Cyprus-Forum.com

[Bananiot]

The "boot of the Mongol" ... this is "ELAM" and "Chrysi Avgi" talk. They are now coming out into the open which is not a bad thing really.

[kurupetos]

The "boot of the Mongol" ... this is "ELAM" and "Chrysi Avgi" talk. They are now coming out into the open which is not a bad thing really.

You got that right Bananiotte. Your BS is over, we are coming...

[Panicos UK]

The way I read the responses amalgamated and cross referenced is that:

1) Yes, the Treaty of Guarantee was still in effect in 1974
2) BUT the Treaty did not serve it's main purpose and actually (in the event that the UK and Greece didn't fulfill obligations) gave a legal pretext for Turkey to invade under the guise of 'justified intervention'.

[kimon07]

The "boot of the Mongol" ... this is "ELAM" and "Chrysi Avgi" talk. They are now coming out into the open which is not a bad thing really.

Forgot to mention the Fifth Column as well. My apologies.

[kimon07]

The "boot of the Mongol" ... this is "ELAM" and "Chrysi Avgi" talk. They are now coming out into the open which is not a bad thing really.

Yoy are right. I should have said ".....under the knife of the Mongol"

kurdisheads.jpg

220px-Tasos_Isaak_murdered.jpg

[kimon07]

The way I read the responses amalgamated and cross referenced is that:

1) Yes, the Treaty of Guarantee was still in effect in 1974

According to my opinion yes, even if the British, in order to excuse their non compliance to it, claimed that the treaty was annulled when Makarios submited the 13 points for the improvement of the cinstitution (according to the post of GIG above.

2) BUT the Treaty did not serve it's main purpose and actually (in the event that the UK and Greece didn't fulfill obligations) gave a legal pretext for Turkey to invade under the guise of 'justified intervention'.

Not exactly. 1. None of the guarantors was entitled to act unilateraly.
2. The intervention (to be lawful) should have been approved by the UN and should be implemented strictly within the frame and only for the purpose determined
by the UN with it's mandate.
3. The legal pretext was given to Turkey by Makarios who, during his speech at the UN on July the 19th, accused Greece of having invaded the island. Their "excuse",
which the neo cypriot Fifth (or Filth) Column supports, was and still is, that they were saving the TCs from slaughter and extinction. See, for instance, the posts
of Lordo, Halil, VP, Bananiot and other TMT guys and Filth Columnists.

[Panicos UK]

The way I read the responses amalgamated and cross referenced is that:

1) Yes, the Treaty of Guarantee was still in effect in 1974

According to my opinion yes, even if the British, in order to excuse their non compliance to it, claimed that the treaty was annulled when Makarios submited the 13 points for the improvement of the cinstitution (according to the post of GIG above.

2) BUT the Treaty did not serve it's main purpose and actually (in the event that the UK and Greece didn't fulfill obligations) gave a legal pretext for Turkey to invade under the guise of 'justified intervention'.

Not exactly. 1. None of the guarantors was entitled to act unilateraly.
2. The intervention (to be lawful) should have been approved by the UN and should be implemented strictly within the frame and only for the purpose determined
by the UN with it's mandate.
3. The legal pretext was given to Turkey by Makarios who, during his speech at the UN on July the 19th, accused Greece of having invaded the island. Their "excuse",
which the neo cypriot Fifth (or Filth) Column supports, was and still is, that they were saving the TCs from slaughter and extinction. See, for instance, the posts
of Lordo, Halil, VP, Bananiot and other TMT guys and Filth Columnists.

Article IV (Treaty of Guarantee)

In the event of a breach of the provisions of the present Treaty, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom undertake to consult together with respect to the representations or measures necessary to ensure observance of those provisions.

In so far as common or concerted action may not prove possible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty.

[supporttheunderdog]

But the fact of the matter is that Turkey did not take any action to restablish the state of affairs created by the treaties but instead (and in particular after August 17th 1974) took steps to actively occupy 37% of the Island and partition it, in gross violation of their own treaty obligations. I would say that was Turkey's aim from well before July 1974. and I think one former senior politician made it quite clear that the Kibrilisi were of little importance to Turkey in regard to any planned Turkish invasion to prevent Enosis.

[Viewpoint]

But the fact of the matter is that Turkey did not take any action to restablish the state of affairs created by the treaties but instead (and in particular after August 17th 1974) took steps to actively occupy 37% of the Island and partition it, in gross violation of their own treaty obligations. I would say that was Turkey's aim from well before July 1974. and I think one former senior politician made it quite clear that the Kibrilisi were of little importance to Turkey in regard to any planned Turkish invasion to prevent Enosis.

We have still not resolved the problems of the past thats why Turkey will and should remain.

[Panicos UK]

But the fact of the matter is that Turkey did not take any action to restablish the state of affairs created by the treaties but instead (and in particular after August 17th 1974) took steps to actively occupy 37% of the Island and partition it, in gross violation of their own treaty obligations. I would say that was Turkey's aim from well before July 1974. and I think one former senior politician made it quite clear that the Kibrilisi were of little importance to Turkey in regard to any planned Turkish invasion to prevent Enosis.

We have still not resolved the problems of the past thats why Turkey will and should remain.

I would go further and say that we still have not agreed on historical events yet. Until this is done (or efforts are made to do this) we can't move forward. It's impossible.