Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

writer of the article has got his mail address as well.
Article by Ioannis Karalis

Ioannis Karalis is MSc in International Management Candidate at King's College London, University of London. He can be contacted at [email protected]

from his name , i can guess he might be Greek or Greek Cypriot.

he is telling truth. ones again anything doesn't suit you .Called propaganda.

Are you telling me his article (assuming this guy is real) has been edited to read "South"????

[halil]

Pyro,
most of the news agencies when they do report from Cyprus they always says South or Greek Part of the Cyprus.
below shows clearly.

Iraq: Athletes seek political asylum in Cyprus


Baghdad, 15 Jan. (AKI) - Sixteen Iraqi athletes have asked for political asylum in Cyprus.

Local sources told the Arab newspaper, al-Sharq al-Awsat, that the group went to local police on Monday.

They initially presented themselves as Palestinians but were actually Iraqi immigrants.

The group consists of Taekwondo athlets who were travelling by car to the north of the island.

Accompanied by their families, they travelled to the Turkish part of the island to take part in sporting competitions.

Once their matches were finished they decided to seek political asylum in the southern Greek part of the country.

The group which includes four women and four children left their hotel where they were staying with the excuse of taking a walk and then disappeared.

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Sp ... 1772095570

these are the realities .......

[halil]

i will not argue with you pyro, we will end up with nothing. why should i try to prove u something.İf you like it you like it .if you don't you don't no ones forcing you.

[eracles]

Pyro,
most of the news agencies when they do report from Cyprus they always says South or Greek Part of the Cyprus.
below shows clearly.

<snipped>

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Sp ... 1772095570

these are the realities .......

let's see - the top 3 news stories using ta standard google news search...

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7227256

Analysis: Cyprus referred to as...Cyprus, no mention of north or south.

2. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008- ... 427770.htm

Analysis: Cyprus referred to as...Cyprus, no mention of north or south.

3. Link

Analysis: hmm right mix here...

Breakaway northern Cyprus
Greek Cypriot-controlled south
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (with further note that TRNC not recognised by anyone other than mummy)
northern Cyprus (no caps on northern)
and finally
Cyprus

Final Conclusion: Halil, keep taking the tablets.

[Pyrpolizer]

Pyro,
most of the news agencies when they do report from Cyprus they always says South or Greek Part of the Cyprus.
below shows clearly.

Iraq: Athletes seek political asylum in Cyprus


Baghdad, 15 Jan. (AKI) - Sixteen Iraqi athletes have asked for political asylum in Cyprus.

Local sources told the Arab newspaper, al-Sharq al-Awsat, that the group went to local police on Monday.

They initially presented themselves as Palestinians but were actually Iraqi immigrants.

The group consists of Taekwondo athlets who were travelling by car to the north of the island.

Accompanied by their families, they travelled to the Turkish part of the island to take part in sporting competitions.

Once their matches were finished they decided to seek political asylum in the southern Greek part of the country.

The group which includes four women and four children left their hotel where they were staying with the excuse of taking a walk and then disappeared.

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Sp ... 1772095570

these are the realities .......

Actually it depends where the news originate from.
This news originate from the occupied.
The reporters got the news corrected whatever they could think of and passed it through.

Still however you haven't answered my question as to how that GC sent the letter to you, calling his own Country "South"

[observer]

I wrote

Cyprus problem: Reality check; after all, for too many GCs it is still 1974.

Pyrpolizer wrote

In contrast with the TCs who are still in 1963?

Sadly true of some TCs, but then some GCs are still there too.

Pyrpolizer also wrote

Fact 1. Eoka B' did not burn down any TC villages! Eoka B' was set up by Grivas in 1971, with the sole aim of undermining Makarios and facilitating Union with Greece! It's main activity was to organize assassination attempts against Makarios! It did not touch -set aside killed any TC before the 1974 Turkish invasion. Any TC murders committed by Eoka B,' occurred only after the Turkish invasion started, mainly upon or after the second phase of the invasion on the 14th of August 1974. There is absolutely no case in which it burned out any TC village, before or after the Turkish invasion!

True. Although there is every reason that the fears of the TC community were genuine following July 15th, and the fact that massacres of TCs just because they were TCs took place well away from the invasion area indicates that certain GC groups had already prepared plans to terrorise and kill TCs.

Fact 2. The Turkish invasion was neither legal, nor justified! It was illegal by international law because whatever "right" Turkey claimed to have had for a so-called unilateral intervention, was /is nullified by the UN Charter which is a higher in order international treaty, than the treaty of guarantee which Turkey claims to have abided by! Turkish invasion was not justified because the issue of the abortive coup against Makarios had not yet been fully examined by the UN Security council (Makarios had only delivered his initial speech at the UN SC on Friday 19th of July 1974,) and furthermore, during the entire period of the coup -before the commencing of the Turkish invasion, there was absolutely no attack against any TC in Cyprus whatsoever, to claim that the lives of the TCs were under an immanent threat!

The Turkish invasion was most certainly legal.

Article 2 of the Treaty of Guarantee says
Greece the United Kingdom and Turkey, taking note of the undertakings by the Republic of Cyprus embodied in Article 1, recognize and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, and also the provisions of the basic articles of its Constitution. They likewise undertake to prohibit, as far as lies within their power, all activity having the object of promoting directly or indirectly either the union of the Republic of Cyprus with any other State, or the partition of the Island.

Greece had breached the provisions, as had the GCs.

The Treaty goes on to say:
In the event of any breach of the provisions of the present Treaty, Greece, the United Kingdom, and Turkey undertake to consult together, with a view to making representations, or taking the necessary steps to ensure observance of those provisions. In so far as common or concerted action may prove impossible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs established by the present Treaty.

The Treaty being breached, Turkey had the right to take action, as recognized after the event by the Greek Supreme Court and the British Parliament. Turkey, naturally, thinks that it was legal. As the Treaty was approved beforehand by Greece, Britain, Turkey and Cyprus, all of whom must have had high-priced lawyers go over it, I would place my faith in the decisions of the Greek Supreme Court, the British Parliament and any number of high-priced international constitutional lawyers over Pyrpolizer’s interpretation.

Fact 3. The only one that needs a reality check is the author of the above article in the Turkish Daily news, and I would further advice him to concentrate his efforts at gaining his degree in international management and live the Cyprus issue aside for those that know what they are talking about, for the only thing he is capable of achieving is to play like a fool in the hands of the anti-Greek Cypriot Turkish propaganda!

Leaving aside the fact that this is not a fact but a recommendation, the article’s main points seem uncontroversial to me. As I read it, the author is saying
1. Over 30 years have passed since 1974.
2. Today, the South is seen as prosperous, the North is seen as a victim.
3. Partition is a real possibility unless there are compromises.

Who wrote this article doesn’t matter. It could be Mickey Mouse for all I care. It doesn’t alter the main points in the article.

[DT.]

I wrote

Cyprus problem: Reality check; after all, for too many GCs it is still 1974.

Pyrpolizer wrote

In contrast with the TCs who are still in 1963?

Sadly true of some TCs, but then some GCs are still there too.

Pyrpolizer also wrote

Fact 1. Eoka B' did not burn down any TC villages! Eoka B' was set up by Grivas in 1971, with the sole aim of undermining Makarios and facilitating Union with Greece! It's main activity was to organize assassination attempts against Makarios! It did not touch -set aside killed any TC before the 1974 Turkish invasion. Any TC murders committed by Eoka B,' occurred only after the Turkish invasion started, mainly upon or after the second phase of the invasion on the 14th of August 1974. There is absolutely no case in which it burned out any TC village, before or after the Turkish invasion!

True. Although there is every reason that the fears of the TC community were genuine following July 15th, and the fact that massacres of TCs just because they were TCs took place well away from the invasion area indicates that certain GC groups had already prepared plans to terrorise and kill TCs.

Fact 2. The Turkish invasion was neither legal, nor justified! It was illegal by international law because whatever "right" Turkey claimed to have had for a so-called unilateral intervention, was /is nullified by the UN Charter which is a higher in order international treaty, than the treaty of guarantee which Turkey claims to have abided by! Turkish invasion was not justified because the issue of the abortive coup against Makarios had not yet been fully examined by the UN Security council (Makarios had only delivered his initial speech at the UN SC on Friday 19th of July 1974,) and furthermore, during the entire period of the coup -before the commencing of the Turkish invasion, there was absolutely no attack against any TC in Cyprus whatsoever, to claim that the lives of the TCs were under an immanent threat!

The Turkish invasion was most certainly legal.

Article 2 of the Treaty of Guarantee says
Greece the United Kingdom and Turkey, taking note of the undertakings by the Republic of Cyprus embodied in Article 1, recognize and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, and also the provisions of the basic articles of its Constitution. They likewise undertake to prohibit, as far as lies within their power, all activity having the object of promoting directly or indirectly either the union of the Republic of Cyprus with any other State, or the partition of the Island.

Greece had breached the provisions, as had the GCs.

The Treaty goes on to say:
In the event of any breach of the provisions of the present Treaty, Greece, the United Kingdom, and Turkey undertake to consult together, with a view to making representations, or taking the necessary steps to ensure observance of those provisions. In so far as common or concerted action may prove impossible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs established by the present Treaty.

The Treaty being breached, Turkey had the right to take action, as recognized after the event by the Greek Supreme Court and the British Parliament. Turkey, naturally, thinks that it was legal. As the Treaty was approved beforehand by Greece, Britain, Turkey and Cyprus, all of whom must have had high-priced lawyers go over it, I would place my faith in the decisions of the Greek Supreme Court, the British Parliament and any number of high-priced international constitutional lawyers over Pyrpolizer’s interpretation.

Fact 3. The only one that needs a reality check is the author of the above article in the Turkish Daily news, and I would further advice him to concentrate his efforts at gaining his degree in international management and live the Cyprus issue aside for those that know what they are talking about, for the only thing he is capable of achieving is to play like a fool in the hands of the anti-Greek Cypriot Turkish propaganda!

Leaving aside the fact that this is not a fact but a recommendation, the article’s main points seem uncontroversial to me. As I read it, the author is saying
1. Over 30 years have passed since 1974.
2. Today, the South is seen as prosperous, the North is seen as a victim.
3. Partition is a real possibility unless there are compromises.

Who wrote this article doesn’t matter. It could be Mickey Mouse for all I care. It doesn’t alter the main points in the article.

ANd would you care to tell us at which point did the Turkish invasion become illegal?

[observer]

I thought that I'd made it clear that the intervention was legal. The Athens Supreme Court, not the most pro-Turkish organisation I can think of, support me:

“….On 15th July 1974, General Yoannidis, together with General Yorgitsis, the Commander of the Greek Regriment in Cyprus and General Yanakomidis organized a coup d’etat against Makarios with other 102 Greek officers. The President’s Palace in Nicosia was kept under fire by heavy weapons but President Makarios survived this attack through a miracle. After Greek officers violated the Cyprus Constitution, Nikos Samson was appointed as the new president of Cyprus Republic. Turkey intervened in Cyprus using its legal right, on 20th July 1974.”

Greek Supreme Court of Appeals 21 March 1979.

[Pyrpolizer]

I wrote

Cyprus problem: Reality check; after all, for too many GCs it is still 1974.

Pyrpolizer wrote

In contrast with the TCs who are still in 1963?

Sadly true of some TCs, but then some GCs are still there too.

Pyrpolizer also wrote

Fact 1. Eoka B' did not burn down any TC villages! Eoka B' was set up by Grivas in 1971, with the sole aim of undermining Makarios and facilitating Union with Greece! It's main activity was to organize assassination attempts against Makarios! It did not touch -set aside killed any TC before the 1974 Turkish invasion. Any TC murders committed by Eoka B,' occurred only after the Turkish invasion started, mainly upon or after the second phase of the invasion on the 14th of August 1974. There is absolutely no case in which it burned out any TC village, before or after the Turkish invasion!

True. Although there is every reason that the fears of the TC community were genuine following July 15th, and the fact that massacres of TCs just because they were TCs took place well away from the invasion area indicates that certain GC groups had already prepared plans to terrorise and kill TCs.

Fact 2. The Turkish invasion was neither legal, nor justified! It was illegal by international law because whatever "right" Turkey claimed to have had for a so-called unilateral intervention, was /is nullified by the UN Charter which is a higher in order international treaty, than the treaty of guarantee which Turkey claims to have abided by! Turkish invasion was not justified because the issue of the abortive coup against Makarios had not yet been fully examined by the UN Security council (Makarios had only delivered his initial speech at the UN SC on Friday 19th of July 1974,) and furthermore, during the entire period of the coup -before the commencing of the Turkish invasion, there was absolutely no attack against any TC in Cyprus whatsoever, to claim that the lives of the TCs were under an immanent threat!

The Turkish invasion was most certainly legal.

Article 2 of the Treaty of Guarantee says
Greece the United Kingdom and Turkey, taking note of the undertakings by the Republic of Cyprus embodied in Article 1, recognize and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, and also the provisions of the basic articles of its Constitution. They likewise undertake to prohibit, as far as lies within their power, all activity having the object of promoting directly or indirectly either the union of the Republic of Cyprus with any other State, or the partition of the Island.

Greece had breached the provisions, as had the GCs.

The Treaty goes on to say:
In the event of any breach of the provisions of the present Treaty, Greece, the United Kingdom, and Turkey undertake to consult together, with a view to making representations, or taking the necessary steps to ensure observance of those provisions. In so far as common or concerted action may prove impossible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs established by the present Treaty.

The Treaty being breached, Turkey had the right to take action, as recognized after the event by the Greek Supreme Court and the British Parliament. Turkey, naturally, thinks that it was legal. As the Treaty was approved beforehand by Greece, Britain, Turkey and Cyprus, all of whom must have had high-priced lawyers go over it, I would place my faith in the decisions of the Greek Supreme Court, the British Parliament and any number of high-priced international constitutional lawyers over Pyrpolizer’s interpretation.

Fact 3. The only one that needs a reality check is the author of the above article in the Turkish Daily news, and I would further advice him to concentrate his efforts at gaining his degree in international management and live the Cyprus issue aside for those that know what they are talking about, for the only thing he is capable of achieving is to play like a fool in the hands of the anti-Greek Cypriot Turkish propaganda!

Leaving aside the fact that this is not a fact but a recommendation, the article’s main points seem uncontroversial to me. As I read it, the author is saying
1. Over 30 years have passed since 1974.
2. Today, the South is seen as prosperous, the North is seen as a victim.
3. Partition is a real possibility unless there are compromises.

Who wrote this article doesn’t matter. It could be Mickey Mouse for all I care. It doesn’t alter the main points in the article.

Check again who wrote you the above as I feel too bored answering on behalf of others

[Pyrpolizer]

I thought that I'd made it clear that the intervention was legal. The Athens Supreme Court, not the most pro-Turkish organisation I can think of, support me:

“….On 15th July 1974, General Yoannidis, together with General Yorgitsis, the Commander of the Greek Regriment in Cyprus and General Yanakomidis organized a coup d’etat against Makarios with other 102 Greek officers. The President’s Palace in Nicosia was kept under fire by heavy weapons but President Makarios survived this attack through a miracle. After Greek officers violated the Cyprus Constitution, Nikos Samson was appointed as the new president of Cyprus Republic. Turkey intervened in Cyprus using its legal right, on 20th July 1974.”

Greek Supreme Court of Appeals 21 March 1979.

This refers to an instant in time of 20th of July. There from the so called intervention which lasted for over a month, turned out to be clearly an invasion and occupation, and there are many international bodies confirming it to be so.