualy they only care about their own loss and are more than prepared to abuse other human rights without any concern.

I am not saying I do not believe in the ideals of human rights - I do. They should apply equally to all in an ideal world. What I am saying (yet again) is that I judge someones commitment to human rights not on what they say, or how loudly they say it but based on how they act and have acted in the past. Again I ask is that really so hard to understand?

[Piratis]

I judge someones commitment to human rights not on what they say, or how loudly they say it but based on how they act and have acted in the past.

In the same way I can judje you based on the actions of the Ottomans. Is that ok for you?

[erolz]

In the same way I can judje you based on the actions of the Ottomans. Is that ok for you?

Do what you like.

I judge the sencerity of GC commitment to human rights (like your current president for one example) based on how HE behaved in the past.

You judge my commitment to human rights based on how ottomans behaved in the past.

Are many many GC that today wail and lecture about human rights the same indivduals that seemed to have no concern for human rights in the past? Yes they are.

Is any TC the same indivdual that was involved in ottoman rule in Cyprus. No they are not.

You see if you can spot the difference?

[Piratis]

EDITED

I erased what I initially wrote, but I keep it on file.

I think your attitude is provocative, but I hope you do this without bad intention and this is why I changed my initial post.

In any case I hope when you think calmly you will reconsider your racist approach and I will not be forced to reply in a similar way to drop the discussion in that level. I've done it before when I realized that the other party was here just for a fight of arguments and not to come with something constructive, but I still hope you are not like that.

[erolz]

I think your attitude is provocative,

well for that I am sorry. I am trying to explain what I think and feel and why. If that comes across as provocative then sorry.

In any case I hope when you think calmly you will reconsider your racist approach

Calling me racist is not provocative?

Look what I am saying is that I have a problem with those GC that have a history of 'remembering human rights only when it suits them'. For me that includes all GC that complain of human rights abuses after 74, but had no concern for such abuses before 74. You yourself wrote in another thread (http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.p ... tlers#2355)

What I have a problem with is that some people remember about human rights and laws only when it suits them.

Yet because I point out that this is plainly true of many GC today (any that remember human rights after 74 and yet showed no such concern pre 74 when abuses were going on right in front of them) you brand me racist and consistently seem to fail to understand my point (what I feel- a degree of skeptisim re the genuineness of many GC protestations about human rights. why I feel it - because many did not express or show any such concern when they were not victims)?

Instead you have said human rights abuses aginst TC does not justify human rights against GC - which I never said it did. You have said ottomans did worse to GC - which may be true but has nothing to do with my point. You have said I am pretending that i/we are angles -I am not and did not. You have called my views racist - which they are not. I would be equaly skeptical of such 'remebering' of human rights by any community which had sat and watched human rights being perptrated against others and done nothing then suddenly 'remebering' human rights when they became victims, when many in that community were alive at the time they seemed to care little for human rights abuses against others in the place they lived. So I ask you, am I really the one being 'provocative' here? Or am I trying to explain what I think and why I think it as clearly as possible, in the face of purposeful or accidental diversions from you?