Cyprus-Forum.com

[zan]

Wasting you time again DT?!

Not really...You might both learn something though I doubt it!!!!!

[DT.]

[Fact: all Cypriots were happy that help was forthcoming Internationally, and that Turkey, as a Guarantor could act to restore our State, as a result of a coup.

.... Really? What evidence is there for your multi-statement, RW ....

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.

7. Calls upon the signatory states to guarantee the sovereignty, territorial integrity and
security of Cyprus, including an improved status, guaranteeing the security and the rights
of the Turkish community, as well as the political independence of a democratically
governed Cyprus, as laid down when Cyprus became independent in 1960

This resoluiton was carried out between the 2 invasions. You have broken article 7 which calls for the gaurantee of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus.

Your attempts at legalising an ongoing invasion and occupation of half the island and our homes is pathetic.

Two different issues my friend and how long after did Athens accept the decision????

You're not being clear here. WHat decision did Athens accept? The resolution? How was acceptance deemed?

The point that you are making is still under discussion.....When there is a legitimate and fair government of the whole of Cyprus then and only then can the island be handed back to anyone. Over 40 years of rejections and games by you have kept Turkey on the island and the constant threat of attack from you moving troops to the front line whenever there was a chance that the sabotage of Turkey might give you the chance to finish what you started in 1963!!!!

Actually the point I am making is not up for discussion. The entire world, the UN, the EU, Russia, the US and a large number of prgressive TC writers and journalists have accepted that the invasion and occupation is an illegal one. Now if your grounds for declaring something "under discussion" are that YOU"RE still talking about it then fair enough to you.

The rest of the world has stopped discussing this point and has declared the invasion and occupation illegal. (Don't make me list UN resolutions) The only grounds that existed for any legality to have taken place is if Turkey intervened to overthrow Sampson. COnsidering the coup ended after the first invasion and the Greeks and GC's were discussing a return to the 1960 constitution as stated in the Treaty of Gaurantee....Turkey was discussing the Gunes Plan.

A NEW constitution and a new government. It was clear that the strategy changed thanks to the Turkish troops on the ground in Cyprus. Taksim a life long dream of TC's was now possible and Turkey was not going to back down. Fact was that the Gunes plan immediately showed the world how Turkey broke the Treaty of Gaurantee. When talks were in progress to re-instate the 1960 agreements (as called by the Treaty of Gaurantee) and Turkey launched another wave of invasion and occupation then some people would congratulate you for having the balls and the cannabis in your system to insist that the invasion and occupation is a legal one.

Fasil Kucuk declared it in 1957! TMT fought for it and Turkey enforced it. A well thought out plan.

Now do you see why I thought you were high?

You are trying too hard DT

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 rest of the resolution took the fait acmpli of the GC government and had no room to maneuver. A well planned and executed extremist move designed by Tpap way back when. The Akritas plan was a two edged sword both aimed at the TCs. If the plan of getting us out of government did not work then the murders would. Antagonising TCs and calling it "inter-communal fighting" so that the UN had no choice but to recognise the only people in government with GC armed guards outside the government building stopping TCs getting in and causing chaos all over the island with attacks.

Zan for ffs please stop making a pest of yourself and read the Treaty of Gaurantee and what it should uphold. The High Court of Athens who was condemning the junta of Athens at the time did indeed find the first invasion in line with the treaty of gaurantee. What you are trying to do however is beneath even your tactics. The 2nd Turkish invasion which took over 37% of the islands territory was contrary to the Treaty of Gaurantee. The continued occupation of the island is contrary to the Treaty of Gaurantee

ARTICLE II
Greece, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, taking note of the undertakings of
the Republic of Cyprus set out in Article I of the present Treaty, recognise
and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity, and security of the
Republic of Cyprus, and also the state of affairs established by the Basic
Articles of its Constitution.


Greece, Turkey, and the United Kingdom likewise undertake to prohibit, so
far as concern them, any activity aimed at promoting, directly or indirectly,
either union of Cyprus with any other State or partition of the Island.

In so far as common or concerted action may not prove possible, each of the three guaranteeing
Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of reestablishing the state of affairs created by
the present Treaty.

I've already posted what the EU concil resolution stated and since it was issued between the 2 invasions Turkey did not heed the resolution when it called for THE SOVEREIGNTY AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF CYPRUS TO BE PROTECTED

7. Calls upon the signatory states to guarantee the sovereignty, territorial integrity and
security of Cyprus, including an improved status, guaranteeing the security and the rights
of the Turkish community, as well as the political independence of a democratically
governed Cyprus, as laid down when Cyprus became independent in 1960

What you have posted amounts to nothing my friend...It doesn't explain what was going on and why the talks failed and why the decision was made in 1979 and not "Between the two interventions"....Half the story does not explain it.

I think it is you that needs to read the constitution and ask why Makarios did not want to go back to it in full and why in between the intervention the Gcs were reenforcing there positions whilst talks were going on which forced Turkey to act.

Makarios was not even in the talks you plonker!! It was Clerides and he was trying to negotiate what was said on the treaty of gaurantee

Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of reestablishing the state of affairs created by
the present Treaty.

The Gunes plan however did not call for the 1960 constituion being reinstated but instead a very loose federation of 2 states. SOmething which Clerides requested 36 hours to deliberate with the rest of the political parties in Cyprus. Naturally none of this was ever the goal of Turkey and therefore not even 36 hours were granted in the end just in case the the original plan of taksim was at a risk of not being implemented. All the goodwill in the world tells me that a 36 hours request is rejected and instead a mammoth millitary push to capture and ethnically cleanse 1/3 of the population of a country does not strike me as having fullfilled its obligations under the treaty of gautantee.

[zan]

[Fact: all Cypriots were happy that help was forthcoming Internationally, and that Turkey, as a Guarantor could act to restore our State, as a result of a coup.

.... Really? What evidence is there for your multi-statement, RW ....

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.

7. Calls upon the signatory states to guarantee the sovereignty, territorial integrity and
security of Cyprus, including an improved status, guaranteeing the security and the rights
of the Turkish community, as well as the political independence of a democratically
governed Cyprus, as laid down when Cyprus became independent in 1960

This resoluiton was carried out between the 2 invasions. You have broken article 7 which calls for the gaurantee of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus.

Your attempts at legalising an ongoing invasion and occupation of half the island and our homes is pathetic.

Two different issues my friend and how long after did Athens accept the decision????

You're not being clear here. WHat decision did Athens accept? The resolution? How was acceptance deemed?

The point that you are making is still under discussion.....When there is a legitimate and fair government of the whole of Cyprus then and only then can the island be handed back to anyone. Over 40 years of rejections and games by you have kept Turkey on the island and the constant threat of attack from you moving troops to the front line whenever there was a chance that the sabotage of Turkey might give you the chance to finish what you started in 1963!!!!

Actually the point I am making is not up for discussion. The entire world, the UN, the EU, Russia, the US and a large number of prgressive TC writers and journalists have accepted that the invasion and occupation is an illegal one. Now if your grounds for declaring something "under discussion" are that YOU"RE still talking about it then fair enough to you.

The rest of the world has stopped discussing this point and has declared the invasion and occupation illegal. (Don't make me list UN resolutions) The only grounds that existed for any legality to have taken place is if Turkey intervened to overthrow Sampson. COnsidering the coup ended after the first invasion and the Greeks and GC's were discussing a return to the 1960 constitution as stated in the Treaty of Gaurantee....Turkey was discussing the Gunes Plan.

A NEW constitution and a new government. It was clear that the strategy changed thanks to the Turkish troops on the ground in Cyprus. Taksim a life long dream of TC's was now possible and Turkey was not going to back down. Fact was that the Gunes plan immediately showed the world how Turkey broke the Treaty of Gaurantee. When talks were in progress to re-instate the 1960 agreements (as called by the Treaty of Gaurantee) and Turkey launched another wave of invasion and occupation then some people would congratulate you for having the balls and the cannabis in your system to insist that the invasion and occupation is a legal one.

Fasil Kucuk declared it in 1957! TMT fought for it and Turkey enforced it. A well thought out plan.

Now do you see why I thought you were high?

You are trying too hard DT

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 rest of the resolution took the fait acmpli of the GC government and had no room to maneuver. A well planned and executed extremist move designed by Tpap way back when. The Akritas plan was a two edged sword both aimed at the TCs. If the plan of getting us out of government did not work then the murders would. Antagonising TCs and calling it "inter-communal fighting" so that the UN had no choice but to recognise the only people in government with GC armed guards outside the government building stopping TCs getting in and causing chaos all over the island with attacks.

Zan for ffs please stop making a pest of yourself and read the Treaty of Gaurantee and what it should uphold. The High Court of Athens who was condemning the junta of Athens at the time did indeed find the first invasion in line with the treaty of gaurantee. What you are trying to do however is beneath even your tactics. The 2nd Turkish invasion which took over 37% of the islands territory was contrary to the Treaty of Gaurantee. The continued occupation of the island is contrary to the Treaty of Gaurantee

ARTICLE II
Greece, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, taking note of the undertakings of
the Republic of Cyprus set out in Article I of the present Treaty, recognise
and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity, and security of the
Republic of Cyprus, and also the state of affairs established by the Basic
Articles of its Constitution.


Greece, Turkey, and the United Kingdom likewise undertake to prohibit, so
far as concern them, any activity aimed at promoting, directly or indirectly,
either union of Cyprus with any other State or partition of the Island.

In so far as common or concerted action may not prove possible, each of the three guaranteeing
Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of reestablishing the state of affairs created by
the present Treaty.

I've already posted what the EU concil resolution stated and since it was issued between the 2 invasions Turkey did not heed the resolution when it called for THE SOVEREIGNTY AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF CYPRUS TO BE PROTECTED

7. Calls upon the signatory states to guarantee the sovereignty, territorial integrity and
security of Cyprus, including an improved status, guaranteeing the security and the rights
of the Turkish community, as well as the political independence of a democratically
governed Cyprus, as laid down when Cyprus became independent in 1960

What you have posted amounts to nothing my friend...It doesn't explain what was going on and why the talks failed and why the decision was made in 1979 and not "Between the two interventions"....Half the story does not explain it.

I think it is you that needs to read the constitution and ask why Makarios did not want to go back to it in full and why in between the intervention the Gcs were reenforcing there positions whilst talks were going on which forced Turkey to act.

Makarios was not even in the talks you plonker!! It was Clerides and he was trying to negotiate what was said on the treaty of gaurantee

Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of reestablishing the state of affairs created by
the present Treaty.

The Gunes plan however did not call for the 1960 constituion being reinstated but instead a very loose federation of 2 states. SOmething which Clerides requested 36 hours to deliberate with the rest of the political parties in Cyprus. Naturally none of this was ever the goal of Turkey and therefore not even 36 hours were granted in the end just in case the the original plan of taksim was at a risk of not being implemented. All the goodwill in the world tells me that a 36 hours request is rejected and instead a mammoth millitary push to capture and ethnically cleanse 1/3 of the population of a country does not strike me as having fullfilled its obligations under the treaty of gautantee.

Where was he then DT.....Maybe not in person but I think he was seen on the island of Barbados taking his holidays...


36 hours to reinforce its troops more like......Perhaps if troop movements had not been seen then Turkey would not have had the need to move again. Perhaps the USA saw this and thought F**K it...Let the bastards sort it out....

[DT.]

thats right Zan. I give you historical text and you give me F**k it!

[zan]

thats right Zan. I give you historical text and you give me F**k it!

You gave me nothing but your interpretation and I gave you mine.....

Just quoting the constitution is not good enough mate....You know what happened in reality and are ignoring it.

[DT.]

thats right Zan. I give you historical text and you give me F**k it!

You gave me nothing but your interpretation and I gave you mine.....

Just quoting the constitution is not good enough mate....You know what happened in reality and are ignoring it.

Zan, you're the one that uses the constitution to justify an illegal action. I can use a whole host of other documents to justify how illegal this invasion was. In fact that would be even easier for my case. If you don't want to rely on the Treaty of Guarantee to excuse Turkish actions then lets move on to something else you want to rely on.

[zan]

thats right Zan. I give you historical text and you give me F**k it!

You gave me nothing but your interpretation and I gave you mine.....

Just quoting the constitution is not good enough mate....You know what happened in reality and are ignoring it.

Zan, you're the one that uses the constitution to justify an illegal action. I can use a whole host of other documents to justify how illegal this invasion was. In fact that would be even easier for my case. If you don't want to rely on the Treaty of Guarantee to excuse Turkish actions then lets move on to something else you want to rely on.

What is this then DT???

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."

[DT.]

here you go again Zan. A response to both your references

Zan for ffs please stop making a pest of yourself and read the Treaty of Gaurantee and what it should uphold. The High Court of Athens who was condemning the junta of Athens at the time did indeed find the first invasion in line with the treaty of gaurantee. What you are trying to do however is beneath even your tactics. The 2nd Turkish invasion which took over 37% of the islands territory was contrary to the Treaty of Gaurantee. The continued occupation of the island is contrary to the Treaty of Gaurantee

ARTICLE II
Greece, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, taking note of the undertakings of
the Republic of Cyprus set out in Article I of the present Treaty, recognise
and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity, and security of the
Republic of Cyprus, and also the state of affairs established by the Basic
Articles of its Constitution.


Greece, Turkey, and the United Kingdom likewise undertake to prohibit, so
far as concern them, any activity aimed at promoting, directly or indirectly,
either union of Cyprus with any other State or partition of the Island.

In so far as common or concerted action may not prove possible, each of the three guaranteeing
Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of reestablishing the state of affairs created by
the present Treaty.

I've already posted what the EU concil resolution stated and since it was issued between the 2 invasions Turkey did not heed the resolution when it called for THE SOVEREIGNTY AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF CYPRUS TO BE PROTECTED

7. Calls upon the signatory states to guarantee the sovereignty, territorial integrity and
security of Cyprus, including an improved status, guaranteeing the security and the rights
of the Turkish community, as well as the political independence of a democratically
governed Cyprus, as laid down when Cyprus became independent in 1960

[zan]

And I have told you what happened to instigate the second phase.

So what you are arguing is that if Turkey had stopped and held onto what it had on the first phase then it would have been legal. No what you are saying is that they should have given the island back to the Greeks regardless of whether the constitution was still active or not.

[DT.]

And I have told you what happened to instigate the second phase.

So what you are arguing is that if Turkey had stopped and held onto what it had on the first phase then it would have been legal. No what you are saying is that they should have given the island back to the Greeks regardless of whether the constitution was still active or not.

Its not what I'd like Turkey to do or not. Its what Turkey was obliged to do under the Treaty of Gaurantee. Nothing to do with me or you or our opinions. Turkey signed a treaty and she should have honoured it. She didn't and now she is committing an illegal act in breach of a treaty which she is trying to re-introduce now!! How's that for not giving a f**k?