Cyprus-Forum.com

[Simon]

Let me remind you fools:

Greece VIOLATED the stupid Treaty of Guarantee (that they stupidly signed along with all the other signatories) thereby declaring a Cyprus OPEN SEASON for all!

Do you fully comprehend the repercussions of Greece’s violation of this treaty?

Do you realize that in doing so, Greece rendered a Turkish invasion of Cyprus PERFECTLY LEGAL???

And then after this you think you can try Turkey while Greece washes her hands clean in a court of law?

How old are you people anyway?

Therefore, the only way you can seek justice is by having Greece and Turkey SIDE BY SIDE in an international court of law for CONSPIRING against Cyprus to cause all this!

See how it all makes perfect LEGAL sense now and do you see how you CANNOT exonerate one without exonerating the other?

Now do you realise why the international community has done nothing so far? It's because we (GCs) have been foolishly exonerating Greece all these decades thereby making JUSTICE impossible!!!

GR, you are missing one obvious point (as usual).

I don't think anyone really contends that Turkey did not have legal right to intervene following the coup (once certain procedures had been followed, as set out in the Treaty - unsurprisingly, they were not) but only to preserve the status quo. The status quo was preserved fairly immediately, as the coup failed and did not in any event have the support of the general population of the GCs. Everything Turkey has done since the coup failed has been illegal - to this very day. Greece's illegalities ended almost 40 years ago.

Therefore, whilst Greece obviously was in breach of their Guarantor obligations, this did not give Turkey the right to permanently occupy the island and force a partition. That did not give Turkey the right to ethnically cleanse the indigenous population, nor to carry out any of the other human rights abuses, including the flagrant breach of the Geneva Convention by bring illegal settlers from Turkey to change the demographics of the island. Legal? You must be joking.

[Get Real!]

Let me remind you fools:

Greece VIOLATED the stupid Treaty of Guarantee (that they stupidly signed along with all the other signatories) thereby declaring a Cyprus OPEN SEASON for all!

Do you fully comprehend the repercussions of Greece’s violation of this treaty?

Do you realize that in doing so, Greece rendered a Turkish invasion of Cyprus PERFECTLY LEGAL???

And then after this you think you can try Turkey while Greece washes her hands clean in a court of law?

How old are you people anyway?

Therefore, the only way you can seek justice is by having Greece and Turkey SIDE BY SIDE in an international court of law for CONSPIRING against Cyprus to cause all this!

See how it all makes perfect LEGAL sense now and do you see how you CANNOT exonerate one without exonerating the other?

Now do you realise why the international community has done nothing so far? It's because we (GCs) have been foolishly exonerating Greece all these decades thereby making JUSTICE impossible!!!

GR, you are missing one obvious point (as usual).

I don't think anyone really contends that Turkey did not have legal right to intervene following the coup (once certain procedures had been followed, as set out in the Treaty - unsurprisingly, they were not) but only to preserve the status quo. The status quo was preserved fairly immediately, as the coup failed and did not in any event have the support of the general population of the GCs.

Therefore, whilst Greece obviously was in breach of their Guarantor obligations, this did not give Turkey the right to permanently occupy the island and force a partition. That did not give Turkey the right to ethnically cleanse the indigenous population, nor to carry out any of the other human rights abuses, including the flagrant breach of the Geneva Convention by bring illegal settlers from Turkey to change the demographics of the island. Legal? You must be joking.

In a court of law Turkey’s occupation of captured Cypriot territory would be a SECONDARY MATTER (different lawsuit) taken up at an entirely different time and date.

The PRIMARY matter of the CyProb is the VIOLATION of the Treaty of Guarantee which a legal representative cannot fight fairly for Cyprus without having both Greece and Turkey in the dock.

[Get Real!]

In other words, if I was representing Cyprus in an international court of law, the only way I could win my case for Cyprus is by suing BOTH Greece and Turkey simultaneously for conspiracy against Cyprus.

Upon winning that I would then proceed to challenge Turkey’s ongoing presence (occupation).

[Simon]

Let me remind you fools:

Greece VIOLATED the stupid Treaty of Guarantee (that they stupidly signed along with all the other signatories) thereby declaring a Cyprus OPEN SEASON for all!

Do you fully comprehend the repercussions of Greece’s violation of this treaty?

Do you realize that in doing so, Greece rendered a Turkish invasion of Cyprus PERFECTLY LEGAL???

And then after this you think you can try Turkey while Greece washes her hands clean in a court of law?

How old are you people anyway?

Therefore, the only way you can seek justice is by having Greece and Turkey SIDE BY SIDE in an international court of law for CONSPIRING against Cyprus to cause all this!

See how it all makes perfect LEGAL sense now and do you see how you CANNOT exonerate one without exonerating the other?

Now do you realise why the international community has done nothing so far? It's because we (GCs) have been foolishly exonerating Greece all these decades thereby making JUSTICE impossible!!!

GR, you are missing one obvious point (as usual).

I don't think anyone really contends that Turkey did not have legal right to intervene following the coup (once certain procedures had been followed, as set out in the Treaty - unsurprisingly, they were not) but only to preserve the status quo. The status quo was preserved fairly immediately, as the coup failed and did not in any event have the support of the general population of the GCs.

Therefore, whilst Greece obviously was in breach of their Guarantor obligations, this did not give Turkey the right to permanently occupy the island and force a partition. That did not give Turkey the right to ethnically cleanse the indigenous population, nor to carry out any of the other human rights abuses, including the flagrant breach of the Geneva Convention by bring illegal settlers from Turkey to change the demographics of the island. Legal? You must be joking.

In a court of law Turkey’s occupation of captured Cypriot territory would be a SECONDARY MATTER (different lawsuit) taken up at an entirely different time and date.

The PRIMARY matter of the CyProb is the VIOLATION of the Treaty of Guarantee which a legal representative cannot fight fairly for Cyprus without having both Greece and Turkey in the dock.

Nonsense GR!

The primary matter is today's illegality. That is what we would be challenging in court. Greece's illegalities ended almost 40 years ago. They are no longer relevant to today's situation! It is the occupation still present this very moment which is the continuing legal question in issue.

The point I am making is, both Greece and Turkey carried out illegal actions. But Turkey's illegal actions are ongoing, and there is NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT in law or otherwise!

[Simon]

In other words, if I was representing Cyprus in an international court of law, the only way I could win my case for Cyprus is by suing BOTH Greece and Turkey simultaneously for conspiracy against Cyprus.

Upon winning that I would then proceed to challenge Turkey’s ongoing presence (occupation).

The two legal actions are distinct. One does not depend on the other. The reason for this is that whilst you could argue that one event triggered the other, both events were separate and obvious breaches of the law. Therefore, suing both is certainly not the only way you could win your case.

[Get Real!]

Nonsense GR!

The primary matter is today's illegality. That is what we would be challenging in court. Greece's illegalities ended almost 40 years ago. They are no longer relevant to today's situation! It is the occupation still present this very moment which is the continuing legal question in issue.

The point I am making is, both Greece and Turkey carried out illegal actions. But Turkey's illegal actions are ongoing, and there is NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT in law or otherwise!

Don’t make me play the devil’s advocate Simon because I don’t want to!

I don’t know what your occupation is but I don’t think you’d make a good lawyer Simon.

[Paphitis]

Of course it could be that we are all full of shit.

In the 70s, both Greece and Turkey were the biggest recipients of US aid and received free Destroyers under the FRAM 1, FRAM 2 and FRAM 3 programs. It would be stupid if the US turned around and sunk the US sponsored Greek Fleet. But that doesn't stop the Kafeneio talk.

Furthermore, A Greek Naval Vessel did dock at Paphos and unloaded some Hellenic Special Forces Troops which headed for the front lines. The Turks were looking for it and in the confusion sunk their own Kocatepe and disabled another 2 Turkish Destroyers.
'
Also, Greece rejoined NATO in 1980. If the US is 100% responsible, then you got to wonder why the would want to be a part of the organization.

I honestly believe that we sometimes overstate things to our own detriment.

Paphitis, are you implying that the US would never attack a country who is a recipient of American weapons? Because I think you'll find they do that quite often. If the US felt that Greece was acting contrary to its interests, it would not at all be surprising if they made such a threat. However, whether they actually did make this threat, of course I do not know.

I largely agree with you, I think we can overstate things. I also do not believe the US was 100% responsible. That is silly. But I also do not believe that Greece was 100% responsible (although the junta were the most reprehensible) as this ignores the historical context of the problem. I think the blame lies with several parties. But clearly Greece felt betrayed by the US, otherwise, why withdraw from NATO at all?

Turkey and Greece had a very special relationship with the US. Both members of NATO.

What I am implying is that the US would NEVER attack a NATO country. Such an event would spell the end of the NATO alliance as we know it. It would be the stupidest action America would ever engage in and it would undermine the entire area and make it vulnerable to Soviet attack.

As a matter of fact, aside from the free destroyers Greece had received, it was the third country to receive the F4 Phantom in 1974, only after the US and Australia who used them in the Vietnam War.

[Get Real!]

The two legal actions are distinct. One does not depend on the other.

Ha! Try separating these and you'll lose the case hands down!

Once again, you're trying to let Greece off the hook and a court of law would see that and toss it out.

Without addressing the Greek coup tied to a conspiracy with Turkey, nothing else could follow and your case cannot get off the ground.

[Paphitis]

The two legal actions are distinct. One does not depend on the other.

Ha! Try separating these and you'll lose the case hands down!

Once again, you're trying to let Greece off the hook and a court of law would see that and toss it out.

Without addressing the Greek coup tied to a conspiracy with Turkey, nothing else could follow and your case cannot get off the ground.

Greece can redeem itself only if it stands up to Turkey and takes responsibility for what it has done.

Until then, there can be no respect!

[Simon]

Nonsense GR!

The primary matter is today's illegality. That is what we would be challenging in court. Greece's illegalities ended almost 40 years ago. They are no longer relevant to today's situation! It is the occupation still present this very moment which is the continuing legal question in issue.

The point I am making is, both Greece and Turkey carried out illegal actions. But Turkey's illegal actions are ongoing, and there is NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT in law or otherwise!

Don’t make me play the devil’s advocate Simon because I don’t want to!

I don’t know what your occupation is but I don’t think you’d make a good lawyer Simon.

GR, I could throw legal principles at you if you like, but I don't want to bamboozle you too much. Are you a lawyer? Probably not, because the point I am making is fairly simple. Cyprus would (in this hypothetical scenario) have a separate cause of action against both Turkey and Greece (ignoring for a moment the GCs and National Guard's role in the coup). Both Greece and Turkey breached their legal obligations.

Your logic goes like this:

Person A beat Person B to a pulp and severely weakened Person B to an extent where Person B could no longer defend themselves. Person C comes along. Person C was always attracted to Person B and desperately wanted to have sex with her. Person C had the right of course to assist Person B, but Person C instead chose, after seeing that this was his perfect opportunity, to take advantage of Person B's plight, and rape her.

Now you are saying, Person B could not possibly prosecute Person C unless they too prosecuted Person A. Well, this is nonsense. She could seek reparations from one, or both.

Now to stretch the example further, say Person C decided to rape Person B on a daily basis, long after the beating by Person A. Now what would you say!! The beating is barely even relevant!

There is no legal requirement for what you are suggesting, and unless you can provide a legal reasoning for your assertion, then I suggest you leave it there.