Cyprus-Forum.com

[Nikitas]

"Turkish pilots are the best in NATO. The Greeks are useless, the Italians are worse" says a Turkish pilot who took part in the Cyprus invasion to American author Paul Theroux, quoted in the latter's book "The Pillars of Hercules" a travel book about the Mediterranean.

Well, if the best pilots in NATO can manage to bomb their own soldiers, sink one of their destroyers, badly damage two others, while getting three of their own planes shot down in the process, and do all this while they are totally unopposed in the air, then may the Lord protect NATO! On wonders if this Gazi pilot is one of those who received GC houses in Karmi as a reward for their bravery.

Not to mention the naval commanders who shelled their own soldiers because the "shells fell short". No wonder they feel they need 40 000 soldiers permanently based in Cyprus to feel safe!

[halil]

Me too hoping one day ICJ will handle the events in Cyprus frm 1963 -1974 ..... that everything will be come out all the criminals will be charged and fined. Insallah......Insallah ..... Insallah

Well, dear Halil, Turkey has had a great opportunity to have the ICJ examine both the events of 1963 -1974, on the basis of her claims vis-a-vie the "illegality" of the RoC after 1963, and also the RoC claims regarding the illegality of the 1974 Turkish invasion and subsequent occupation, had it accepted just one of the RoC invitations to proceed together to the ICJ. Turkey refused! Does this ring any bells to you? It does many to me, the loudest one being that Turkey doesn’t believe nor has faith in what she claims, both for the 1963-74 period and the 1974 invasion! She simply feels what every body else in the international community does, i.e. that she has no case to prove!

Kifeas,
I don't care if Turkey wants or not but i do care one day , they have to examine the events bet ween 63 and 74 .... we all know the truth ..... before 74 Turkish troops was'nt in Cyprus ..... Turkey came to Cyprus at 20 July 74 ..... ICJ have to investigate 11 years of the Turkish Cypriots losses from 63-74 and from 74 upto now .For GC's losses from 74 up to now . Justies for everybody even if my father is quilty he has to pay for it . like your dad , if he is ......
No way to get out just blaming Turkey ...... Where is the Greece ? and GC's side in it . Than i can clamp you , that you are honest with your words ...... Justies for everybody

[pg]

Summary:

Turkey used the 1959/60 agreements as an excuse to use military force. The agreements allow military force only if the objective is to restore the state of affairs as outlined in the 1959/60 constitution.
As soon as Turkey had landed the request was not to restore 'the state of affairs' but to implement a BBF with 34%.
When the GC side asked for 48h consideration, Turkey said no and 'implemented' the 34% by force, effectively using what we now call ethnic cleansing. One reason why the 48h were not allowed may have been that the Turkish side feared an acceptance from the GC side - which would have meant ethnically mixed zones...
What I called ethnic cleansing can be summarized as in the 4th Geneva Convention - if I remember correctly around article 30 or 33 - and so is considered a war crime. This is the reason why the TRNC is not internationally recognized today.

(I tried to keep this summary to the discussed time period, which does not mean other periods are less part of the Cyprus problem.)

[Oracle]

Summary:

Turkey used the 1959/60 agreements as an excuse to use military force. The agreements allow military force only if the objective is to restore the state of affairs as outlined in the 1959/60 constitution.
As soon as Turkey had landed the request was not to restore 'the state of affairs' but to implement a BBF with 34%.
When the GC side asked for 48h consideration, Turkey said no and 'implemented' the 34% by force, effectively using what we now call ethnic cleansing. One reason why the 48h were not allowed may have been that the Turkish side feared an acceptance from the GC side - which would have meant ethnically mixed zones...
What I called ethnic cleansing can be summarized as in the 4th Geneva Convention - if I remember correctly around article 30 or 33 - and so is considered a war crime. This is the reason why the TRNC is not internationally recognized today.

(I tried to keep this summary to the discussed time period, which does not mean other periods are less part of the Cyprus problem.)

So the prime objective of Turkey's "intervention" was the ethnic cleansing for the 34%?

[Viewpoint]

Summary:

Turkey used the 1959/60 agreements as an excuse to use military force. The agreements allow military force only if the objective is to restore the state of affairs as outlined in the 1959/60 constitution.
As soon as Turkey had landed the request was not to restore 'the state of affairs' but to implement a BBF with 34%.
When the GC side asked for 48h consideration, Turkey said no and 'implemented' the 34% by force, effectively using what we now call ethnic cleansing. One reason why the 48h were not allowed may have been that the Turkish side feared an acceptance from the GC side - which would have meant ethnically mixed zones...
What I called ethnic cleansing can be summarized as in the 4th Geneva Convention - if I remember correctly around article 30 or 33 - and so is considered a war crime. This is the reason why the TRNC is not internationally recognized today.

(I tried to keep this summary to the discussed time period, which does not mean other periods are less part of the Cyprus problem.)

So the prime objective of Turkey's "intervention" was the ethnic cleansing for the 34%?

What elsew could do they do when faced with 11 years of GC intrangience and persecution of TCs plus the unwelcoming verocity of the GCs against the Turkish army.

[zan]

Summary:

Turkey used the 1959/60 agreements as an excuse to use military force. The agreements allow military force only if the objective is to restore the state of affairs as outlined in the 1959/60 constitution.
As soon as Turkey had landed the request was not to restore 'the state of affairs' but to implement a BBF with 34%.
When the GC side asked for 48h consideration, Turkey said no and 'implemented' the 34% by force, effectively using what we now call ethnic cleansing. One reason why the 48h were not allowed may have been that the Turkish side feared an acceptance from the GC side - which would have meant ethnically mixed zones...
What I called ethnic cleansing can be summarized as in the 4th Geneva Convention - if I remember correctly around article 30 or 33 - and so is considered a war crime. This is the reason why the TRNC is not internationally recognized today.

(I tried to keep this summary to the discussed time period, which does not mean other periods are less part of the Cyprus problem.)

So the prime objective of Turkey's "intervention" was the ethnic cleansing for the 34%?

Hahaha!!!


Turkey came to protect her interests AND the TCs from slaughter and persecution of 11 years. The ethnic cleansing of the TCs does not seem to be in this summary nor the fact that Turkey did not have a government under the Zurich agreement to return the country to. The fact that the 48 hours was being used by the GCs to reinforce their position and that Turkey could not allow them to do that in war was not mentioned either. All the talks and resolutions leading up to 1974 was omitted also

[Oracle]

Summary:

Turkey used the 1959/60 agreements as an excuse to use military force. The agreements allow military force only if the objective is to restore the state of affairs as outlined in the 1959/60 constitution.
As soon as Turkey had landed the request was not to restore 'the state of affairs' but to implement a BBF with 34%.
When the GC side asked for 48h consideration, Turkey said no and 'implemented' the 34% by force, effectively using what we now call ethnic cleansing. One reason why the 48h were not allowed may have been that the Turkish side feared an acceptance from the GC side - which would have meant ethnically mixed zones...
What I called ethnic cleansing can be summarized as in the 4th Geneva Convention - if I remember correctly around article 30 or 33 - and so is considered a war crime. This is the reason why the TRNC is not internationally recognized today.

(I tried to keep this summary to the discussed time period, which does not mean other periods are less part of the Cyprus problem.)

So the prime objective of Turkey's "intervention" was the ethnic cleansing for the 34%?

What elsew could do they do when faced with 11 years of GC intrangience and persecution of TCs plus the unwelcoming verocity of the GCs against the Turkish army.

So they did not come as a guarantor power ... nor to "restore peace" because of the coup?

[Viewpoint]

Summary:

Turkey used the 1959/60 agreements as an excuse to use military force. The agreements allow military force only if the objective is to restore the state of affairs as outlined in the 1959/60 constitution.
As soon as Turkey had landed the request was not to restore 'the state of affairs' but to implement a BBF with 34%.
When the GC side asked for 48h consideration, Turkey said no and 'implemented' the 34% by force, effectively using what we now call ethnic cleansing. One reason why the 48h were not allowed may have been that the Turkish side feared an acceptance from the GC side - which would have meant ethnically mixed zones...
What I called ethnic cleansing can be summarized as in the 4th Geneva Convention - if I remember correctly around article 30 or 33 - and so is considered a war crime. This is the reason why the TRNC is not internationally recognized today.

(I tried to keep this summary to the discussed time period, which does not mean other periods are less part of the Cyprus problem.)

So the prime objective of Turkey's "intervention" was the ethnic cleansing for the 34%?

What elsew could do they do when faced with 11 years of GC intrangience and persecution of TCs plus the unwelcoming verocity of the GCs against the Turkish army.

So they did not come as a guarantor power ... nor to "restore peace" because of the coup?

The coup was the last drop in long period of 11 years, they met with GC resistence and fought to create peaceful exsistence which you have ot admit we have enjoyed for 34 years and counting.

[zan]

Summary:

Turkey used the 1959/60 agreements as an excuse to use military force. The agreements allow military force only if the objective is to restore the state of affairs as outlined in the 1959/60 constitution.
As soon as Turkey had landed the request was not to restore 'the state of affairs' but to implement a BBF with 34%.
When the GC side asked for 48h consideration, Turkey said no and 'implemented' the 34% by force, effectively using what we now call ethnic cleansing. One reason why the 48h were not allowed may have been that the Turkish side feared an acceptance from the GC side - which would have meant ethnically mixed zones...
What I called ethnic cleansing can be summarized as in the 4th Geneva Convention - if I remember correctly around article 30 or 33 - and so is considered a war crime. This is the reason why the TRNC is not internationally recognized today.

(I tried to keep this summary to the discussed time period, which does not mean other periods are less part of the Cyprus problem.)

So the prime objective of Turkey's "intervention" was the ethnic cleansing for the 34%?

What elsew could do they do when faced with 11 years of GC intrangience and persecution of TCs plus the unwelcoming verocity of the GCs against the Turkish army.

So they did not come as a guarantor power ... nor to "restore peace" because of the coup?

The coup was the last drop in long period of 11 years, they met with GC resistence and fought to create peaceful exsistence which you have ot admit we have enjoyed for 34 years and counting.

This is the whole problem with the GC mentality in which they are taught that nothing happened in that period to get TUrkey to that point.....People like Oracle being the teachers of course

[Nikitas]

OK Zan let us say we accept that GCs were responsible for every little thing wrong before 1974. How does that justify imposing partition on the pretext of restoring the 1960 constitution? You are stretching credibility to the limits.

PG above has a point when he says that the Greek side accepting the 34 per cent with the population in place was a risk Turkey did not want to take. The presence of GCs in the north was never part of the Turkish plan, and that is about as close a definition of ethnic cleansing as anyone can find.

Mainland Turks like the journalist Mehmet Ali Birad have no problem stating that the secong Attila operation in Cyprus was a mistake and its results morally wrong, yet you still try to excuse the inexcusable and still claim you are Cypriots.

What you come across is as professional propagandists for the most reactionary section of Turkey.