Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

The presence of the Turkish military was legalized when the Turkish side voted ''yes'' in the 2004 referendum

This is not the only invention Talat’s fallacious logic has discovered.He even discovered that he can sell our stolen properties to foreigners "legally".

Wrong, Kofi Annan decided that.

You should tell him to present his "decision" at the ECHR then.

Pyrp, I guess us TCs can read into hidden cryptic clues in messages better than you guys. The message during and after the presentation of the plan was loud and clear for all except you guys.

Let me put it in a language that you all understand. The ultimate solution on the island will be some form of partition. You TCs are staying where you are and the GCs are staying where they are, you are therefore free to treat the land you occupy as your own. You may build on it, you may sell it you may even want to give a chunk of it to the Americans to build a base on it.

It is yours do what you want. You get it now?

Please don't let me be misunderstood here. GCs have my sympathy regarding the land issue and I support a just and fair solution for all of them. Nobody deserves to lose what they own, especially perfectly innocent individuals.

This is exactly the point where you are wrong. The difference between clear cut percentage partition, and the sort of partition in a Federal structure is the fact that with the latter NOBODY CAN TOUCH ANY INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP.

The Anan Plan violated this principle, and that's why it was rejected.

[Pyrpolizer]

MR-FROM-NG why are you so afraid to tell us how exactly Talat's statement works in your logic? Why all these cryptic answers?
A simple answer like "I actually don't know, but it sounds good" will suit us fine.

Turkish army in Cyprus legalized'

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

The presence of the Turkish military was legalized when the Turkish side voted ''yes'' in the 2004 referendum held for the peace plan proposed by then U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, said northern Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat in an interview with Greek Cypriot daily Phileleftheros published on Sunday. Talat said that he will not negotiate the withdrawal of the Turkish military, nor does he consider a unilateral move on the part of the Turkish side a “good idea.” “The Cyprus problem is not the presence of the Turkish military,” he said.

ISTANBUL – Turkish Daily News

What Talat says makes perfect sense. He is simply saying that contrary to common belief the military is here at our request. we voted YES to the plan and had the GCs voted YES too they would simply have been asked, as dictated by the plan to leave, and leave they would. Thus making their stay legal and justifiably so too.

a)On what legal ground can you ask ANY military to invade my country outst me from my ancestral land, steal my property, ethnically cleans me, and replace me by settlers? In fact the UN resolutions call the presence of the Turkish army illegal and demand it's withdrawal.
b)You voted yes to a plan that gave you everything even 2/3rds of our own properties. The Turkish Army would only leave 19 years later, after everything WAS FORCED AND SETTLED on us.
c)The Anan plan never got the final approval of the Turkish Generals who repeatedly warned they were not feeling oblidged to abide even if both sides have voted YES.
d)The fact the TCs voted YES and the GCs voted NO, was not simply a matter concerning the Turkish Army or whatever Army.The plan itself said it should be considered NULL AND VOID if any side voted "no". Null and Void it became and so is whatever "legality" it could ever have.The rest is just sophistries, invented by Talat for some easy believers.

They also promised us the lifting of embargoes if we said yes....Still waiting....Although that is about to happen...Watch this space..

See? You are now seeing ships.

[zan]

What Talat says makes perfect sense. He is simply saying that contrary to common belief the military is here at our request. we voted YES to the plan and had the GCs voted YES too they would simply have been asked, as dictated by the plan to leave, and leave they would. Thus making their stay legal and justifiably so too.

RESOLUTION 353 (1974)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 1771st meeting,
on 20 July 1974

The Security Council,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General, at its 1779th meeting, about the recent developments in Cyprus,

Having heard the statement of the President of the Republic of Cyprus and the statements of the representatives of Cyprus, Turkey, Greece and other Member States,

Noting also from the report the conditions prevailing in the island,

Deeply deploring the outbreak of violence and the continuing bloodshed,

Gravely concerned about the situation which has led to a serious threat to international peace and security, and which has created a most explosive situation in the whole Eastern Mediterranean area,

Equally concerned about the necessity to restore the constitutional structure of the Republic of Cyprus, established and guaranteed by international agreements,

Conscious of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in accordance with Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations,

1.Calls upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus.

2.Calls upon all parties to the present fighting as a first step to cease all firing and requests all States to exercise the utmost restraint and to refrain from any action which might further aggravate the situation;

3.Demands an immediate end to foreign military intervention in the Republic of Cyprus that is in contravention of the provisions of paragraph 1 above;

4. Requests the withdrawal without delay from the Republic of Cyprus of foreign military personnel present otherwise than under the authority of international agreements, including those whose withdrawal was requested by the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Archbishop Makarios, in his letter of 2 July 1974;

5. Calls upon Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to enter into negotiations without delay for the restoration of peace in the area and constitutional government of Cyprus and to keep the Secretary-General informed;

6. Calls upon all parties to co-operate fully with the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus to enable it to carry out its mandate;

7. Decides to keep the situation under constant review and asks the Secretary-General to report as appropriate with a view to adopting further measures in order to ensure that peaceful conditions are restored as soon as possible.

Adopted unanimously at the 1781st meeting.




UN Resolutions on Cyprus:

http://www.un.int/cyprus/resolut.htm

Does not mean a thing unless you decide to accept the return of the 1960 constitution in FULL without amendments.........

Of course whether you do or you don't it makes Turkeys intervention and presences legal....Hahahahahahaaaaaaaaa! I told Kifeas not to get so excited and you jump in with both feet>>>>>

[MR-from-NG]

The presence of the Turkish military was legalized when the Turkish side voted ''yes'' in the 2004 referendum

This is not the only invention Talat’s fallacious logic has discovered.He even discovered that he can sell our stolen properties to foreigners "legally".

Wrong, Kofi Annan decided that.

You should tell him to present his "decision" at the ECHR then.

Pyrp, I guess us TCs can read into hidden cryptic clues in messages better than you guys. The message during and after the presentation of the plan was loud and clear for all except you guys.

Let me put it in a language that you all understand. The ultimate solution on the island will be some form of partition. You TCs are staying where you are and the GCs are staying where they are, you are therefore free to treat the land you occupy as your own. You may build on it, you may sell it you may even want to give a chunk of it to the Americans to build a base on it.

It is yours do what you want. You get it now?

Please don't let me be misunderstood here. GCs have my sympathy regarding the land issue and I support a just and fair solution for all of them. Nobody deserves to lose what they own, especially perfectly innocent individuals.

This is exactly the point where you are wrong. The difference between clear cut percentage partition, and the sort of partition in a Federal structure is the fact that with the latter NOBODY CAN TOUCH ANY INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP.

The Anan Plan violated this principle, and that's why it was rejected.

Pyrp, I'm not trying to prove myself to be right or you to be wrong here. I'm merely stating facts. The Annan plan gave the impression that the land in the north was for TCs to keep. Blame the UN not the TCs.

[Pyrpolizer]

Btw Mrfromng, according to the Anan plan it was not like "you may keep the properties you now hold and do whatever you like with them". All properties that did not belong to holders would go to the property committee. That committee would then redistribute them, in a fashion that the Gcs refugees would mostly lose. So it was still very much different than what you thought.

[MR-from-NG]

Btw Mrfromng, according to the Anan plan it was not like "you may keep the properties you now hold and do whatever you like with them". All properties that did not belong to holders would go to the property committee. That committee would then redistribute them, in a fashion that the Gcs refugees would mostly lose. So it was still very much different than what you thought.

Fair comment but you cannot argue with the fact that the message to the opportunist was loud and clear, they read into it the way it suited them, and for that the ultimate blame lies with the UN.

[Pyrpolizer]

Pyrp, I'm not trying to prove myself to be right or you to be wrong here. I'm merely stating facts. The Annan plan gave the impression that the land in the north was for TCs to keep. Blame the UN not the TCs.

And that impression was not far from reality. That's why the Annan plan was rejected.

I don't blame the TCs, when I realize they themselves understand this was not right.

On a side note. Believe me any solution that dares touch on peoples rights of ownership is going to bring worse bloodshed than the 60s. The only scheme that can work is exchange of equal value of properties and the rest stay to the original owners to do whatever they like with them. Most Gcs will not return, most probably they will sell or develop their properties and that would benefit the TCs in a dual way.(development in their own area without too many GCs returning)

[Pyrpolizer]

Btw Mrfromng, according to the Anan plan it was not like "you may keep the properties you now hold and do whatever you like with them". All properties that did not belong to holders would go to the property committee. That committee would then redistribute them, in a fashion that the Gcs refugees would mostly lose. So it was still very much different than what you thought.

Fair comment but you cannot argue with the fact that the message to the opportunist was loud and clear, they read into it the way it suited them, and for that the ultimate blame lies with the UN.

I totally agree with you.

[MR-from-NG]

Pyrp, I'm not trying to prove myself to be right or you to be wrong here. I'm merely stating facts. The Annan plan gave the impression that the land in the north was for TCs to keep. Blame the UN not the TCs.

And that impression was not far from reality. That's why the Annan plan was rejected.

I don't blame the TCs, when I realize they themselves understand this was not right.

On a side note. Believe me any solution that dares touch on peoples rights of ownership is going to bring worse bloodshed than the 60s. The only scheme that can work is exchange of equal value of properties and the rest stay to the original owners to do whatever they like with them. Most Gcs will not return, most probably they will sell or develop their properties and that would benefit the TCs in a dual way.(development in their own area without too many GCs returning)

A very good point Pyrp. If this mentality is one that a good majority of GCs subscribe to then there is hope for this to be settled without bloodshed.

I wonder what the hardliners like Kifeas, piratis and Sotos would say about your predictions.

[Pyrpolizer]

Let me tell you another secret MrfromNg.

Most Gcs not only will not return, but they will not even ask for rent if a poor TC family is living in their own properties for as long as they wish.(On the other hand I know the TCs are too proud to accept such a thing, but anyway the good intentions are there from the majority of GCs). All they want is just their children to inherit something.

I cannot tell the same for the British and other foreigners though, as most GCs think they did it out of greediness and they have very hard feelings against them.