The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Another political b**ch slap for Anatolia

Everything related to politics in Cyprus and the rest of the world.

Postby Cap » Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:39 pm

ZoC wrote:
Cap wrote:
ZoC wrote:
Cap wrote:
ZoC wrote:
Cap wrote:What you people arguing with Issy for.
Anatolians only understand one thing. Violence in numbers.
Its a tribal instinct that quite didn't disappear through evolution.

So quite naturally everything comes down to violence and bloodshed.
As has just been proven by our Anatolian-spawn friend.


i bet i could take her/him, on a one on one, though.


You wouldn't need to ZoC. It will run away if its a fair fight... and most probably come back with a horde of Anatolians foaming at the mouth with a club in one hand and a copy of the Quran in the other.

that's why its critical to outsmart them and be one step ahead.


sure... but can i slap her after?


It depends. Evolved humans have a conscience.. you might regret it later.... as for her..

:? jeez, i thought i woz the philosophical one..:? and there's me thinking i'd get so much pleasure out of it... hmmm... how about just a metaphorical, forum slapping? is that ok, d'u think?

Cap wrote:she'll empty an entire 9mm magazine in your back without batting an eyelid.


shit, wot a bitch! no wonder no one likes them...


lol, poking fun aside, it was the 'we took it cos we're bigger than you, so come and get it if you're so brave' attitude that got to me.
User avatar
Cap
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7276
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Cypriot Empire

Postby Gasman » Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:21 pm

the EU was set up to conduct conflict resolution


That's why the EU was set up is it?

Maybe to prevent more bloody wars between neighbouring countries. But not set up to resolve conflicts worldwide (whether the countries involved are in the EU or not).

However, I realise your only reason for wanting Cyprus in the EU was so that they could send in a big army to kick Turks out of Cyprus - you've said so. You've been waiting a long time for that to happen though.
Gasman
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 3561
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 6:18 pm

Postby DT. » Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:38 pm

Gasman wrote:
the EU was set up to conduct conflict resolution


That's why the EU was set up is it?

Maybe to prevent more bloody wars between neighbouring countries. But not set up to resolve conflicts worldwide (whether the countries involved are in the EU or not).

However, I realise your only reason for wanting Cyprus in the EU was so that they could send in a big army to kick Turks out of Cyprus - you've said so. You've been waiting a long time for that to happen though.


Not that long :? We only joined in 2004 :roll:
User avatar
DT.
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 12684
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:34 pm
Location: Lefkosia

Postby Oracle » Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:59 pm

Oracle wrote:Perhaps "troops" is all that Turkey understands - But, the EU was set up to conduct conflict resolution in a more civilised fashion. Somehow, methinks, that is going to hurt a hell of a lot more, for a helluva longer time ...


I see 'someone' is ridiculously attempting to challenge whether the EU was set up to conduct conflict resolution, in a civilised way :lol:

From:
"The EU and Conflict resolution: promoting peace in the backyard" by N. Tocci

Chpt 2
EU aims in neighborhood conflicts and trends on the ground.

In the 1991 Maastricht treaty, the EU specified for the first time its foreign policy objectives. These included conflict resolution as well as strengthening international security, promoting regional cooperation, combating international crime and promoting democracy, the rule of law and human rights (Article J.1)
User avatar
Oracle
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 23507
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:13 am
Location: Anywhere but...

Postby Oracle » Sun Jan 23, 2011 4:51 pm

Just in ... another "Another political b**ch slap for Anatolia"

Anticipating tantrums .... :D


The four Israeli members and two international observers who composed the Turkel Commission to investigate the flotilla incident on May 31 unanimously agreed that Israel's naval blockade of the Gaza Strip and its overland import restrictions, as well as its military actions in capturing the Mavi Marmara were in accordance with international law.

According to the concluding remarks of the committee members and international observers, "The naval blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip – in view of the security circumstances and Israel's efforts to comply with its humanitarian obligations – was legal pursuant to the rules of international law. The actions carried out by Israel on May 31, 2010, to enforce the naval blockade had the regrettable consequences of the loss of human life and physical injuries. Nonetheless, and despite the limited number of uses of force for which we could not reach a conclusion, the actions taken were found to be legal pursuant to the rules of international law."

The commission, officially known as the Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of May 31, 2010, released the first of two scheduled reports on Sunday. Commission spokesman Ofer Lefler explained that each report deals with separate questions which the government asked the members of the panel to investigate, and said that each of them would be final.

The first report addressed the the question of whether or not the naval blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip by Israel conformed with the rules of international law. This included an assessment of the actions taken by the IDF to enforce the naval blockade and of the actions taken by the organizers of the flotilla and its participants and their identity.

Regarding the legality of the operation itself, the commission reached the conclusion that the Israeli armed forces' interception and capture of the Gaza Flotilla vessels – including having the Shayetet 13 naval commandos board from the Morena speedboats and fast-rope from helicopter onto the roof of the vessels – was consistent with established international naval practice.

IHH activists violently opposed IDF boarding boat

The commission concluded that on board the Mavi Marmara and the other flotilla vessels was a group of IHH and affiliated activists (the IHH activists) that violently opposed the Israelis boarding. The IHH activists who participated in that violence were civilians taking a direct part in hostilities.

"The force used against civilians on board the flotilla was governed by the principles of "necessity" and use of "proportionate force" associated with human rights based law enforcement norms. However, the IHH activists lost the protection of their civilian status for such time as they directly participated in the hostilities. The use of force against these direct participants in hostilities is governed by the applicable rules of international humanitarian law," the report said.

The commission explained that the IHH activists carried out the violence on board the Mavi Marmara by arming themselves with a wide array of weapons, including iron bars, axes, clubs, slingshots, knives, and metal objects.

"Overall, the IDF personnel acted professionally in the faces of extensive and unanticipated violence. This included continuing to switch back and forth between less-letha and lethal weapons in order to address the nature of the violence directed at them," the commission said.

Israel and Gaza Strip involved in international armed conflict

The commission found that the conflict between Israel and the Gaza Strip is an international armed conflict. It also found that Israel's "effective control" of the Gaza Strip ended when the disengagement was completed. The purpose of the naval blockade imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip was primarily a military-security one.

The commission also found that the naval blockade was imposed on the Gaza Strip lawfully, with Israel complying with the conditions for imposing it.

As part of the conclusions it was also found that Israel is complying with the humanitarian obligations imposed on the blockading party, including the prohibition of starving the civilian population or preventing the supply of objects essential for the survival of the civilian population and medical supplies. Israel also makes sure that the the damage to the civilian population is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

"The imposition and enforcement of the naval blockade on the Gaza Strip does not constitute "collective punishment" of the population of the Gaza Strip," the report went on to say.

"International law does not give individuals or groups the freedom to ignore the imposition of a naval blockade that satisfies the conditions for imposing it and that is enforced accordingly, especially where a blockade satisfies obligations to neutral parties, merely because in the opinion of those individuals or groups it violates the duties of the party imposing the blockade vis-à-vis the entity subject to the blockade," continued the commissions conclusions.


http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPoliti ... ?id=204858
User avatar
Oracle
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 23507
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:13 am
Location: Anywhere but...

Postby quattro » Sun Jan 23, 2011 6:13 pm

Oracle wrote:
Oracle wrote:Perhaps "troops" is all that Turkey understands - But, the EU was set up to conduct conflict resolution in a more civilised fashion. Somehow, methinks, that is going to hurt a hell of a lot more, for a helluva longer time ...


I see 'someone' is ridiculously attempting to challenge whether the EU was set up to conduct conflict resolution, in a civilised way :lol:

From:
"The EU and Conflict resolution: promoting peace in the backyard" by N. Tocci

Chpt 2
EU aims in neighborhood conflicts and trends on the ground.

In the 1991 Maastricht treaty, the EU specified for the first time its foreign policy objectives. These included conflict resolution as well as strengthening international security, promoting regional cooperation, combating international crime and promoting democracy, the rule of law and human rights (Article J.1)


Now that puts turkey back to square one ........no need for apologies :lol: :lol:
User avatar
quattro
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1201
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:16 pm
Location: Nicosia

Postby runaway » Sun Jan 23, 2011 6:33 pm

Oracle wrote:Just in ... another "Another political b**ch slap for Anatolia"

Anticipating tantrums .... :D


The four Israeli members and two international observers who composed the Turkel Commission to investigate the flotilla incident on May 31 unanimously agreed that Israel's naval blockade of the Gaza Strip and its overland import restrictions, as well as its military actions in capturing the Mavi Marmara were in accordance with international law.

According to the concluding remarks of the committee members and international observers, "The naval blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip – in view of the security circumstances and Israel's efforts to comply with its humanitarian obligations – was legal pursuant to the rules of international law. The actions carried out by Israel on May 31, 2010, to enforce the naval blockade had the regrettable consequences of the loss of human life and physical injuries. Nonetheless, and despite the limited number of uses of force for which we could not reach a conclusion, the actions taken were found to be legal pursuant to the rules of international law."

The commission, officially known as the Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of May 31, 2010, released the first of two scheduled reports on Sunday. Commission spokesman Ofer Lefler explained that each report deals with separate questions which the government asked the members of the panel to investigate, and said that each of them would be final.

The first report addressed the the question of whether or not the naval blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip by Israel conformed with the rules of international law. This included an assessment of the actions taken by the IDF to enforce the naval blockade and of the actions taken by the organizers of the flotilla and its participants and their identity.

Regarding the legality of the operation itself, the commission reached the conclusion that the Israeli armed forces' interception and capture of the Gaza Flotilla vessels – including having the Shayetet 13 naval commandos board from the Morena speedboats and fast-rope from helicopter onto the roof of the vessels – was consistent with established international naval practice.

IHH activists violently opposed IDF boarding boat

The commission concluded that on board the Mavi Marmara and the other flotilla vessels was a group of IHH and affiliated activists (the IHH activists) that violently opposed the Israelis boarding. The IHH activists who participated in that violence were civilians taking a direct part in hostilities.

"The force used against civilians on board the flotilla was governed by the principles of "necessity" and use of "proportionate force" associated with human rights based law enforcement norms. However, the IHH activists lost the protection of their civilian status for such time as they directly participated in the hostilities. The use of force against these direct participants in hostilities is governed by the applicable rules of international humanitarian law," the report said.

The commission explained that the IHH activists carried out the violence on board the Mavi Marmara by arming themselves with a wide array of weapons, including iron bars, axes, clubs, slingshots, knives, and metal objects.

"Overall, the IDF personnel acted professionally in the faces of extensive and unanticipated violence. This included continuing to switch back and forth between less-letha and lethal weapons in order to address the nature of the violence directed at them," the commission said.

Israel and Gaza Strip involved in international armed conflict

The commission found that the conflict between Israel and the Gaza Strip is an international armed conflict. It also found that Israel's "effective control" of the Gaza Strip ended when the disengagement was completed. The purpose of the naval blockade imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip was primarily a military-security one.

The commission also found that the naval blockade was imposed on the Gaza Strip lawfully, with Israel complying with the conditions for imposing it.

As part of the conclusions it was also found that Israel is complying with the humanitarian obligations imposed on the blockading party, including the prohibition of starving the civilian population or preventing the supply of objects essential for the survival of the civilian population and medical supplies. Israel also makes sure that the the damage to the civilian population is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

"The imposition and enforcement of the naval blockade on the Gaza Strip does not constitute "collective punishment" of the population of the Gaza Strip," the report went on to say.

"International law does not give individuals or groups the freedom to ignore the imposition of a naval blockade that satisfies the conditions for imposing it and that is enforced accordingly, especially where a blockade satisfies obligations to neutral parties, merely because in the opinion of those individuals or groups it violates the duties of the party imposing the blockade vis-à-vis the entity subject to the blockade," continued the commissions conclusions.


http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPoliti ... ?id=204858


Are you for real? Another all time low by O.pu posting Israeli reports :roll:
User avatar
runaway
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1723
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:41 pm
Location: Istanbul

Previous

Return to Politics and Elections

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest