Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

Now as to why GR “intervened” in this thread:


I am APPALED at all the USELESS “Greek Cypriots” unable to properly respond to Zan’s manipulation of history of what is a relatively elementary aspect of the Cyprus problem; the illegality of the second phase of the invasion.

Those of you NOT prepared to research so as to properly arm yourselves in support of the RoC should GET OUT of the CyProb section altogether and that includes you Oracle, Magnus, and others.

No regards to any of you useless goofballs!

[Oracle]

Perhaps GR should come back as himself and keep you in check...Issued by the Cyprus Bar Association Unbiased...hehehehehehehehe

Be careful what you wish for…


First, inform yourself of what Turkey had SIGNED to abide by with respects to Cyprus:


CYPRUS-TREATY OF GUARANTEE
Nicosia, 16 August 1960

ARTICLE IV
In the event of a breach of the provisions of the present Treaty, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom undertake to consult together with respect to the representations or measure necessary to ensure observance of those provisions.

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.

http://teaching.law.cornell.edu/faculty ... rantee.pdf



Second, inform yourself of what Turkey DEMANDED during the first ceasefire meeting, contrary to what she had previously signed:

“There were thus not one but two military operations carried out by Turkey on
Cyprus. The first one, launched on July 20, had seemed to be both consistent with and a
natural extension of fourteen years of Turkish policy in support of the 1960 Treaties of
Guarantee and Alliance. However, with the successful landing of troops on Cyprus in
July, Turkish objectives appear to have changed dramatically. Suddenly, Turkey was no
longer arguing in defense of the status quo, but rather was seeking to overthrow it.
Turkey’s objective now became the replacement of the governmental structure that had
been in place since 1960 with a framework based upon the concept of taksim, the division of the island’s Greek and Turkish communities.”

http://wws.princeton.edu/research/cases/cyprus.pdf


So now you know that while the RoC fought off the Greek coupists and shed their blood in the process, in order to restore the legitimate government of Cyprus, Turkey acting as a “guarantor” diabolically “intervened” with the ulterior motives of Taksim proving that her signatures to the treaties were not worth the paper they were written on.

Regards, GR.

[zan]

Thanks Zan, I just have a couple of questions about these articles.

It is clear from the first article that the Turkish forces were winning the battle (as we would expect) and that it wouldn't last very long. Given this fact, how can anyone justify the atrocities committed by the Turkish troops as 'acts of war' (as Bananiot stated) when the GC/Greek forces were clearly not much of a threat and the conflict was hardly a full scale 'war'? And shouldn't the Turkish forces have just put down the coupists and left the civilians alone?

Also, If we are to consider these events as a declaration of war from Turkey to Cyprus, then how can anyone claim that it was a 'peace operation' intended to protect TC civilians? Clearly it is an indication of a long-term expansionist policy as there is a very definite line between a declaration of war and a declared peace operation in line with Turkey's guarantor rights.

As for the Greek navy, perhaps they were there to support the coupists or even protect the GC civilians from the Turkish forces. Either way they weren't successful. Are there any accounts of the Greek forces harming TC civilians rather than fight the Turkish forces?

I will answer the bit about Turkey winning the war but will have toget back to you on the rest as I am tired now from laughing at Billy boy Boobit...Seriously though..I have to go to bed.


There is nothing clear about the war as to who was winning what and who was a coupist and who was not. The Greeks thought that Turkey was not equipped for war and many have written since that if the Greeks had been more organised they could have seen Turkey off. You have to appreciate the speed at which everything was going and the resistance that Turkey met up with. The landing resulted in the heaviest losses for Turkey and was not easy. The bombs that fell were indiscriminate and we can even see that in todays bombing raids that are much more accurate than those days. you also have to accept the fact that quite a lot of the atrocities that were blamed on the Turks were in fact committed by the coupist but no one here seems to want to admit that part. 6000 GCs died in 1974 and all blamed on the Turks.....So what happened to those killed and raped by the coupists. 10,000 Makarios supporters were to be killed by the cooupists...How many were in fact killed. that is my problem with Greek propaganda........

[Oracle]

Now as to why GR “intervened” in this thread:


I am APPALED at all the USELESS “Greek Cypriots” unable to properly respond to Zan’s manipulation of history of what is a relatively elementary aspect of the Cyprus problem; the illegality of the second phase of the invasion.

Those of you NOT prepared to research so as to properly arm yourselves in support of the RoC should GET OUT of the CyProb section altogether and that includes you Oracle, Magnus, and others.

No regards to any of you useless goofballs!

Say what you like

Welcome back!

We knew you couldn't resist coming to our rescue ....

[Magnus]

Now as to why GR “intervened” in this thread:


I am APPALED at all the USELESS “Greek Cypriots” unable to properly respond to Zan’s manipulation of history of what is a relatively elementary aspect of the Cyprus problem; the illegality of the second phase of the invasion.

Those of you NOT prepared to research so as to properly arm yourselves in support of the RoC should GET OUT of the CyProb section altogether and that includes you Oracle, Magnus, and others.

No regards to any of you useless goofballs!

Victory is determined by the accomplishment of one's aims GR. How do you know my aims aren't being achieved?

[zan]

Perhaps GR should come back as himself and keep you in check...Issued by the Cyprus Bar Association Unbiased...hehehehehehehehe

Be careful what you wish for…


First, inform yourself of what Turkey had SIGNED to abide by with respects to Cyprus:


CYPRUS-TREATY OF GUARANTEE
Nicosia, 16 August 1960

ARTICLE IV
In the event of a breach of the provisions of the present Treaty, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom undertake to consult together with respect to the representations or measure necessary to ensure observance of those provisions.

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.

http://teaching.law.cornell.edu/faculty ... rantee.pdf



Second, inform yourself of what Turkey DEMANDED during the first ceasefire meeting, contrary to what she had previously signed:

“There were thus not one but two military operations carried out by Turkey on
Cyprus. The first one, launched on July 20, had seemed to be both consistent with and a
natural extension of fourteen years of Turkish policy in support of the 1960 Treaties of
Guarantee and Alliance. However, with the successful landing of troops on Cyprus in
July, Turkish objectives appear to have changed dramatically. Suddenly, Turkey was no
longer arguing in defense of the status quo, but rather was seeking to overthrow it.
Turkey’s objective now became the replacement of the governmental structure that had
been in place since 1960 with a framework based upon the concept of taksim, the division of the island’s Greek and Turkish communities.”

http://wws.princeton.edu/research/cases/cyprus.pdf


So now you know that while the RoC fought off the Greek coupists and shed their blood in the process, in order to restore the legitimate government of Cyprus, Turkey acting as a “guarantor” diabolically “intervened” with the ulterior motives of Taksim proving that her signatures to the treaties were not worth the paper they were written on.

Regards, GR.

Half truths will do GR.......I wonder who is going to moderate you

[zan]

Now as to why GR “intervened” in this thread:


I am APPALED at all the USELESS “Greek Cypriots” unable to properly respond to Zan’s manipulation of history of what is a relatively elementary aspect of the Cyprus problem; the illegality of the second phase of the invasion.

Those of you NOT prepared to research so as to properly arm yourselves in support of the RoC should GET OUT of the CyProb section altogether and that includes you Oracle, Magnus, and others.

No regards to any of you useless goofballs!

whereas your useless manipulations are soooooo easy to counter because they are lies.....You have not lost your arrogance old chum.....

[bill cobbett]

Thanks Zan, I just have a couple of questions about these articles.

It is clear from the first article that the Turkish forces were winning the battle (as we would expect) and that it wouldn't last very long. Given this fact, how can anyone justify the atrocities committed by the Turkish troops as 'acts of war' (as Bananiot stated) when the GC/Greek forces were clearly not much of a threat and the conflict was hardly a full scale 'war'? And shouldn't the Turkish forces have just put down the coupists and left the civilians alone?

Also, If we are to consider these events as a declaration of war from Turkey to Cyprus, then how can anyone claim that it was a 'peace operation' intended to protect TC civilians? Clearly it is an indication of a long-term expansionist policy as there is a very definite line between a declaration of war and a declared peace operation in line with Turkey's guarantor rights.

As for the Greek navy, perhaps they were there to support the coupists or even protect the GC civilians from the Turkish forces. Either way they weren't successful. Are there any accounts of the Greek forces harming TC civilians rather than fight the Turkish forces?

........I will answer the bit about Turkey winning the war but will have toget back to you on the rest as I am tired now from laughing at Billy boy Boobit...Seriously though..I have to go to bed........

Don't forget to sleep on the bed not under it.

[zan]

Thanks Zan, I just have a couple of questions about these articles.

It is clear from the first article that the Turkish forces were winning the battle (as we would expect) and that it wouldn't last very long. Given this fact, how can anyone justify the atrocities committed by the Turkish troops as 'acts of war' (as Bananiot stated) when the GC/Greek forces were clearly not much of a threat and the conflict was hardly a full scale 'war'? And shouldn't the Turkish forces have just put down the coupists and left the civilians alone?

Also, If we are to consider these events as a declaration of war from Turkey to Cyprus, then how can anyone claim that it was a 'peace operation' intended to protect TC civilians? Clearly it is an indication of a long-term expansionist policy as there is a very definite line between a declaration of war and a declared peace operation in line with Turkey's guarantor rights.

As for the Greek navy, perhaps they were there to support the coupists or even protect the GC civilians from the Turkish forces. Either way they weren't successful. Are there any accounts of the Greek forces harming TC civilians rather than fight the Turkish forces?

........I will answer the bit about Turkey winning the war but will have toget back to you on the rest as I am tired now from laughing at Billy boy Boobit...Seriously though..I have to go to bed........

Don't forget to sleep on the bed not under it.

HUH!!!!!!! Stick to what you know darling.....Humour is not your thing....

[bill cobbett]

Thanks Zan, I just have a couple of questions about these articles.

It is clear from the first article that the Turkish forces were winning the battle (as we would expect) and that it wouldn't last very long. Given this fact, how can anyone justify the atrocities committed by the Turkish troops as 'acts of war' (as Bananiot stated) when the GC/Greek forces were clearly not much of a threat and the conflict was hardly a full scale 'war'? And shouldn't the Turkish forces have just put down the coupists and left the civilians alone?

Also, If we are to consider these events as a declaration of war from Turkey to Cyprus, then how can anyone claim that it was a 'peace operation' intended to protect TC civilians? Clearly it is an indication of a long-term expansionist policy as there is a very definite line between a declaration of war and a declared peace operation in line with Turkey's guarantor rights.

As for the Greek navy, perhaps they were there to support the coupists or even protect the GC civilians from the Turkish forces. Either way they weren't successful. Are there any accounts of the Greek forces harming TC civilians rather than fight the Turkish forces?

........I will answer the bit about Turkey winning the war but will have toget back to you on the rest as I am tired now from laughing at Billy boy Boobit...Seriously though..I have to go to bed........

Don't forget to sleep on the bed not under it.

HUH!!!!!!! Stick to what you know darling.....Humour is not your thing....

Goodnight Zan, goodnight Magnus, goodnight our O et al, oh and a very good night to our guest poster.