International News on Cyprus.............
by Kikapu » Fri Aug 01, 2008 6:19 pm
Nikitas wrote:Washington Times, a lesson in how not to do journalism by reverend Moon. Enough said.
I have posted few COMMENTARY by Bruce Fein on this thread, and they are all about the same "Song & Dance".
As long as it keeps Halil happy, there's no harm done.!
-
Kikapu - Leading Contributor
- Posts: 18050
- Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm
by humanist » Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:11 pm
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... in-cyprus/
LETTER TO EDITOR: Turkey's role in Cyprus
Sunday, August 3, 2008
* Comment
* Listen
* Font Size
* Share
* Ask a Question
* You Report
Agence France-Presse/Getty Images Incumbent Greek Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos (center) and his two main challengers in tomorrow's election, Demetris Christofias (left) and Ioannis Kasoulides have all virtually ruled out a compromise with Turkish Cypriots to unite the island.
Bruce Fein attempts to reverse the role of aggressor and victim in Cyprus by suggesting that the United States can help unify the country if it removes the embargo against the Turkish Cypriot pseudo-state, the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus ("Needing an excuse for success," Commentary, July 22). Such a move would be tantamount to the United States legitimizing Turkey's illegal invasion of Cyprus 34 years ago.
The historical facts are irrefutable: Turkey, the aggressor, illegally invaded Cyprus on July 20, 1974, and in the second phase of its invasion, on Aug. 14, 1974, took control of close to 40 percent of the island, displacing more than 180,000 residents from their homes and businesses.
Despite numerous U.N. resolutions calling for withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cyprus, Turkey continues to occupy more than 37 percent of the country. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is merely a military compound created by Turkey to house the 43,000 troops Turkey maintains on Cyprus, which exceeds the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
If Mr. Fein seriously cared about what he describes as the international embargo on the TRNC, he would be calling on Turkey to remove its 43,000 troops and 160,000 Turks from Turkey who are illegal settlers.
He would insist that Greek and Turkish Cypriots be allowed to reunify their nation within the framework of the European Union and consistent with the applicable U.N. resolutions issued over the past three decades.
Instead, Mr. Fein exhorts the United States, in effect, to recognize the illegal invasion and continued occupation of Cyprus by extending to the TRNC the benefits of a nation-state. Such a policy would only continue to force the Turkish Cypriot community to remain inside the Turkish military compound and be denied the rights and benefits of citizenship in the European Union.
NICK LARIGAKIS
-
humanist - Main Contributor
- Posts: 6585
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:46 am
by Kikapu » Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:07 pm
The Washington Times
LETTER TO EDITOR: Turkish intervention in Cyprus
Friday, July 25, 2008
In her article titled "Cyprus solution, please" (Commentary, Web, July 20) Kathryn Cameron Porter repeats the same outdated rhetoric we so often hear regarding Turkey's presence on the island. It was because of the Greek Cypriots' violent 11-year campaign (from 1963 to 1974) to exterminate the Turkish Cypriot people and annex the island to Greece that Turkey intervened in 1974.
The legitimacy of the Turkish intervention was also confirmed, among others, by the Council of Europe Resolution 573 (1974) and even by the Athens Court of Appeal.
In its decision No. 2658/79 dated March 21, 1979 it held that:"The Turkish military intervention in Cyprus, which was carried out in accordance with the Zurich and London Agreements was legal. Turkey, as one of the Guarantor Powers, had the right to fulfill her obligations. The real culprits…are the Greek officers who engineered and staged a coup and prepared the conditions for this intervention."
The Turkish troops have never been described as an invading force, either by the United Nations or U.S. in their official terminology.
Furthermore, when demanding the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cyprus, Ms. Porter conveniently ignores to mention that this should also include the withdrawal of the thousands of Greek troops that are stationed in southern Cyprus.
It should be recalled that all the issues that the author is complaining about would have been resolved had the Greek Cypriot side accepted the U.N. settlement plan (the Annan Plan) over four years ago. Even the U.N. secretary-general in his report to the Security Council dated May 28, 2004 (S/2004/437) observed that "...by rejecting the Plan the Greek Cypriots were not rejecting a mere blueprint but the settlement itself" (paragraph 83).
MURAT KAVLAK
Comments 1 - 5 of 5
By: alexandrou
By Andreas E. Alexandrou, lawyer,
Mr. Kavlak in his reply to the article of Kathryn Cameron Porter and in defense of Turkey’s illegal acts in Cyprus should actually read the Treaty of Guarantee (16/08/1960) which Turkey uses to justify its ‘intervention’ on that island. It is very short (2 pages long) and easy to read.
By Article 2 of the treaty Turkey “recognizes and guarantees the independent, territorial integrity and security of the island and the state of affairs established by the Basic Articles of its Constitution”.
By Article 4, of the treaty Turkey may only intervene as a guarantor “with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present treaty”.
Mr. Kavlak will not find anything in the treaty allowing Turkey to occupy the northern half of the island, ethnically cleanse that half of its majority ethnic Greek/Christian population, colonising it with mainland Turks, and demand the partition of the island with new constitutions based on two separate federal states.
Turkey is in breach of every aspect of the Treaty of Guarantee and the only reason it is not directly criticized in the UN and the USA is that the UK and US Governments have gone out of their way, often embarrassingly for the two bastions of democracy, to shield and support their NATO ally.
July 25, 2008 at 7:27 a.m.
By: doctor
Furthermore, in 1974, Turkish troops invaded Cyprus on the pretext of protecting the 19% Turkish minority. As a result, the Turkish minority today occupies 40% of the island and 30,000 Turkish troops remain, not to mention an unknown number who have shed their uniforms and become Cypriot "citizens." This situation has remained virtually unchanged for 30 years, a situation brought about by a combination of British colonial rule and Greek-Turkish animosity.
Under the 1878 Cyprus Convention, Britain assumed administration of the island which still remained part of the Ottoman Empire. In 1923, under the Treaty of Lausanne, Turkey renounced all claim to Cyprus and in 1925, Cyprus was declared a British colony. When Cyprus won its freedom in 1960, relations between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities rapidly deteriorated because of British mandated flaws in the island’s constitution which gave disproportional rights to the Turkish Cypriot minority. These flaws in the constitution gave the Turkish minority a guarantee of the Vice Presidency and the right to block passage of certain types of legislation. I sincerely doubt that the US government would give any 19% minority in this country a guarantee of the Vice Presidency and the right to veto congressional legislation.
The seriousness of the Cyprus situation cannot be ignored. Several times, exacerbated by disagreements over air and sea rights in the Aegean, this ongoing dispute has brought Greece and Turkey to the brink of war. The US willingness to overlook Turkish human rights violations, military aggression and intransigence regarding Cyprus has shown a definite pro-Turkish policy. While Greece fought on the side of the Allies in two world wars, Turkey fought on the side of Germany in World War I and adopted a position of benevolent neutrality toward Nazi Germany in World War II. Greece survived 400 years under the brutality of the Ottoman Empire.
July 25, 2008 at 7:03 a.m.
By: doctor
I suggest everyone read, "Why the Greek Cypriots Said "NO!" found at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/
"And that is what the Annan plan is all about. Rejection by the Greek Cypriots is punishable by economic sanctions and isolation. Because of the West's past pro-Turkish bias, there is no doubt that the Annan plan is but another pro-Turkish attempt to favor the Turks. Reuters reported on 25 April, "Turkey Exults in Greek Cypriots Discomfort. . . Turkey proclaimed its biggest diplomatic victory in 50 years Sunday after Turkish northern Cyprus voted for a U.N-backed reunification plan and Greek Cypriots reaped international criticism by rejecting it. EU Enlargement Commissioner Guenter Veheugen said the result meant Greek Cyprus would enter the bloc under a 'shadow' on May 1."
July 25, 2008 at 6:46 a.m.
By: gta
Almost half of Cypriot Turks killed during the troubles were killed by Turks. “Between 11 August 1964 and 15 November 1967, records from various authoritative sources indicate that 109 Turkish-Cypriots are known to have been killed. . . . This number probably includes all Turk-Cypriots killed by Greek-Cypriots and the majority of Turk-Cypriots who were killed by members of their own community. Of these known deaths, 52 per cent were caused by Greek-Cypriots and 48 per cent were caused by Turk-Cypriots. “
[Richard A. Patrick, Political Geography and the Cyprus Conflict: 1963-1971 (Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, 1976), pp. 45-88.]
According to the international legal principle, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is illegal The invader cannot gain territorial title by conquest: title remains with the indigenous: no one argues that the Greeks were there first! Thus, Turkey itself belongs to the original owners: the Greeks, Kurds, Arabs: deal with it!
July 24, 2008 at 10:45 p.m.
By: repulsewarrior
I don't know what Cyprus Mr.Kavlak knows, but in the Cyprus I love, in my village, my home has had the same neighbours for the last 250 years. This sharing, cooperation and goodwill cannot be discounted with propaganda which pales before the facts. My neighbours were "Turks" as I am a "Greek" to satisfy the designs of interlopers. We are this island's dwellers. It is a simple fact. And like any "Cypriot" I have respect for the Patrimony which is mine be it a Mosque, a Church, or the mountain, and the trees. "I" like "them" place this Heritance over any "ethnicity", and "we" are its Steward.
Furthermore, The Republic of Cyprus has called for the demilitarisation of the island on many occasions. And it should not be forgotten that for over a span of thirty years, Mr. Denktash has been sited by all the Secretary Generals of the UN, during "that" period, before the Annan Plan, for his intransigence.
No one disputes that the intervention was welcome. (Nor can one deny the subterfuge which Kissinger masterminded, for the madness of the Cold War, in Greece with the Junta.)
However the occupation is illegal, so says the UN, the EU, and the USA.
July 24, 2008 at 9:50 p.m.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... in-cyprus/
LETTER TO EDITOR: Turkish intervention in Cyprus
Friday, July 25, 2008
In her article titled "Cyprus solution, please" (Commentary, Web, July 20) Kathryn Cameron Porter repeats the same outdated rhetoric we so often hear regarding Turkey's presence on the island. It was because of the Greek Cypriots' violent 11-year campaign (from 1963 to 1974) to exterminate the Turkish Cypriot people and annex the island to Greece that Turkey intervened in 1974.
The legitimacy of the Turkish intervention was also confirmed, among others, by the Council of Europe Resolution 573 (1974) and even by the Athens Court of Appeal.
In its decision No. 2658/79 dated March 21, 1979 it held that:"The Turkish military intervention in Cyprus, which was carried out in accordance with the Zurich and London Agreements was legal. Turkey, as one of the Guarantor Powers, had the right to fulfill her obligations. The real culprits…are the Greek officers who engineered and staged a coup and prepared the conditions for this intervention."
The Turkish troops have never been described as an invading force, either by the United Nations or U.S. in their official terminology.
Furthermore, when demanding the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cyprus, Ms. Porter conveniently ignores to mention that this should also include the withdrawal of the thousands of Greek troops that are stationed in southern Cyprus.
It should be recalled that all the issues that the author is complaining about would have been resolved had the Greek Cypriot side accepted the U.N. settlement plan (the Annan Plan) over four years ago. Even the U.N. secretary-general in his report to the Security Council dated May 28, 2004 (S/2004/437) observed that "...by rejecting the Plan the Greek Cypriots were not rejecting a mere blueprint but the settlement itself" (paragraph 83).
MURAT KAVLAK
Comments 1 - 5 of 5
By: alexandrou
By Andreas E. Alexandrou, lawyer,
Mr. Kavlak in his reply to the article of Kathryn Cameron Porter and in defense of Turkey’s illegal acts in Cyprus should actually read the Treaty of Guarantee (16/08/1960) which Turkey uses to justify its ‘intervention’ on that island. It is very short (2 pages long) and easy to read.
By Article 2 of the treaty Turkey “recognizes and guarantees the independent, territorial integrity and security of the island and the state of affairs established by the Basic Articles of its Constitution”.
By Article 4, of the treaty Turkey may only intervene as a guarantor “with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present treaty”.
Mr. Kavlak will not find anything in the treaty allowing Turkey to occupy the northern half of the island, ethnically cleanse that half of its majority ethnic Greek/Christian population, colonising it with mainland Turks, and demand the partition of the island with new constitutions based on two separate federal states.
Turkey is in breach of every aspect of the Treaty of Guarantee and the only reason it is not directly criticized in the UN and the USA is that the UK and US Governments have gone out of their way, often embarrassingly for the two bastions of democracy, to shield and support their NATO ally.
July 25, 2008 at 7:27 a.m.
By: doctor
Furthermore, in 1974, Turkish troops invaded Cyprus on the pretext of protecting the 19% Turkish minority. As a result, the Turkish minority today occupies 40% of the island and 30,000 Turkish troops remain, not to mention an unknown number who have shed their uniforms and become Cypriot "citizens." This situation has remained virtually unchanged for 30 years, a situation brought about by a combination of British colonial rule and Greek-Turkish animosity.
Under the 1878 Cyprus Convention, Britain assumed administration of the island which still remained part of the Ottoman Empire. In 1923, under the Treaty of Lausanne, Turkey renounced all claim to Cyprus and in 1925, Cyprus was declared a British colony. When Cyprus won its freedom in 1960, relations between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities rapidly deteriorated because of British mandated flaws in the island’s constitution which gave disproportional rights to the Turkish Cypriot minority. These flaws in the constitution gave the Turkish minority a guarantee of the Vice Presidency and the right to block passage of certain types of legislation. I sincerely doubt that the US government would give any 19% minority in this country a guarantee of the Vice Presidency and the right to veto congressional legislation.
The seriousness of the Cyprus situation cannot be ignored. Several times, exacerbated by disagreements over air and sea rights in the Aegean, this ongoing dispute has brought Greece and Turkey to the brink of war. The US willingness to overlook Turkish human rights violations, military aggression and intransigence regarding Cyprus has shown a definite pro-Turkish policy. While Greece fought on the side of the Allies in two world wars, Turkey fought on the side of Germany in World War I and adopted a position of benevolent neutrality toward Nazi Germany in World War II. Greece survived 400 years under the brutality of the Ottoman Empire.
July 25, 2008 at 7:03 a.m.
By: doctor
I suggest everyone read, "Why the Greek Cypriots Said "NO!" found at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/
"And that is what the Annan plan is all about. Rejection by the Greek Cypriots is punishable by economic sanctions and isolation. Because of the West's past pro-Turkish bias, there is no doubt that the Annan plan is but another pro-Turkish attempt to favor the Turks. Reuters reported on 25 April, "Turkey Exults in Greek Cypriots Discomfort. . . Turkey proclaimed its biggest diplomatic victory in 50 years Sunday after Turkish northern Cyprus voted for a U.N-backed reunification plan and Greek Cypriots reaped international criticism by rejecting it. EU Enlargement Commissioner Guenter Veheugen said the result meant Greek Cyprus would enter the bloc under a 'shadow' on May 1."
July 25, 2008 at 6:46 a.m.
By: gta
Almost half of Cypriot Turks killed during the troubles were killed by Turks. “Between 11 August 1964 and 15 November 1967, records from various authoritative sources indicate that 109 Turkish-Cypriots are known to have been killed. . . . This number probably includes all Turk-Cypriots killed by Greek-Cypriots and the majority of Turk-Cypriots who were killed by members of their own community. Of these known deaths, 52 per cent were caused by Greek-Cypriots and 48 per cent were caused by Turk-Cypriots. “
[Richard A. Patrick, Political Geography and the Cyprus Conflict: 1963-1971 (Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, 1976), pp. 45-88.]
According to the international legal principle, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is illegal The invader cannot gain territorial title by conquest: title remains with the indigenous: no one argues that the Greeks were there first! Thus, Turkey itself belongs to the original owners: the Greeks, Kurds, Arabs: deal with it!
July 24, 2008 at 10:45 p.m.
By: repulsewarrior
I don't know what Cyprus Mr.Kavlak knows, but in the Cyprus I love, in my village, my home has had the same neighbours for the last 250 years. This sharing, cooperation and goodwill cannot be discounted with propaganda which pales before the facts. My neighbours were "Turks" as I am a "Greek" to satisfy the designs of interlopers. We are this island's dwellers. It is a simple fact. And like any "Cypriot" I have respect for the Patrimony which is mine be it a Mosque, a Church, or the mountain, and the trees. "I" like "them" place this Heritance over any "ethnicity", and "we" are its Steward.
Furthermore, The Republic of Cyprus has called for the demilitarisation of the island on many occasions. And it should not be forgotten that for over a span of thirty years, Mr. Denktash has been sited by all the Secretary Generals of the UN, during "that" period, before the Annan Plan, for his intransigence.
No one disputes that the intervention was welcome. (Nor can one deny the subterfuge which Kissinger masterminded, for the madness of the Cold War, in Greece with the Junta.)
However the occupation is illegal, so says the UN, the EU, and the USA.
July 24, 2008 at 9:50 p.m.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... in-cyprus/
Last edited by Kikapu on Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Kikapu - Leading Contributor
- Posts: 18050
- Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm
by Kikapu » Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:15 pm
The Washington Times
LETTER TO EDITOR: Turkey's role in Cyprus
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Bruce Fein attempts to reverse the role of aggressor and victim in Cyprus by suggesting that the United States can help unify the country if it removes the embargo against the Turkish Cypriot pseudo-state, the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus ("Needing an excuse for success," Commentary, July 22). Such a move would be tantamount to the United States legitimizing Turkey's illegal invasion of Cyprus 34 years ago.
The historical facts are irrefutable: Turkey, the aggressor, illegally invaded Cyprus on July 20, 1974, and in the second phase of its invasion, on Aug. 14, 1974, took control of close to 40 percent of the island, displacing more than 180,000 residents from their homes and businesses.
Despite numerous U.N. resolutions calling for withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cyprus, Turkey continues to occupy more than 37 percent of the country. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is merely a military compound created by Turkey to house the 43,000 troops Turkey maintains on Cyprus, which exceeds the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
If Mr. Fein seriously cared about what he describes as the international embargo on the TRNC, he would be calling on Turkey to remove its 43,000 troops and 160,000 Turks from Turkey who are illegal settlers.
He would insist that Greek and Turkish Cypriots be allowed to reunify their nation within the framework of the European Union and consistent with the applicable U.N. resolutions issued over the past three decades.
Instead, Mr. Fein exhorts the United States, in effect, to recognize the illegal invasion and continued occupation of Cyprus by extending to the TRNC the benefits of a nation-state. Such a policy would only continue to force the Turkish Cypriot community to remain inside the Turkish military compound and be denied the rights and benefits of citizenship in the European Union.
NICK LARIGAKIS
American Hellenic Institute
Washington
Comments 1 - 3 of 3
By: alexandrou
Ataharry's comments are little more than standard pro-Turkish propaganda from the 'its not true but if we publish it enough times it will be believed' office.
The Treaty of Guarantee he refers to only permits Turkey to intervene in Cyprus to restore its sovereignty, constitution and territorial integrity. Turkey is in breach of that Treaty in occupying, ethnically cleansing, and demanding the creation of a Turkish only northern half of Cyprus. Neither does the treaty permit the mass influx of Turkish colonist, who now outnumber the Turkish Cypriot population 3 to 1. In addition Turkish Cypriots have been escaping in their thousands the safety afforded to them by Turkey, by emigrating to Australia, Canada and the UK.
August 4, 2008 at 5 a.m.
By: lafi52
'Mr' ataharry, in his comments below is being very economical with the truth; here another example of Turksih Cypriots approach to 'cooperation': '...Turkish Cypriot teams were involved in the founding of the Cypriot FA in 1934 but withdrew from the island's unified league in 1955 after disputes between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities worsened.' This quote from Reuters article appearing today in the press refers to a time when the British were the rulers in Cyprus. In 1963 the Constitution was not violated...there were proposals for changes to the Constitution which the Turkish Minority of 18% unable to meet its commitments of providing educated staff to fill the 30% of government/police posts were unwilling to renegotiate such proportionalities in order to make the government workable and efficient. The Annan plan was an imposed plan which would render the Turkish aggressor squeeky clean, still leave Greek Cypriots as refugees and never allowed to return to their homes (or t least a very significant proportion of them)plus they would have to foot the bill of all the compensation for those disposessed etc. - what would Mr. ataharry have voted if he had to give up all these things? That over 30% of Greek Cypriots still voted 'yes' to the plan is pretty astonishing and quite laudable. The 1960 Constitution, also imposed on the Cypriots, allowed guarantor countries to intervene where the constitution was violated - it is true that there was a violation due to the coup against the Makarios Government, but the guarantor was only allowed to come in to restore the status quo ante...Turkey invaded and ethically cleansed the northern part of the island, brought in 100000+ settles from Anatolia, still ,maintains 30000+ troops there - illegally...the UN becomes useless if perpetrators like Turkey, choose to ignore its instructions 'Mr.' ataharry
August 3, 2008 at 1:31 a.m.
By: ataharry
Nick Larigakis asserts that Turkey illegally invaded Cyprus in 1974. As one of the three guarantors of the 1960 Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus, Turkey was legally entitled to send in its army to save the Turkish Cypriots from annihalation. Perhaps Mr Larigakis could enlighten readers on who was responsible for the violation of the Constution in 1963 and for the next eleven years forced the Turkish Cypriots to starve in enclaves and planned ( Akritas Plan) to totally eliminate ALL Turkish Cypriots from the island. When Kofi Annan offered both sides the opportunity to re-unite, who voted against his plan? The Greek Cypriots. The United Nations is and always has been a useless organisation. It should never have recognised Makarios as the President of Cyprus when he tore up the Constitution and later when he survived a coup by the Greek junta. The only story told to the world about Cyprus is a Big Fat Greek Lie.
August 2, 2008 at 11:23 p.m.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... in-cyprus/
LETTER TO EDITOR: Turkey's role in Cyprus
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Bruce Fein attempts to reverse the role of aggressor and victim in Cyprus by suggesting that the United States can help unify the country if it removes the embargo against the Turkish Cypriot pseudo-state, the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus ("Needing an excuse for success," Commentary, July 22). Such a move would be tantamount to the United States legitimizing Turkey's illegal invasion of Cyprus 34 years ago.
The historical facts are irrefutable: Turkey, the aggressor, illegally invaded Cyprus on July 20, 1974, and in the second phase of its invasion, on Aug. 14, 1974, took control of close to 40 percent of the island, displacing more than 180,000 residents from their homes and businesses.
Despite numerous U.N. resolutions calling for withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cyprus, Turkey continues to occupy more than 37 percent of the country. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is merely a military compound created by Turkey to house the 43,000 troops Turkey maintains on Cyprus, which exceeds the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
If Mr. Fein seriously cared about what he describes as the international embargo on the TRNC, he would be calling on Turkey to remove its 43,000 troops and 160,000 Turks from Turkey who are illegal settlers.
He would insist that Greek and Turkish Cypriots be allowed to reunify their nation within the framework of the European Union and consistent with the applicable U.N. resolutions issued over the past three decades.
Instead, Mr. Fein exhorts the United States, in effect, to recognize the illegal invasion and continued occupation of Cyprus by extending to the TRNC the benefits of a nation-state. Such a policy would only continue to force the Turkish Cypriot community to remain inside the Turkish military compound and be denied the rights and benefits of citizenship in the European Union.
NICK LARIGAKIS
American Hellenic Institute
Washington
Comments 1 - 3 of 3
By: alexandrou
Ataharry's comments are little more than standard pro-Turkish propaganda from the 'its not true but if we publish it enough times it will be believed' office.
The Treaty of Guarantee he refers to only permits Turkey to intervene in Cyprus to restore its sovereignty, constitution and territorial integrity. Turkey is in breach of that Treaty in occupying, ethnically cleansing, and demanding the creation of a Turkish only northern half of Cyprus. Neither does the treaty permit the mass influx of Turkish colonist, who now outnumber the Turkish Cypriot population 3 to 1. In addition Turkish Cypriots have been escaping in their thousands the safety afforded to them by Turkey, by emigrating to Australia, Canada and the UK.
August 4, 2008 at 5 a.m.
By: lafi52
'Mr' ataharry, in his comments below is being very economical with the truth; here another example of Turksih Cypriots approach to 'cooperation': '...Turkish Cypriot teams were involved in the founding of the Cypriot FA in 1934 but withdrew from the island's unified league in 1955 after disputes between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities worsened.' This quote from Reuters article appearing today in the press refers to a time when the British were the rulers in Cyprus. In 1963 the Constitution was not violated...there were proposals for changes to the Constitution which the Turkish Minority of 18% unable to meet its commitments of providing educated staff to fill the 30% of government/police posts were unwilling to renegotiate such proportionalities in order to make the government workable and efficient. The Annan plan was an imposed plan which would render the Turkish aggressor squeeky clean, still leave Greek Cypriots as refugees and never allowed to return to their homes (or t least a very significant proportion of them)plus they would have to foot the bill of all the compensation for those disposessed etc. - what would Mr. ataharry have voted if he had to give up all these things? That over 30% of Greek Cypriots still voted 'yes' to the plan is pretty astonishing and quite laudable. The 1960 Constitution, also imposed on the Cypriots, allowed guarantor countries to intervene where the constitution was violated - it is true that there was a violation due to the coup against the Makarios Government, but the guarantor was only allowed to come in to restore the status quo ante...Turkey invaded and ethically cleansed the northern part of the island, brought in 100000+ settles from Anatolia, still ,maintains 30000+ troops there - illegally...the UN becomes useless if perpetrators like Turkey, choose to ignore its instructions 'Mr.' ataharry
August 3, 2008 at 1:31 a.m.
By: ataharry
Nick Larigakis asserts that Turkey illegally invaded Cyprus in 1974. As one of the three guarantors of the 1960 Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus, Turkey was legally entitled to send in its army to save the Turkish Cypriots from annihalation. Perhaps Mr Larigakis could enlighten readers on who was responsible for the violation of the Constution in 1963 and for the next eleven years forced the Turkish Cypriots to starve in enclaves and planned ( Akritas Plan) to totally eliminate ALL Turkish Cypriots from the island. When Kofi Annan offered both sides the opportunity to re-unite, who voted against his plan? The Greek Cypriots. The United Nations is and always has been a useless organisation. It should never have recognised Makarios as the President of Cyprus when he tore up the Constitution and later when he survived a coup by the Greek junta. The only story told to the world about Cyprus is a Big Fat Greek Lie.
August 2, 2008 at 11:23 p.m.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... in-cyprus/
-
Kikapu - Leading Contributor
- Posts: 18050
- Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm
by boomerang » Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:52 pm
Dirty harry got bitch slapped...on second thought make that turkey slapped
It just proves that Dirty Harry knows shit about Cyprus and the constitution and this explains as to why his book is full of shit...
It just proves that Dirty Harry knows shit about Cyprus and the constitution and this explains as to why his book is full of shit...
-
boomerang - Main Contributor
- Posts: 7337
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 5:56 am
by Kikapu » Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:07 pm
By: ataharry
To Alexandrou and lafi52
Can you challenge me on the fact that Turkish Cypriots were embargoed for eleven years and Makarios gave instruction to allow them enough calories to stay alive but no more. Can you deny that there was the Akritas Plan to eliminate all Turkish Cypriots in a short time before the world would be able to act? Are you happy that
Nicos Sampson was if only temporarily President of Cyprus.The Cyprus problem did not begin in 1974. That is Greek propaganda.
I concede that Greek Cypriots were forced to accept an unusual Constitution. However, their political leader, Makarios, did. If only he had waited ten years and shown that Greek Cypriots could accomodate their Turkish Cypriot brethern, a change to the Constitution may well have been acceptable.
I am not Turkish or Turkish Cypriot. I served in the British Army 1957-1959. Most Greek Cypriots I spoke to would have preferred the island to remain British but were terrorised by EOKA or threatend with excommunication by the Church.
Turkey, Britain and Greece should have taken action in 1963 when the 'status quo' had been destroyed.
They didn't so many Turkish Cypriots were forced or paid to leave the island.
August 6, 2008 at 11:43 p.m.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... in-cyprus/
"I am not Turkish or Turkish Cypriot. I served in the British Army 1957-1959."
That certainly explains everything about "ataharry".!!!
To Alexandrou and lafi52
Can you challenge me on the fact that Turkish Cypriots were embargoed for eleven years and Makarios gave instruction to allow them enough calories to stay alive but no more. Can you deny that there was the Akritas Plan to eliminate all Turkish Cypriots in a short time before the world would be able to act? Are you happy that
Nicos Sampson was if only temporarily President of Cyprus.The Cyprus problem did not begin in 1974. That is Greek propaganda.
I concede that Greek Cypriots were forced to accept an unusual Constitution. However, their political leader, Makarios, did. If only he had waited ten years and shown that Greek Cypriots could accomodate their Turkish Cypriot brethern, a change to the Constitution may well have been acceptable.
I am not Turkish or Turkish Cypriot. I served in the British Army 1957-1959. Most Greek Cypriots I spoke to would have preferred the island to remain British but were terrorised by EOKA or threatend with excommunication by the Church.
Turkey, Britain and Greece should have taken action in 1963 when the 'status quo' had been destroyed.
They didn't so many Turkish Cypriots were forced or paid to leave the island.
August 6, 2008 at 11:43 p.m.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... in-cyprus/
"I am not Turkish or Turkish Cypriot. I served in the British Army 1957-1959."
That certainly explains everything about "ataharry".!!!
-
Kikapu - Leading Contributor
- Posts: 18050
- Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm
by boomerang » Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:42 pm
Dirty Harry, refused to counter the invasion theory he had and what was the role of the guarantors... owned big time...
Now he moved away from his theory to something else...again talking shit...
Now he moved away from his theory to something else...again talking shit...
-
boomerang - Main Contributor
- Posts: 7337
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 5:56 am
by Kikapu » Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:47 pm
boomerang wrote:Dirty Harry, refused to counter the invasion theory he had and what was the role of the guarantors... owned big time...
Now he moved away from his theory to something else...again talking shit...
Boomer, did you say "Dirty Harry" has a book, and if so, what is the tittle.??
-
Kikapu - Leading Contributor
- Posts: 18050
- Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm
by boomerang » Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:57 pm
Kikapu wrote:boomerang wrote:Dirty Harry, refused to counter the invasion theory he had and what was the role of the guarantors... owned big time...
Now he moved away from his theory to something else...again talking shit...
Boomer, did you say "Dirty Harry" has a book, and if so, what is the tittle.??
Some weird story that even the ATCA boys didn' want to get...and he is very sore about that...
I will try and get it for you...I think it was called love and death in Cyprus...It was a fairy tale about a love story between a pom and TC girl...and a lot of bullshit in between...this is quite evident by the way he debates...
If the forum he was posting was a proper debate forum he would have been disqualified...He didn't counter any of the other people s arguments...he just spat the dummy in all directions...The other debaters countered his arguments...and by him, harry shooting his mouth in all directions, he proved once again, he is talking shit...
He was especially sore that the north didn't promote it...go figure...He was even more sore when an Armenian book made the top 10 in New York...
...all this at the ATCA web site...
Pure comedy...Some of the guys at ATCA said that they didn't have the money to buy it...
...I think to shut him up -
boomerang - Main Contributor
- Posts: 7337
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 5:56 am
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
© 2002 - 2015 Cyprus-Forum.com
