Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

Yes I still insist that the moevement of GC from the north of Cyprus by turkey was political.

You know if you insist on this will change nothing. The only thing will change will be what we will do with you when the balance of power will change, since I guess you will have no problem with all of you being moved to Turkey.

Personaly I am somewhat bemused that their is even any debate that what happened in 74 was 'political'? Certainly a political act can be deemed legal or illegal - within the limits of the reality of international law is it is an 'external' event. My argument is not that it had no legal or illegal aspects. My argument is that is was also political and denying that and the reality that a solution to it must also be polticial is to me extreme denial of reality.

Is what is happening in Iraq now political or legal? As far as I am concerned it is a poltical act that can be considered legal or illegal under interanational law (personaly I consider it illegal - but I realise the reality of 'intertnational law' and what it is worth).

Certainly the U.S. invasion in Iraq was illegal! The same can be said about the invasion of Turkey in Cyprus. Irrespective of whatever reasons and aside of any agreements or treaties, according to the United Nations Chart, no country has the right to intervene militarily into another country without prior approval of the U.N. Security Council.

The U.S. tried to get such approval but it was not given to them, yet they went along and carried the invasion. Turkey never applied to the U.N. SC for approval for 1974 invasion in Cyprus.

[Kifeas]

Did you ever come Turkey? Did you ever see what ottoman build?
I think you dont ever have to come Turkey.
I dont know cyprus, But I am almost sure, Ottomans build something also there.

I hate this discussion but I have to agree with Murtaza here. The Ottomans build the minarets on the sides of Ayia Sofia Church in Central Nicosia and the minarets on the side of St Nicolas cathedral in Famagusta old city. They also build the Bouyiouk Han in Nicosia and the Turkish baths again in Nicosia, also known as the baths of Karagioz (loutra tou karagiozi in Greek.) They also build the Tekke mosque in Larnaka.

[erolz]

Certainly the U.S. invasion in Iraq was illegal!

and you think legal measures and not polticial ones can end it?

The same can be said about the invasion of Turkey in Cyprus. Irrespective of whatever reasons and aside of any agreements or treaties, according to the United Nations Chart, no country has the right to intervene militarily into another country without prior approval of the U.N. Security Council.

Actually this is not the case as I understand it. International treaties form the basis of international law. Under international law Turkey had a legal right to intervene in Cyprus to resotre the 1960 consitution. You can claim that it's subsequent failure to do this is 'illgal' imo but not that the intital intervention was illegal.

The U.S. tried to get such approval but it was not given to them, yet they went along and carried the invasion. Turkey never applied to the U.N. SC for approval for 1974 invasion in Cyprus.

Turkey never applied to to the UN because their was no legal requirement for her to do so in order to legal intervene in Cyprus (to restore the 1960 consitituion). You seem to think that UN charter overrides any international agreements in international law. On what legal grounds do you base this theory?

[Kifeas]

Certainly the U.S. invasion in Iraq was illegal!

and you think legal measures and not polticial ones can end it?

The same can be said about the invasion of Turkey in Cyprus. Irrespective of whatever reasons and aside of any agreements or treaties, according to the United Nations Chart, no country has the right to intervene militarily into another country without prior approval of the U.N. Security Council.

Actually this is not the case as I understand it. International treaties form the basis of international law. Under international law Turkey had a legal right to intervene in Cyprus to resotre the 1960 consitution. You can claim that it's subsequent failure to do this is 'illgal' imo but not that the intital intervention was illegal.

The U.S. tried to get such approval but it was not given to them, yet they went along and carried the invasion. Turkey never applied to the U.N. SC for approval for 1974 invasion in Cyprus.

Turkey never applied to to the UN because their was no legal requirement for her to do so in order to legal intervene in Cyprus (to restore the 1960 consitituion). You seem to think that UN charter overrides any international agreements in international law. On what legal grounds do you base this theory?

The United Nations Chart (Chart of Nations) which forms the basis of the existence of the UN organisation and the ultimate of international law, states clearly that no country, aside of other international treaties and rights, has no right to intervene militarily into another country, without prior approval of the U.N. Security Council.

If a country accepts to be a member of the U.N., and so far both Turkey and the U.S.A. do so, then they have to abide by the chart of the U.N. According to the U.N. Chart, both the Turkish invasion in Cyprus and the U.S./British invasion in Iraq were illegal according to international law. In both cases the U.N. Chart was violated.

[MicAtCyp]

What was the seperation of India into India and Pakistan (which involved the movement of people in their millions) ? A legal 'event' or a poltical one? Or Pakistan into Pakistan and Bangladesh? A legal matter or a poltical one? The splitting of Yugoslavia. Political or legal? Yes I still insist that the moevement of GC from the north of Cyprus by turkey was political.

You may insist as much as you like. I don't know much about India and Pakistan but I do know enough about the rest to remind you once again:
invasions, genocides, and ethnic cleansing practices. . . . These are not Political events. These are acts of war and violence

Contrary to what you think or would like to think the main legal basis for a state is not its ownership of the land that makes up the state, or recognition of it by other countries, but is in fact it's ability to control the area it claims to control.

Bullshit! I saw the definitions you gave regarding these (and specifically on the matter of sovereignty) but I did not want to waste my time. The definitions you gave do not specifically mention ownership because that goes without saying. Otherwise you could even tell us that Iraq under the "control" of the Americans was a new American state excercising sovereignty as an American State!

The second part to which your definition fails regarding the sovereignty of "Trnc" is that it has another authority on top of it who decides for her. Perhaps instead of talking vaguely you can give us an example of a lagal State whose 85% of land is currently claimed to be stolen by people living as refugees a few kilometers away, and which the authority on top of it ( that deprives it of any meaning of sovereignty ) is convicted by an International court for these stealings?
The Trnc man is a pseudo - state, a fague, an illegal how else can I explain it to you? It has elements of a state like a monstrocity has elements of a human being.

By the way thank you for your less than a page long post, otherwise sorry I would not waste my time to the rest of it. . . . Please show a little respect to your readers. I could answer each and every line you wrote. However I do some screening and concentrate to the most important points. Why do I (and many others) do that you think?

************************

You know if you insist on this will change nothing. The only thing will change will be what we will do with you when the balance of power will change, since I guess you will have no problem with all of you being moved to Turkey.

That would be Political too Pirati!! Ha, ha, ha

[erolz]

By the way thank you for your less than a page long post, otherwise sorry I would not waste my time to the rest of it. . . . Please show a little respect to your readers. I could answer each and every line you wrote. However I do some screening and concentrate to the most important points. Why do I (and many others) do that you think?

I am showing a lack of respect for other posters because I try and answer questions completely and methodicaly and thus my posts are long?

With repspect I would suggest few posters consistently show as much respect for other posters on this forum as I do. I find your accusation that the lenght of my posts show disrepect illogical, inconsistent and also in itself quite disrepectful to me and my integrity.

Short enough for you?

[Viewpoint]

erolz your posts are always clear and well balanced, not like many other contributors who try to twist and manipulate what you are saying. I read your posts with great interest, please continue to respond exactly in the fashion that you have been doing because you are talking for many of us TCs who back you up by staying silent, luckily there are enough intelligent people around to see the quality of your posts not like other biased brain washed individuals whos arguements reek TC hatred and venom, (if the cap fits wear it)...

[MicAtCyp]

Erol,

I did not mean to offend you however you are the number one man in long posts. I insist everyone must do screening and answer to what is important. As far as I can see there are huge unnecessary posts in here with lots of blah blah from many including Kifeas, Turkcyp, you, Othellos etc. I do not say that I never did the same anyway so you may include myself too.

This leads to a competition to pass ones view via exhaustive argumentation. In a way it is a sort of disrespect.
You are a kind person please dont take every word I wrote literally and personally.Like I said I myself am not excluded.

[MicAtCyp]

At least however all the above people do type what they say. There are others who simply copy paste tons of blah, blah. These are worse.

[Alexandros Lordos]

I think you have to remember crusaders who come for plunder and helped by Greeks?

Are you being serious? The crusaders invaded Constantinople in 1204, what do you mean "they were being helped by Greeks"? The crusaders were enemies of the Greeks!

Did you ever come Turkey?

About 5 times so far. I was in Istanbul last week, and I will be in Ankara in June. Did you ever come to Greece?

And Ottomans also fleeing form Mongols.
They helped Selcuks against a war to mongols.
And Selcuks give them their first place to live.

So because they were under attack, that gave them an excuse to plunder across two continents?

If the Seljuks gave the Ottomans land and cities to live in, that's OK by me. I don't quite recall the Byzantines offering Constantinople though ...

You know, what happened in 1453 was very ugly. It wasn't just another city that the Ottomans took, they ripped the heart out of an entire civilization. Why? Were they provoked? Were they acting in self-defense? No. They just liked the big city, and wanted it for themselves.