Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

2fan, I think you confuse the world with the AngloAmericans. The UK/US have always supported the crimes of Turkey against Cyprus and nothing changed.

The countries in our region that have witnessed first hand the cruelty or the Turks know who is saying the truth and who is lying.

You are so used to the fact that we have been turning the other cheek for so long that you can't stand it now that we are doing something about it.

"Turning the other cheek" ??? Sure sure. Soon you are going to tell us that you are good Christians also.


Such ignorant people like 2fan make me want to remind them of their history. I will not do that in respect to the civilized Turks and TCs.

[BigDutch]

...Turkey invaded legally as a guaranteur power and NEVER annexed northern Cyprus....[/b]

"Guarantor power" was there to get the Republic back to the 1960 constitution.

The current status quo is not "legal" as per the Guarantor rights.

The occupation of the northern 37% the island from summer 1974 is not "legal" as per Guarantor rights.

The settlement by Turkish nationals in the northern 37% of the island from summer 1974 is not "legal" as per Guarantor rights.

The proclamation of the 'TRNC' (aforementioned 37% of the island) from November 15 1983 is not "legal" as per Guarantor rights.

Whilst i don't pretend to be anything more than interested in Cyprus' recent history, i don't beleive any efforts were made to get the 1960 constitution back after the Turkish mililary intervention. Turkey showed its intent with regards to Cyprus when after legally intervening in July 1974 it went on to "conquer" further territory later in the summer and has never looked back. This was not what the Guarantor rights were there for.

If i`m wrong please educate me.

[Kifeas]

...Turkey invaded legally as a guaranteur power and NEVER annexed northern Cyprus....[/b]

"Guarantor power" was there to get the Republic back to the 1960 constitution.

The current status quo is not "legal" as per the Guarantor rights.

The occupation of the northern 37% the island from summer 1974 is not "legal" as per Guarantor rights.

The settlement by Turkish nationals in the northern 37% of the island from summer 1974 is not "legal" as per Guarantor rights.

The proclamation of the 'TRNC' (aforementioned 37% of the island) from November 15 1983 is not "legal" as per Guarantor rights.

Whilst i don't pretend to be anything more than interested in Cyprus' recent history, i don't beleive any efforts were made to get the 1960 constitution back after the Turkish mililary intervention. Turkey showed its intent with regards to Cyprus when after legally intervening in July 1974 it went on to "conquer" further territory later in the summer and has never looked back. This was not what the Guarantor rights were there for.

If i`m wrong please educate me.

No, you are not wrong at all!

As for the legality of the "intervention" (invasion,) this is also disputable. According to the UN Chart, which is the ultimate of international law, no country member of the UN has the right to intervene militarily into another sovereign country member of the UN, without prior approval of the UN Security Council, irrespective of any other pre-existing treaties.

[Viewpoint]

Cry Cry Cry, winge winge winge thats all you guys do, get real, the fact is this island is divided. Deal with it...

If you want to reunite then you have to negotiate for it, it wont drop out of the sky from all your ranting and ravings.

[2fan]

...Turkey invaded legally as a guaranteur power and NEVER annexed northern Cyprus....[/b]

"Guarantor power" was there to get the Republic back to the 1960 constitution.

The current status quo is not "legal" as per the Guarantor rights.

The occupation of the northern 37% the island from summer 1974 is not "legal" as per Guarantor rights.

The settlement by Turkish nationals in the northern 37% of the island from summer 1974 is not "legal" as per Guarantor rights.

The proclamation of the 'TRNC' (aforementioned 37% of the island) from November 15 1983 is not "legal" as per Guarantor rights.

I was talking about the invasion. FULL STOP. Not the aftermath.If Turkey did not invade who was to protect the Turk cyps? Mainland Greece? Turkey invaded to protect the Turkish speaking cypriots before all hell broke lose. Especially when Nico Sampson, the assasin with a camera in one hand and a gun in the other was sworn in as president. Would that not alarm Greeks if the shoe were on the other foot? These are the realities that some of you avoid by spewing your "version" of events. Get your head out of the sand. Turkey will remain on the island until an acceptable unification plan is presented. That's another reality you're gonna have to face.


Aother thing, If Turkey is the ogre that most of you make it out to be why didn't the rest of the world come and remove them physically from the island? There are plenty of powers that are capable of this. Maybe the rest of the world saw something that some you don't want to recognise

Whilst i don't pretend to be anything more than interested in Cyprus' recent history, i don't beleive any efforts were made to get the 1960 constitution back after the Turkish mililary intervention. Turkey showed its intent with regards to Cyprus when after legally intervening in July 1974 it went on to "conquer" further territory later in the summer and has never looked back. This was not what the Guarantor rights were there for.

Agreed, but the reason, imo,she went further is because she wanted to consolidate her power on the island to force the Greeks to an agreement. She could have "conquered" more territories if she wanted to but she didn't.

If i`m wrong please educate me.

[2fan]

2fan, I think you confuse the world with the AngloAmericans. The UK/US have always supported the crimes of Turkey against Cyprus and nothing changed.

The countries in our region that have witnessed first hand the cruelty or the Turks know who is saying the truth and who is lying.

You are so used to the fact that we have been turning the other cheek for so long that you can't stand it now that we are doing something about it.

"Turning the other cheek" ??? Sure sure. Soon you are going to tell us that you are good Christians also.


Such ignorant people like 2fan make me want to remind them of their history. I will not do that in respect to the civilized Turks and TCs.

I am quite familiar with my history and I have come to terms with both achievements and shortcomings. Something you obviously have not been able to do with your history.

It's funny how everyone is "ignorant" if they don't agree with the world according to Pirate. Instead of insulting me why don't you share with us as to what you would like see happen on the island. All Turks off? We know you don't like the Annan Plan I don't either what else?

[realcypriot]

Hello everyone,

I am a new member. I joined seven minutes ago so I think its a bit too soon to start outlining my opinions, so I'll just ask a simple question. Instead of saying that we are TC or GC, do you not think that we should call ourselves just cypriot, after all, the island is called Cyprus. By adding the 'Turkish' or the Greek', we are in a sense not proud to be from Cyprus, when we should be.

[Dhavlos]

No, we are all proud to be cypriot, it is just the way things are, and is just to help differentiate from one another.

If we were all 'cypriot', then there would not be any problem.!!!!

I think that the idea of 'cypriotness' needs time to develop, and will hopefully one day occur, either before, or from a solution.

You'll find soon that if we didnt have the labels GC/TC, then the politics section would be impossible to figure out!!

There are many reasons why we are called GC and TC, but one day i too hope we are just C.

[cypezokyli]

the cypriot idea is quite nice.

a couple of questions to 2fan:

I was talking about the invasion. FULL STOP. Not the aftermath.If Turkey did not invade who was to protect the Turk cyps? Mainland Greece? Turkey invaded to protect the Turkish speaking cypriots before all hell broke lose. Especially when Nico Sampson, the assasin with a camera in one hand and a gun in the other was sworn in as president. Would that not alarm Greeks if the shoe were on the other foot? These are the realities that some of you avoid by spewing your "version" of events. Get your head out of the sand. Turkey will remain on the island until an acceptable unification plan is presented. That's another reality you're gonna have to face.

i am not going to get into the legality question. in any case i dont really believe in international laws. i tottaly agree with you on the realities though. u r right about the fear that sampson caused.

i also agree that we have to face the realities (right or wrong) that turkeish army is here and will leave only with a solution.

but please,
dont tell me that the operation had the only purpose the tcs.
turkey served also its geostrategic plans with the excuse we gave.
the way i see it is that turkey always was in favor of partition. she was simply much more politically clever and waited for the stupid gc to give her the right excuse.
and the gc targets at the time were no better ofcource (enosis).

Agreed, but the reason, imo,she went further is because she wanted to consolidate her power on the island to force the Greeks to an agreement. She could have "conquered" more territories if she wanted to but she didn't.

firstly, at some point there would have been serious resistance. not for eny other reason but simply bc cyprus is an island. and heroes are in general made when there is no other choise. i dont believe that we would have won though. but in any case the purpose was not to take the whole island. most likely partition.

second, it was as you say the only way to force the greeks to an agreement. lets agree on that. the 30years of the denktash era, are, i am afraid proving exactly the opposite. the acceptable unification plan i am really sorry to say it was no number 1 priority.


lastly, i think we do agree that the aftermath has caused a lot of pain.
i dont know if there were any other ways to protect the tc rights without having so many people leaving their houses. i guess if one would really wanted ,one could have found one.

[BigDutch]

I was talking about the invasion. FULL STOP. Not the aftermath.If Turkey did not invade who was to protect the Turk cyps? Mainland Greece? Turkey invaded to protect the Turkish speaking cypriots before all hell broke lose. Especially when Nico Sampson, the assasin with a camera in one hand and a gun in the other was sworn in as president. Would that not alarm Greeks if the shoe were on the other foot?

I`m sure it would but we could spend all day talking about "what would have happened", besides as our resident optimist, Viewpoint, so eloquently pointed out "Cry Cry Cry, winge winge winge thats all you guys do, get real, the fact is this island is divided. Deal with it... "

These are the realities that some of you avoid by spewing your "version" of events. Get your head out of the sand. Turkey will remain on the island until an acceptable unification plan is presented. That's another reality you're gonna have to face.

I have not avoided anything and my head is not in the sand. I wasn't even born but have read about times from 1950 onwards. I think after 30+ years of occupation that you only pointed out the obvious that Turkey will remain on the island, the only issue is to make an acceptable unification plan that Turkey and the RoC is happy with. This requires all parties directly involved to be flexible, whilst people with a viewpoint like Viewpoint are about there will not be a unification plan that pleases the majority.

Aother thing, If Turkey is the ogre that most of you make it out to be why didn't the rest of the world come and remove them physically from the island? There are plenty of powers that are capable of this. Maybe the rest of the world saw something that some you don't want to recognise

I guess the answer would be they really don't care enough to goto war over it, until there is oil found in huge quantities in the sea around the island! If Greece had come to the aid of "GC"s then maybe countries would have fallen into sides and the Muslim vs non-Muslim war would have been and gone by now with us all sitting in a nuclear infected swamp. Besides I think that it is widely understood (despite GC bestefforts) that Turkey had reason to intervene, however I don't beleive any governments agree with any of Turkeys actions, or lack of actions,after summer of '74 but generally feel that politics rather than ballistics is the solution.

Agreed, but the reason, imo,she went further is because she wanted to consolidate her power on the island to force the Greeks to an agreement. She could have "conquered" more territories if she wanted to but she didn't.

No doubt about your last statement. The "GC" forces were like matchsticks under a chain saw. From reading some apparantly unbias sources i would have to disagree that they wanted to force an agreement. I understand there were numerous occasions over the last 30 years during which Denktash refused to give way enough or even come to the table, leading the UN Envoy at the time to put the blame for the contining problem at Denktash feet. Since then there was the referendum which was a failure as it only addressed the concerns of one party.