Cyprus-Forum.com

[RichardB]

DT I asked where the Turkish Cypriots were suppose to go, presumably their " piece of scrubland" in the south is occupied by Greek Cypriots .

Everyone to their homes matey....180,000 GC's and 50,000 TC's.

and carpetbagging brit theives back to their council house in some shitty suberb of somewhere

[boomerang]

So where are the Turkish Cypriots supposed to go if their home is occupied, I don,t believe that all Greek Cypriots want to move north.

their homes are not occupied...there was a tc that claimed his house back not long ago...the gc refugee had to move out to make room for the true owner...

[TCTRNC]

TCs, Turks, Ex pats don't have to go anywhere. The GCs chose to leave North Cyrpus, they were not made to leave-they could have stayed if they chose to. What they left behind had been stolen by them anyway-they stole land from the TCs (who were mainly farmers thus owned much more land than the GCs) and now the GCs think they can have that land back NO CHANCE. Besides you GCs should be thankful that Turkey let you stay in South cyprus, what Turkey should have done was chuck the lot of you OUT forever back to your darling motherland Greece, then you would have achieved your ENOSIS. LOL.

[DT.]

Here you are mate...will the letter do?

Taking this non primary source are accurate, which I am happy to doi it shows that Turkey was encouraging Kutchuk to retake their poitions in the government.

I do not see the evidence that Kutchuks reply was

"he's rather emigrate back to Turkey"

?

Erolz the source is not electronic but here it is

Arif Hasan Tahsin
Yakın geçmişimizin bir özeti
2008 Nicosia
ISBN 978-9963-9580-0-9

İnönü's letter dated 9 March 1964 is on pages 204-207, and Kutchuk's letter of reply dated 10 march 1964 on pages 207-212.

Thanks to Tim for the reference.

[CopperLine]

Erolz, lets clear the ICJ debate.

Cyprus (and Greece and many other countries) have recognized the jurisdiction of the ICJ as Compulsory.

Turkey did not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ as compulsory.

It is free as any other party to the ICJ is to choose weather to submit itself to ICJ jurisdiction or not on a particular issue. It has in the past chosen to accept the Jurisdiction of this court in certain disputes.

Turkey has not recognized the jurisdiction of the court as compulsory, and it accepts this jurisdiction only in cases that she believes it has some chance of winning. They would not accept to take the Cyprus case in the ICJ because they know they have no chance of winning this case because they know very well they are the guilty party.

On the other hand, Cyprus who is acting legally and has nothing to fear, accepted the jurisdiction of the court as compulsory.

Therefore you are wrong when you say:

As far as Turkey taking the RoC to the ICJ on this issue the court only has jurisdiction if the RoC were to agree to this, and we both know , as well as Turkey knew and knows, that the RoC would and will never submit itself to such jurisdiction of this court on this issue.

All Turkey has to do is to also accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ as compulsory (like we did) and then it can take Cyprus to the court on any issue she wants (and similarly we can take Turkey to the court for any issue we want).

Turkey doesn't do this because they know very well that they would lose this and every other case with Cyprus.

You can lie and convince some people like the Orams in order to cheat them from their money and have profits from the sale of the properties you stole from us, but when it comes to real courts, your lies and excuses can not win for you any case. This is why you are so afraid of courts and you peed your pants when you realized that justice can get you even when you are hiding behind the Turkish tanks.

http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/ind ... &p2=1&p3=3

Piratis,
A question for you : when did Cyprus take an action against Turkey in the ICJ ? Let's follow your logic for a moment that "Turkey doesn't do this because they know very well that they would lose this and every other case with Cyprus." If what you say is correct - it is certainly plausible - then surely one would expect the Republic of Cyprus to have initiated proceedings through the ICJ, yes ? If it is such an open and shut case in your view, then it should be dead easy to identify when Republic of Cyprus did indeed initiate such a course of action. Maybe it has done but I for one don't know when this happened and would like to know. Can you provide the details ?

Papadopoulos gave the answer, publicly challenging Turkey, on September 14 2007:

"Our view is well-known, the presence of the Turkish occupational forces and the Turkish invasion cannot be legally based on the Treaty of Guarantee and their presence in Cyprus, is, in any case, illegal. We said that if Turkey believes otherwise, then it can appeal or agree to appeal to the International Court of Justice in The Hague."

Cyprus, accepted ICJ jurisdiction as compulsory so if anybody things we are doing something illegal, then they can also accept the ICJ jurisdiction as compulsory and sue us (instead of just producing propaganda with lies, like Turks do).

There are UN resolutions that declare the pseudo state as legally invalid, and clearly state that Republic of Cyprus is the one and only state on the island and every other state (including Turkey) should respect the sovereignty of Republic of Cyprus. Rulings by the ECHR and the ECJ confirm this fact.

The fact is that we have legality 100% on our side, while what you have is 40.000 Troops illegally occupying territory of our country.

That is a daft reply. Most of it simply doesn't refer to the question under discussion. The rest of it - that Papadopolous made a public statement in 2007 - doesn't even touch first base in a legal process. When did RoC submit, petition, formally prepare an application to the ICJ against Turkey ? As far I am aware it never has made such a submission, and as far as you have shown so far, that remains the case. If there's evidence to the contrary let's be made aware.

I've been trying to understand your replies on this forum for months now and this is, for what it is worth, my conclusion : you make, in legal terms, suppositions. You then take that supposition and then translate it into a fact upon which you base the rest of your argument. Since your suppositions remain just that, suppositions, all argument which follow from that are baseless. For example, you purport to know (you suppose that you know) what the motives and actions of all historical figures - from Turkish prime ministers to British diplomats to Cypriot refugees - and others who contradict your suppositions (especially with evidence) are in turn supposed to be liars, cheats, traitors or other ne'er-do-wells. Add to this your suppositions about the nature and operation of international law and your head is swimming in a delusional cocktail of fantasy.

[Piratis]

Yet again you want to pass your own one sided opinion as the law. With the Orams case we knew we were right and we proved it.

You proved in a RoC court that the orams had comitted an offence.

Not just in a RoC court, but also in the ECHR and the ECJ. Also there are UN Resolutions that declare your pseudo state as legally invalid and demand the respect of the sovergnity of Republic of Cyprus, the one and only State on the island.

The TCs withdrew from the Goverment themselves in order to pursue partition, instead of staying in the Government and working with Makarios to make Cyprus a more democratic place.

And you accuse me of spreading lies.

In 1965 the TC leadership request via UN to return to its rightful positions in government. They were told by Clerides that they could do so only if they accepted the unilateral removal of aspects of their communal consitutional rights. There was and is no legal basis for the removal of these rtights what so ever. Futher they were told that if they tried to return without accepting this unilateral removal of their rights 'their saftey could not be guranteed'. This is all documents in UN documents.

Withdrawing from government is a peacful legal means of protest used around the world. No where where such happens do those that withdraw become deemed to have permanently lost their legal and consitutional rights as a result of such a withdrawal - except in the RoC.

This is also documented in UN documents:

106.The Turkish Cypriot leaders have adhered to
rigid stand against any measures which might involve having
members of the two communities live and work together, or which
might place Turkish Cypriots in situations where they would have
to acknowledge the authority of Government agents. Indeed, since
the Turkish Cypriot leadership is committed to physical and
geographical separation of the communities as a political goal,
it is not likely to encourage activities by Turkish Cypriots
which may be interpreted as demonstrating the merits of an
alternative policy. The result has been a seemingly deliberate
policy of self-segregation by the Turkish Cypriots.”

UN document S/6426

I am talking about UN Resolutions, and rulings by the highest courts, and you are trying to counter this with some report? As you can see from the above quote we can find anything in UN reports. Why aren't there any UN Resolutions supporting your position? Because to make a UN resolution they would add the information from all reports, and not just the ones you selectively choose to reproduce for your propaganda.

As Kifeas said you could apply to the ICJ.

And as I keep explaing to you I can not go to the ICJ. Only states can go to the ICJ.

What about the "trnc"?

So your tactic is to say lies in order to convince people like the Orams and profit from them, but when we ask you to put your lies to the test of an international court, you deny, because you know you will lose again.

Nothing I have said is a lie. Certainly no where near a blatant lie, like your assertion that the TC withdrew from government in order to persue partition.

The TC before withdrawing from government and before the outbreak of violence went to the CYPRIOT constitutional court about non implementation of aspects of the 1960 agreement. The court found in their favour. Makarios' response was to delacre he did not accept the jusridiction of this court, against any legality and this lead to its destruction. In short the TC community did go to court with its issues in Cyprus. It is exactly because Makarios ignored the leglaity of the RoC own courts that things continued to detirorate in Cyprus.

You are saying lies, and TCs did withdrew from government in order to peruse partition. In fact the TCs were stockpiling their weapons right after the agreements were signed in 1959, and one of the ships transferring weapons to TMT, Deniz, was in fact intercepted by a British naval patrol.

The inter-communal conflict was in fact started by the TCs long before that, when in the late 50s they collaborated with the colonialists and attacked the Greek Cypriots.

My friend, I repeat to you: it is your side who demands "political equality of component States" as opposed to "political equality of communities", and now you are trying to turn your demand into supposedly being a compromise? The fact is that with Annan plan you got more land, more power and more separation than what you had with the 1960 agreements. You got more of everything.

This is more rubbish from you Piratis. The reason why the Annan Plan ties equality to component state based on geographical residence and not ethnicity / communal group is nothing to do with TC demands and everything to do with trying to fit a solution in CYprus in with EU norms.

The FACT is under the 60's consitution the TC political equality is based on ethnicity and thus is secured indefinately. In the Annan Plan it is not and thus it is not secure indefiantely. Accepting this is a major concession on the part of the TC community vs the rights it has under the 60's agreements.

Total bollocks. You don't even know what the demands of your side are and then you come here to give us lessons and present those demands as supposedly being your compromises.

With the 1960 agreements there was no "political equality" of any kind. In fact the President of Cyprus could only be a Greek Cypriot.

With Annan plan you got a ton more than the 1960 agreements and gave up nothing.

Otherwise, if 1960 agreements are worst (or not better) for you, then why don't you agree to return to them? Who are you trying to fool here?

We DID try and return to them in 1965 and were told by the GC leadership in front of the UN that we could not do so unless we accepted as fait acompli the illegal removal of our communal rights under them. It is extacly because the GC leadership refused to implement the 60's agreements that it signed up to , ignored its own consitutional court rulings and destroyed it and sought the illegal removal of the TC communal rights granted in it that we as a community that the Cyprus problem continued to deteriorate.

Who are YOU trying to fool Piratis.

The fact is that partition had been your aim since the 50s and continues to be the same today. At no point did you give up this aim.
You started the intercommunal conflict with the partition aim in the 50s and even right after the agreements were signed you started bringing weapons in Cyprus from Turkey in order to cause more problems.

This are the facts, and indeed it is YOU who is fooling nobody. You can't full the UN, you can't fool the ECHR, you can't fool the ECJ, you can't fool EU. So who are you fooling? Yourselves and some "Orams"?

Are you telling me that because the invading Ottomans created some Muslim (later to be called Turkish) minority on our island, that the Cypriot people should be indefinitely denied the right to democratically decide the destiny of their own territory?

I am saying to you Piratis that GC can not claim that enosis is the will of a single unitary cypriot people when enosis itself says there is no such thing as a Cypriot people, just Greeks who happen to live in Cyprus and non Greeks who happend to live in Cyprus. When you define yourselves as part of the Greek people, you then by definition define those others living in Cyprus as part of some other people and as such they ALSO have a seperate and equal right to self determination.

Really? So why don't the Kurds and Greeks who live in Turkey (and are obviously not Turks) do not have a separate right to self-determination? Why don't the Whites in South Africa have a separate right of self-determination? Why doesn't any minority in any territory have a separate right of self-determination? Only you have? You are the special ones?

Of course such a logical approach would have required your community to have accepted that others also have rights and as such they could not just impose thier communal will on them willy nilly, so instead you create this illogical and nonsensical argument that enosis , the desire for Cyprus to not exist as a state and Cypriot to be a part of the Greek people, is the will of a unitary Cypriot people.

No one elese ever accepted this nonsense which is why enosis was never achieved in Cyprus.

Why don't you tell me what is the difference between Rhodes, Crete or any other island with Cyprus?

The fact is that British and Turks collaborated and attacked the Cypriot people in order to deny to us our self-determination and the right to decide the destiny of our island in a democratic way.

They did this to serve their own interests on the expense of ours, and they used the Turkish minority on our island as the excuse.

How was it fine for Cyprus to be part of the Ottoman or British empires against the will of the Cypriot people and Cypriots being subjects of these foreign powers, but not OK from Cyprus to be part of the Greek Republic and Cypriots equal citizens of this Republic which is what the vast majority of Cypriots themselves wanted?

In fact we have a Greek minority in Egypt from the time of Alexander the Great. Should we now go and demand from the Egyptians that they can not take democratic decisions for their own country without the approval of our Greek Community there?

The level of your nonses knows no bounds Piratis and there would seem to be no convoluted hoop that you would not try and jump through to justify the unjustifiable.

If when Egypt had gained indpendance, the Egytptians said , there is no such thing as an Egyptian nation or an Egyptian people, there are just Turks that live in the area and some that are not Turks, but in the name of a single unitary Egyptian people that we claim does not exist we will force all those who are not turks and live here to become part of the Turkish nation and people with them having no say in the matter, then things may have developed in similar ways to Cyprus.

What a load of bollocks. The Egyptians are free to call themselves as they wish. Neither you or any minority created by some former ruler will tell them who they should be and what they should do. The same is true for Cyprus.

Yes you have a right to demand union with another state as a vaild means to ending colonisation - but you can not sensibly do that then in the name of a unitary people, if only part of the people consider themselves to be part of the state you wish to join. When you say we are not Cypriot we are Greek and thus wish to join the Greek state, you by defination say TC are NOT part of that people and thus must be some OTHER people and thus they have a SEPERATE and EQUAL right to self determination.

Yet more nonsense. Rhodes also has a Turkish minority and united with Greece in 1947 exercising their right for self-determination. Minorities don't have a separate right for self-determination - nowhere.

In Asia Minor our minority existed for 1000s of years before the Turks invaded. The same with the Kurds. Are the Greek or Kurdish communities asked for approval for anything that Turkey decides?

Once more for you Piratis.

If when Turkey had emerged as a nation state it has said 'There is no such thing as a Turkish nation and no such thing as a Turkish people' and then defined some Turks as part of some other Nation, then by definition those living there who were no part of this 'other' nation and people who have had a valid right to say 'well if you are not Turks but part of (whatever) nation and people, then we are not part of that toher nation or people and thus we demand our rights as a different and seperate people.

And who ever told you that the Greeks of Asia Minor wanted to be in some Turkish Nation which the Turks created? The same way you didn't want to live in a Greek Nation, the Greeks of Smyrna, Constantinouple and Asia Minor in general didn't want to be in a Turkish Nation. Where do you see the difference? Did the Turks asked the Greeks if they wanted to be part of a "Turkish Nation"?

If there is any difference it is the fact the Greeks of Asia Minor have been in that territory for far longer than the Turks, and if anything they should have had more rights than you do, not less.

Yes indeed this is the crux of the problem. Turks using their minority on our island as an excuse to deny to the Cypriot people their freedom and self-determination.

No Piratis the problem was CYPRIOTS who also were NOT GREEK, saying that if Cypriots who were Greek defined themselves as part of the Greek people, then as not greeks they were a different people with a seperate and equal right to self determination.

We can define ourselves as we wish. If you didn't like us for what we are then you shouldn't have come to our island in the first place. Minorities do not get a separate self-determination, especially minorities created as a result of Colonial rule.

You are trying to justify your crimes against the Cypriot people which started in 1751 and continue almost non stop until today. You are trying to excuse the brute force that you in collaboration with the next colonialists, the British, used in order to yet again deny from us our rights.

You shouldn't consider these as "threats". These are just the consequences of crimes. If these were "threats" then every law that listed penalties for its violation would be considered a "threat".

You seem to have lost a grip on basic meaning of words in your exitment to prove you ridiculoyus claim that htese are not threats.

You can threaten some with legal action. It may be perfectly justifiable to do so as well as to take that action but it remains a THREAT.

You can threaten someone with military action. Such action may be justified or not but it remains a THREAT.

Weather something is a threat or not has nothing to do with if the action is justified or not.

YOU were the one accusing me of making threats. The reality is much plainer and clearer.

You were making threats about illegal actions such as the annexation of north Cyprus by Turkey. If for you the enforcement of the law is also a "threat" then fine. Sorry that I can not think as an outlaw. For me the implementation of the law was never a threat, but I can understand how it can be different for you.

So be prepared to face the consequences of your crimes, and instead of blaming us for seeking justice via 100% legal means, blame yourselves for acting criminally and illegally.

I am not blaming you for 'seeking justice'. I am hoping that there are GC sensible enough to realise that there are also consequences to doing such and that these may not actually result in a better situation for Cyprus and Cypriots. You of course can ignore these warnings as you see fit and have every right to continue to purse whatever actions you see fit. If however the ultimate result of doing so leads to something you do not like do not come crying to me. Just because you can do something ti does not necessarily mean that it is in your or others best interest to do it.

Yet more threats about "consequences" of seeking justice. The only concequences is the ones you will face my friend. Whatever harm you could do to us you have done it already. You can't do anything more.

What are you going to do? Change the name of the occupied areas from "trnc" to "Cyprus District of Turkey"? It wouldn't make any difference to us, and in fact it would make it even easier for us to prove our case.

Are you going to sabotage the talks and become even more intransigent? Again, we already know that you will not agree in anything less than partition and that the talks can not result in anything positive, so any such move from you at the talks will only help us to put you even more in the corner.

What else are you going to do? Invade Cyprus again? Start killing and raping again? What are the "consequences" of seeking justice, tell us.

[RichardB]

As you delight at the thought of Turkish Cypriots being displaced again so that some patch of scrub land can go back to it's debatable owner, where are these people supposed to go, when will it end.

No debate on the legal owners of property.They will be registered at the land registry in Nicosia

Boomerang has answered the 2nd part of your question

[RichardB]

TCs, Turks, Ex pats don't have to go anywhere. The GCs chose to leave North Cyrpus, they were not made to leave-they could have stayed if they chose to. What they left behind had been stolen by them anyway-they stole land from the TCs (who were mainly farmers thus owned much more land than the GCs) and now the GCs think they can have that land back NO CHANCE. Besides you GCs should be thankful that Turkey let you stay in South cyprus, what Turkey should have done was chuck the lot of you OUT forever back to your darling motherland Greece, then you would have achieved your ENOSIS. LOL.

Did school finish early today?

[RAFAELLA]

TCs, Turks, Ex pats don't have to go anywhere. The GCs chose to leave North Cyrpus, they were not made to leave-they could have stayed if they chose to. What they left behind had been stolen by them anyway-they stole land from the TCs (who were mainly farmers thus owned much more land than the GCs) and now the GCs think they can have that land back NO CHANCE. Besides you GCs should be thankful that Turkey let you stay in South cyprus, what Turkey should have done was chuck the lot of you OUT forever back to your darling motherland Greece, then you would have achieved your ENOSIS. LOL.

Did school finish early today?

No Richard, he missed the school bus today.

[RAFAELLA]

DP