Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

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.

This is completely irrelevant.

Greece is guilty purely for the fact its politics allow this injustice to continue in Cyprus to this day.

As a Guarantor Power they are obligated to preserve the island's territorial integrity.

[Simon]

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.

Ordinarily, the US probably would not attack a NATO nation. But what if that NATO nation was attacking another NATO nation? It then, in my view, becomes possible. Especially if that NATO nation is as important to the US as Turkey was (and possibly still is). Plus, the US would probably dress it up as a military dictatorship out of control and needing to be put back into line. Like I said, most of this is just speculation, but I would not completely rule it out.

[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.

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.

You forget to mention that person B signed a deal with the rest that gave them authority to rape her if anyone of them were to TRY to rape her!

It goes to show how ridiculous a treaty we signed!

[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.

This is completely irrelevant.

Greece is guilty purely for the fact its politics allow this injustice to continue in Cyprus to this day.

As a Guarantor Power they are obligated to preserve the island's territorial integrity.

It is not irrelevant to my debate with GR if you have been keeping up. GR is referring to the coup.

From what you have said then, Britain is just as guilty. You see, my point is the finger cannot just be directed at Greece.

[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.

You forget to mention that person B signed a deal with the rest that gave them authority to rape her if anyone of them were to TRY to rape her!

It goes to show how ridiculous a treaty we signed!

NO IT DID NOT!! The Treaty gave the right to preserve the status quo - i.e. help, in the example I gave above. Turkey misconstrued help as rape - and that is where today's illegality lies!

[Get Real!]

NO IT DID NOT!! The Treaty gave the right to preserve the status quo - i.e. help, in the example I gave above. Turkey misconstrued help as rape - and that is where today's illegality lies!

But to reestablish the status quo there had to be a bit of a rape eh… how else are you going to remove the other rapist sitting at the presidential palace and making declarations of authority?

[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.

Ordinarily, the US probably would not attack a NATO nation. But what is that NATO nation was attacking another NATO nation? It then, in my view, becomes possible. Especially if that NATO nation is as important to the US as Turkey was (and possibly still is). Plus, the US would probably dress it up as a military dictatorship out of control and needing to be put back into line. Like I said, most of this is just speculation, but I would not completely rule it out.

They would step in with a show of force which could rock both Greece and Turkey but I very much doubt they will start sinking Greek or Turkish ships or shoot down their aircraft. Even the presence of the US Naval Fifth Fleet is enough. In fact, they have they had the technology to jam all their radars, guidance systems and communications.

They would never cross the line by destroying the military capability of their very own NATO Southern Flank.

What we also overlook is why Russia stayed out. Russia was in fact licking its lips at the prospect of the war between 2 NATO countries, Yet we, in our own stupidity were expecting them to intervene in Cyprus.

[Get Real!]

Where is Nikitas when you need him; I think he once said he was an advocate of some sort…

[Simon]

NO IT DID NOT!! The Treaty gave the right to preserve the status quo - i.e. help, in the example I gave above. Turkey misconstrued help as rape - and that is where today's illegality lies!

But to reestablish the status quo there had to be a bit of a rape eh… how else are you going to remove the other rapist sitting at the presidential palace and making declarations of authority?

Not really, because the coup never succeeded. The status quo was established within days.

In my analogy, the raping refers to the ethnic cleansing, pillaging, etc etc - to enforce a partition. None of that was necessary to preserve the status quo - those actions were directed at destroying the status quo.

[Get Real!]

NO IT DID NOT!! The Treaty gave the right to preserve the status quo - i.e. help, in the example I gave above. Turkey misconstrued help as rape - and that is where today's illegality lies!

But to reestablish the status quo there had to be a bit of a rape eh… how else are you going to remove the other rapist sitting at the presidential palace and making declarations of authority?

Not really, because the coup never succeeded. The status quo was established within days.

In my analogy, the raping refers to the ethnic cleansing, pillaging, etc etc - to enforce a partition. None of that was necessary to preserve the status quo - those actions were directed at destroying the status quo.

The coup and subsequently the Greek government, collapsed as a result of the Turkish invasion in progress.

Had there been no Turkish invasion I doubt the coupists would've had any intentions of relinquishing power!