Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

By extension since we are talking about legalities here, I will provide 3 more examples ...

IDF action in Gaza Strip such as what we have seen in the last couple of years on 2 separate occasions, is not illegal under the UN Charter. Israel under the above interpretations, has strong legal grounds to attack what it classifies Terrorist Elements (Hamas) which are attacking Israel.

What Israel does not have the right to do is deliberately target civilians in Gaza. Here there could be some grounds against Israel provided there is are solid argument that Israel did target civilians deliberately and did not take adequate steps to limit civilian collateral damage. The same rules apply to the Coalition and Russia in Syria. If any of these countries deliberately target civilians, then there are grounds for War Crimes.

The Coalition has very solid "Rules of Engagement" for this purpose. Russia is much more on shaky grounds with its use of Cruise Missiles. Assad is even on shakier grounds because we have verifiable evidence that his forces have targeted civilians with shelling, Barrel Bombs, and even Sarin Gas. These are most certainly War Crimes.

Another example I would like to cite is Turkey's Invasion of Cyprus in 1974. Turkey, under the UN Charter, had no right to invade, and to continue its occupation of Cyprus- which is a Member Nation of the UN.

Cyprus has at no stage been a threat to Turkey. as a result, Turkey can't claim 'self-defence".

Turkey however does claim that its action in Cyprus is legal under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee. This argument is extremely contentious, because this Treaty does not give Turkey the right to continue an occupation against a Sovereign Nation, Colonise the area (this is stipulated in the Geneva Convention) or to have ethnically cleansed the area and prevent the legal inhabitants from returning to their property.

Therefore, this is a very clear example of a breach of International Law as stipulated by the Geneva Convention and UN Articles. So Turkey has no legs here, legally speaking.

Another example of where Israel has no legal standing, is the colonisation of the West Bank. Similarly, Israel just like Turkey is acting illegally. We all know this, and before we get criticized, we have always advocated this position directly to Netanyahu and the Israeli Government.

[Garavnoss]

Very well presented Paphitis........ Good Luck.

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

Coalition action in Iraq against DAESH is NOT illegal. That is undeniable

.
I agree.

Coalition action in Syria, is also not illegal. Claims that it is are very sketchy to say the least and without legal basis. What is certain is that the UN Charter has provided legal grounds and a foot to stand on as far as Coalition military involvements in Syria are concerned in the present form of that military action.

I will explain (try to anyway with my limited legal background) ...

Article 2.4 signed in 1945 states that UN Members will not use force against another State. The Coalition has not used force against the State of Syria.

I agree, but aggression is not the point here, it is the legality of breaching another countries sovereign territory. (land,sea or air)

It also states that Members must respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States. Well no action thus far has indicated that the coalition does not respect the territorial integrity of Syria. The territory of Syria however, could be subject to partition by International Treaty if Assad remains in power. That means, that Syria will be carved up and other States will be formed with population exchanges.

There is little point in arguing Law because neither of us is a Lawyer! In the moral context and backed by UN legislation, the coalition would not be respecting Syria’s territorial integrity if they do trespass without either consent or UN mandate. The fact that this happens without coalition aircraft being shot down says that there is agreement with the Russians and that flight plans are being filed. Although we know the Russians did this with their SU that was shot down by Turkey, you justified it simply on the grounds that the Russians entered Turkish air space without their consent.

Also, there are mandated rules by the UN which do not prohibit Military Action through what is termed as "collective-defence" under UN Article 51.

I am fairly pragmatic and to me attacking another country for any reason other than the fact[b] YOU are being attacked is contrary to the UN Charter. Surely, that is what this is intended to provide for ...... ‘If you are attacked you have the right to self defence.’ Therefore an pre-emptive attack on another State is a declaration of war.

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charte ... index.html

Now, the coalition is in the Middle East to assist the Iraqi Government to maintain its territorial integrity against terrorist Islamist Organisations such as DAESH. This terrorist group use Syria as their Spring Board. Therefore, we have expanded our operations into Syria under collective-defence rules. This has now even more credibility since the USA, France and Australia have all been attacked by DAESH on their own territory.

I disagree! Why? Well, the incursions by FOREIGN terrorist elements going to join DAESH, as is all the military support, is provided through Turkey, not from Syria, and Turkey is a member of your coalition.

Sorry but DAESH is not a Syrian ‘terrorist’ group! The likely hood is that it is funded and supported definitely by the Saudis and by Qatar(?), at least that is what the evidence suggests, again both are members of your coalition.

Please note, that the absence of a UN Security Council resolution does not automatically imply that this action under Article 51 (which is what the Coalition will imply if attacked) makes that action illegal, because the Article itself implies that States do have a right for "collective-defence".

Again .......... you use a piece of legislation contrary to its intent because you claim 'pre-emptive' action is defence. I ask you: in that case the UK would have been acting within the provision of the UN Charter had it decided to bomb Ireland as IRA terrorists were crossing the border into UK territory to carry out murder and acts of terrorism on British citizens (NI) and UK troops?

In this context it would suggest that Israel could legitimately nuke Iran as a pre-emptive action because they had decided that against ALL the evidence, Israel decides Iran DOES have a nuclear weapon and are, as such, an existential threat to Israel’s security? I don’t think many would agree ......... although Netanyahu has threatened to do just that!

Of course, these Articles are written to outline the rules for Military Action of member States against another State. Well DAESH is not a State so that adds an element of ambiguity to the equation. Also, the Coalition is NOT engaged in any Military Action against Syria. So again, there are no legal grounds. This is uncharted territory because in 1945 when these Articles were written, it was not envisaged that the new threats to peace and stability will be from illegal terrorist organisations like DAESH and as a result, the Articles were written for State Vs State military engagements which this is clearly not the case in Syria.

However, there was an ICJ Ruling interpreting the Rights of Nations to invoke individual or collective self defence. Please see the below link. Here the ruling stipulates that the Article does not stipulate the types of aggressors, whether that is a State or a Terrorist Organisation. As a result, let's say there was a terrorist organisation in Cyprus attacking Australia. Well, Australia would have the right to attack that organisation within Cypriot Sovereign territory. That can in itself include Air Strikes and Troops on the Ground (Invasion) as long as there is an intention to respect Sovereign Territorial Integrity after the fact or until the UN takes control and there is a UN invoked settlement to bring peace and stability which also addresses Australia's security concerns with regard to this Terrorist Group (I use this example for illustrative purposes only).

The problem is, as we both are old enough to realise, is that the Law can always be ‘bent’ to suit a given agenda providing you have either loads of money (as an individual) or overwhelming political/military power (as in the case of sovereign States such as the USA or collectively, NATO.) The Law is an ass and from every bit of legislation drawn up there are also a lot of get-out clauses!

(I am not religious but: GOD created the Ten Commandments, a simple ‘Thou shalt not .......’ was sufficient. He offered them to Moses who could only carry ten tablets of stone ...... thank goodness he didn’t have Samson with him! But GOD had already made a BIG mistake. He created man and then he created woman out of Adams rib ...... then the big mistake he created Lawyers out of human excrement, the problem being that they went forth and multiplied !!!! )

Some more interesting reading for you here:
http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charte ... index.html

Sorry, but saying that coalition action is illegal does not make it so under the letter of the UN Articles. I had to learn about all this stuff at one time.

Again, you need to look at your clearing house source and do some cross checking over the validity of their erroneous claims which have no legal standing at all.

As I have said before, forget the server of a particular independent news outlet, it is irrelevant, look at the credentials of the author.

In this case, note that the author Prof. Tim Sanderson, gave reference to his sources all 77 of them, he gave dates and referred to events on both sides. I didn’t check his sources but no doubt they in turn would have multiple source references as well. Out of that he came to a conclusion which I tend to agree with. On the other hand you have made many claims against Assad with no evidence to support them.

You have referred several times to Assad using Sarin gas against his people and dropping barrel bombs on innocent civilians. The first claim has been disproved to the extent that there is now a lot of evidence it was the rebel faction that used it, it was supplied by Saudi and transported through Turkey to the rebels, they even have the batch numbers. As for the second claim ...... read the article carefully, yes he used barrel bombs but the civilian casualties occurred because the rebels and the FSA, who the coalition support, were embedded in with the civilian population that they frequently use as human shields (as I previously described) and there is also lots more evidence of rebel/FSA atrocities now coming out as the SAA advances.

Common sense says Assad had no reason at all to set out to deliberately bomb his own people, he has nothing to gain by doing so and everything to lose and, although it sounds callous, there are always civilian casualties in a war, particularly urban warfare!

Also, make no mistake about it! Each member of the Coalition has a team of some of the best International Experts, Lawyers available who would have on behalf of their Governments provided very sound interpretation and advice regarding their legal standing concerning their Military Engagements and as a result they do certainly have a leg to stand on and based on my interpretation and the interpretations of more knowledgeable experts, there is no specific Article that categorically implies that Coalition Action in Syria is illegal which probably explains the lack of formal legal engagements within the UN or ICJ against us.

I am afraid I don’t hold Lawyers or so called ‘experts’ employed by governments, in any great regard. Remember David Kelly? That is what happens when an expert does not support the ‘official’ story and his honesty becomes a embarrassment ..... they commit suicide!

So all we get is a bunch of hubris from very bias and anti western media outlets, like the ones you like.

Not really anti-western but biased maybe, but that is because they present the other side of the story, the events that the MSM do not cover. We have discussed Journalism limitations and the limitations are because somewhere down the line editorial requirements of the editor, the owner and the share holders, are applied to those employed by the MSM. As the independent outlets do not suffer this limitation they have more freedom to express views contrary to the MSM promulgated propaganda.

Here is another interesting read for you:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-18/i ... ck/6765386

Again, they seem to both agree and disagree, so it is up to the reader to look for further information and to have the ability to come to some rational conclusion as to which opinion is likely to have the highest probability of being the more accurate.

(You have my undivided attention today ........... because it is cold and wet and I have no outstanding jobs to do inside and I get bored very easily.)

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

By extension since we are talking about legalities here, I will provide 3 more examples

IDF action in Gaza Strip such as what we have seen in the last couple of years on 2 separate occasions, is not illegal under the UN Charter. Israel under the above interpretations, has strong legal grounds to attack what it classifies Terrorist Elements (Hamas) which are attacking Israel.

They most certainly are illegal, although I can forgive you for saying otherwise as your sources are somewhat biased. Israel is an occupying military power and therefore what they are doing to the Palestinians are acts of war. Israel took Palestine by force of arms in 1948 and they have continued to take more and more Palestinian land ever since. Hamas (and Hezbollah) are as legitimate as the IDF and could equally claim to be the PDF and LDF. The IDF is the old Israeli/Zionist terrorist groups that the US and Israel gave legitimacy too. It is Israel and the US that have designated them both as terrorist groups, most other countries regard them as a defence force against Israeli aggression. Palestinians do have the right to attack Israel in self defence, pre-emptive or otherwise, as what Israel is doing is no different to what the Nazi’s did to the Jews in Warsaw!

What Israel does not have the right to do is deliberately target civilians in Gaza. Here there could be some grounds against Israel provided there is are solid argument that Israel did target civilians deliberately and did not take adequate steps to limit civilian collateral damage. The same rules apply to the Coalition and Russia in Syria. If any of these countries deliberately target civilians, then there are grounds for War Crimes.

There is a lot of evidence that says that the IDF does target civilians, almost on a daily basis. This is why Netanyahu got so upset when Palestine was admitted as an Associate(?) to the UNGA, because this gave them access to the ICC in The Haige. There are plenty of videos on YouTube that show unequivocally that this happens (Try ‘Tears of Gaza’ for one ..... it had me in tears)

The Coalition has very solid "Rules of Engagement" for this purpose. Russia is much more on shaky grounds with its use of Cruise Missiles. Assad is even on shakier grounds because we have verifiable evidence that his forces have targeted civilians with shelling, Barrel Bombs, and even Sarin Gas. These are most certainly War Crimes.

The Russian cruise missiles have an incredible accuracy but presumably the use of drones by the coalition is OK? The Russian cruise accuracy is stated within 3m of the target ..... even allowing for a bit of exaggeration that is pretty awesome! As for these claims about Sarin gas and barrel bombs see my previous comments.

Another example I would like to cite is Turkey's Invasion of Cyprus in 1974. Turkey, under the UN Charter, had no right to invade, and to continue its occupation of Cyprus- which is a Member Nation of the UN.

They said differently ........ as they were a guarantee power! As we still have a UN presence here they could well argue that they are still needed to protect the TC’s from aggression from GC’s. (My knowledge on the events of 1974 is very limited and I would rather not enter into a ‘who-did-what’ exchange)

Cyprus has at no stage been a threat to Turkey, as a result, Turkey can't claim 'self-defence".

True

Turkey however does claim that its action in Cyprus is legal under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee. This argument is extremely contentious, because this Treaty does not give Turkey the right to continue an occupation against a Sovereign Nation, Colonise the area (this is stipulated in the Geneva Convention) or to have ethnically cleansed the area and prevent the legal inhabitants from returning to their property.

Is this not EXACTLY what Israel has done, and is still doing, to the Palestinians? It has been suggested that what Israel is doing could be regarded as genocide! But do we see any stand from the US or the UNSC? Of course not because every time a resolution is bought up condemning Israel, the US vetoes it. This has happened many, many times and even those that have got through have been totally ignored, with no action taken against the Israeli’s.

There are well over a 100 UNSC resolutions applied to Israel and they have ignored every single one of them!

I notice there is never a suggestion that sanctions should be applied to Israel because of their nuclear programme, that seems only to apply to those nations the US regard as enemies!

Therefore, this is a very clear example of a breach of International Law as stipulated by the Geneva Convention and UN Articles. So Turkey has no legs here, legally speaking.

Neither does Israel in their actions against Palestine (Gaza and the West Bank) but it makes sod all difference when you can hide under the umbrella of the ‘Exceptional One’ (No not Jose Mourrinho, the other one ........... Obama.)

Another example of where Israel has no legal standing, is the colonisation of the West Bank. Similarly, Israel just like Turkey is acting illegally. We all know this, and before we get criticized, we have always advocated this position directly to Netanyahu and the Israeli Government.

Which ‘we’ are we talking about? Certainly this does not apply to the US? Any protests from any other country that you would include in the coalition ‘we’ is very mild and half hearted or they incur the wrath of the ‘terrible twins’.

[MR-from-NG]

Paphitis:

By extension since we are talking about legalities here, I will provide 3 more examples

IDF action in Gaza Strip such as what we have seen in the last couple of years on 2 separate occasions, is not illegal under the UN Charter. Israel under the above interpretations, has strong legal grounds to attack what it classifies Terrorist Elements (Hamas) which are attacking Israel.

They most certainly are illegal, although I can forgive you for saying otherwise as your sources are somewhat biased. Israel is an occupying military power and therefore what they are doing to the Palestinians are acts of war. Israel took Palestine by force of arms in 1948 and they have continued to take more and more Palestinian land ever since. Hamas (and Hezbollah) are as legitimate as the IDF and could equally claim to be the PDF and LDF. The IDF is the old Israeli/Zionist terrorist groups that the US and Israel gave legitimacy too. It is Israel and the US that have designated them both as terrorist groups, most other countries regard them as a defence force against Israeli aggression. Palestinians do have the right to attack Israel in self defence, pre-emptive or otherwise, as what Israel is doing is no different to what the Nazi’s did to the Jews in Warsaw!

What Israel does not have the right to do is deliberately target civilians in Gaza. Here there could be some grounds against Israel provided there is are solid argument that Israel did target civilians deliberately and did not take adequate steps to limit civilian collateral damage. The same rules apply to the Coalition and Russia in Syria. If any of these countries deliberately target civilians, then there are grounds for War Crimes.

There is a lot of evidence that says that the IDF does target civilians, almost on a daily basis. This is why Netanyahu got so upset when Palestine was admitted as an Associate(?) to the UNGA, because this gave them access to the ICC in The Haige. There are plenty of videos on YouTube that show unequivocally that this happens (Try ‘Tears of Gaza’ for one ..... it had me in tears)

The Coalition has very solid "Rules of Engagement" for this purpose. Russia is much more on shaky grounds with its use of Cruise Missiles. Assad is even on shakier grounds because we have verifiable evidence that his forces have targeted civilians with shelling, Barrel Bombs, and even Sarin Gas. These are most certainly War Crimes.

The Russian cruise missiles have an incredible accuracy but presumably the use of drones by the coalition is OK? The Russian cruise accuracy is stated within 3m of the target ..... even allowing for a bit of exaggeration that is pretty awesome! As for these claims about Sarin gas and barrel bombs see my previous comments.

Another example I would like to cite is Turkey's Invasion of Cyprus in 1974. Turkey, under the UN Charter, had no right to invade, and to continue its occupation of Cyprus- which is a Member Nation of the UN.

They said differently ........ as they were a guarantee power! As we still have a UN presence here they could well argue that they are still needed to protect the TC’s from aggression from GC’s. (My knowledge on the events of 1974 is very limited and I would rather not enter into a ‘who-did-what’ exchange)

Cyprus has at no stage been a threat to Turkey, as a result, Turkey can't claim 'self-defence".

True

Turkey however does claim that its action in Cyprus is legal under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee. This argument is extremely contentious, because this Treaty does not give Turkey the right to continue an occupation against a Sovereign Nation, Colonise the area (this is stipulated in the Geneva Convention) or to have ethnically cleansed the area and prevent the legal inhabitants from returning to their property.

Is this not EXACTLY what Israel has done, and is still doing, to the Palestinians? It has been suggested that what Israel is doing could be regarded as genocide! But do we see any stand from the US or the UNSC? Of course not because every time a resolution is bought up condemning Israel, the US vetoes it. This has happened many, many times and even those that have got through have been totally ignored, with no action taken against the Israeli’s.

There are well over a 100 UNSC resolutions applied to Israel and they have ignored every single one of them!

I notice there is never a suggestion that sanctions should be applied to Israel because of their nuclear programme, that seems only to apply to those nations the US regard as enemies!

Therefore, this is a very clear example of a breach of International Law as stipulated by the Geneva Convention and UN Articles. So Turkey has no legs here, legally speaking.

Neither does Israel in their actions against Palestine (Gaza and the West Bank) but it makes sod all difference when you can hide under the umbrella of the ‘Exceptional One’ (No not Jose Mourrinho, the other one ........... Obama.)

Another example of where Israel has no legal standing, is the colonisation of the West Bank. Similarly, Israel just like Turkey is acting illegally. We all know this, and before we get criticized, we have always advocated this position directly to Netanyahu and the Israeli Government.

Which ‘we’ are we talking about? Certainly this does not apply to the US? Any protests from any other country that you would include in the coalition ‘we’ is very mild and half hearted or they incur the wrath of the ‘terrible twins’.

Sorry for butting in like this but I thought I should correct this. The UN is not here to protect the TC's. They are here to observe. So let me give you a scenario. If there was an attack by GC's, whether civilian or military, on a TC village and were shot at by a machine gun and killed randomly, not a single shot would be fired by the UN. They would just video the event and take notes and the TC's would just be another statistic and that is fact. So the idea that the UN or EU for that matter would protect the TC's is a myth.

[Robin Hood]

MR-from-NG:

Sorry for butting in like this but I thought I should correct this. The UN is not here to protect the TC's. They are here to observe. So let me give you a scenario. If there was an attack by GC's, whether civilian or military, on a TC village and were shot at by a machine gun and killed randomly, not a single shot would be fired by the UN. They would just video the event and take notes and the TC's would just be another statistic and that is fact. So the idea that the UN or EU for that matter would protect the TC's is a myth.

MR: don’t apologise please join in, the more comments like yours, the more we all learn. I addressed the reply to Paphitis simply because it was his post I was addressing and not a general comment. Also, although he is usually wrong he does at least put forward an argument.

I stand corrected, I did think they were supposed to be a sort of deterrent and assumed that they could only deter if they were armed. But I remember being told some years ago that even the UK Forces on the bases are not normally armed except for one particular area. So I suppose that figures! Mind you, it would be cheaper to provide observations in that case using local drones and multiple TV cameras.

So it is not like having NATO on the Green Line then?

[Robin Hood]

Not really Syria ............. and appears to be played very low key in the MSM

Iran has accused Saudi-led coalition warplanes of damaging its embassy and injuring staff in an air strike on Yemen's capital, Sanaa.

State media quoted a foreign ministry spokesman as saying planes had deliberately targeted the site. But some later reports in Iran said missiles had struck only in the vicinity of the embassy. Residents and witnesses in Sanaa reported there was no damage to the main embassy building.

Although the incident may turn out to be less serious than initially feared, the BBC's Arab Affairs Editor Sebastian Usher says the growing row between Saudi Arabia and Iran could derail peace efforts in Syria and Iraq, as well as in Yemen.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35251917

This is an act of war under the UN Charter? I think the Iranians will turn the other cheek but if they don't it could trigger a war between the two. This will no doubt give Israel the only excuse they need to attack Iran and that will drag in the US/UK and all the NATO countries. Does not bode well! Let us hope the Iranians are sensible and let the UN deal with it through the UNSC rather than retaliate.

[MR-from-NG]

MR-from-NG:

Sorry for butting in like this but I thought I should correct this. The UN is not here to protect the TC's. They are here to observe. So let me give you a scenario. If there was an attack by GC's, whether civilian or military, on a TC village and were shot at by a machine gun and killed randomly, not a single shot would be fired by the UN. They would just video the event and take notes and the TC's would just be another statistic and that is fact. So the idea that the UN or EU for that matter would protect the TC's is a myth.

MR: don’t apologise please join in, the more comments like yours, the more we all learn. I addressed the reply to Paphitis simply because it was his post I was addressing and not a general comment. Also, although he is usually wrong he does at least put forward an argument.

I stand corrected, I did think they were supposed to be a sort of deterrent and assumed that they could only deter if they were armed. But I remember being told some years ago that even the UK Forces on the bases are not normally armed except for one particular area. So I suppose that figures! Mind you, it would be cheaper to provide observations in that case using local drones and multiple TV cameras.
So it is not like having NATO on the Green Line then?

Thanks for the invite RH. What you're suggesting is very sensible and realistic. It would make economic sense too. There has been many incidents that the UN just stood by and watched so why have them there at all. Video evidence obtained via drones or static cameras strategically placed around towns and villages would be just as effective.

[GreekIslandGirl]

This is the reason the UN forces are in Cyprus - Makarios specifically asked them in January of 1964 when the actions of the TCs became clear in inviting Turkey to invade and destroy Cyprus' fledgling democracy ....

“If there is any need for the presence of troops in the island, these must be troops of the United Nations, with the main object of repulsing any foreign intervention,” he declared.

(from the NYTimes)

They clearly failed in their role to protect Cyprus and the GCs from Turkish-TC aggression.

[MR-from-NG]

This is the reason the UN forces are in Cyprus - Makarios specifically asked them in January of 1964 when the actions of the TCs became clear in inviting Turkey to invade and destroy Cyprus' fledgling democracy ....

“If there is any need for the presence of troops in the island, these must be troops of the United Nations, with the main object of repulsing any foreign intervention,” he declared.

(from the NYTimes)

They clearly failed in their role to protect Cyprus and the GCs from Turkish-TC aggression.

You, the general public as well as your government have always been wiser and sharper than us. You are great bullshitters and you have the ability to lie your way out of any thing. You've even managed to convince some out there that we are the aggressors and you are the victims. Thank god its only some and not all.
I tell you what though, my fucking hat off to you guys.
Who was it that said "Greeks are the best liars. They are brilliant, spectacular liars"?