Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

You cannot show and prove that these 'internationally binding agreements' you are referring to are compatible with the UN charter and international law in regards to Cyprus. In fact they are not and I don't know why you would continue with this propaganda, when this sh*t is only recognized by Turkey.

The 1960 agreements that formed the independent nation state of Cyprus following British colonial rule were signed and agreed by leaders of both communities, UK, Greece and Turkey. These agreements were and are recognised internationally as valid by the UN and everyone else. These are just facts.

That your community, having agreed these things and put their signatures to them, then sought to covertly and illegally renegade on these agreements using where necessary ethnic based violence to achieve this aim, is not justified by you arbitrarily and unilaterally declaring that the agreements made were 'not compatible with the UN charter and international law'. Talk about propaganda.

[Maximus]

You cannot show and prove that these 'internationally binding agreements' you are referring to are compatible with the UN charter and international law in regards to Cyprus. In fact they are not and I don't know why you would continue with this propaganda, when this sh*t is only recognized by Turkey.

The 1960 agreements that formed the independent nation state of Cyprus following British colonial rule were signed and agreed by leaders of both communities, UK, Greece and Turkey. These agreements were and are recognised internationally as valid by the UN and everyone else. These are just facts.

That your community, having agreed these things and put their signatures to them, then sought to covertly and illegally renegade on these agreements using where necessary ethnic based violence to achieve this aim, is not justified by you arbitrarily and unilaterally declaring that the agreements made were 'not compatible with the UN charter and international law'. Talk about propaganda.

No they are not mate, they are not internationally binding. These agreements you are referring to are legally invalid and Makarios was blackmailed in to signing them.

I said prove but you cant.

[Maximus]

is not justified by you arbitrarily and unilaterally declaring that the agreements made were 'not compatible with the UN charter and international law'. Talk about propaganda.

it is justified by me. Article 2, point 4 of the UN charter.

Article 2 point 4

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The Turkish Cypriots violated the political independence of Cyprus and Turkey's 'right to intervene' is also in contradiction and inconsistent. This article alone, smashes your argument.

[erolz66]

it is justified by me. Article 2, point 4 of the UN charter.

Sure - by your propaganda you can agree and sign an agreement, then after doing that unilaterally decide the agreement is unfair and non binding and use that as a 'reason' to then use covert and illegal means to try and take away things from others granted to them under the agreement you made and signed. You do this, claim doing so is 'right' and wonder why the TC community needs 'guarantees' with regards to any future settlement ?

[Maximus]

it is justified by me. Article 2, point 4 of the UN charter.

Sure - by your propaganda you can agree and sign an agreement, then after doing that unilaterally decide the agreement is unfair and non binding and use that as a 'reason' to then use covert and illegal means to try and take away things from others granted to them under the agreement you made and signed. You do this, claim doing so is 'right' and wonder why the TC community needs 'guarantees' with regards to any future settlement ?

Trying to sidestep are we?

Who, in their right mind, would sign away a veto to an ethnic minority and give them 30% of whatever without being encroached? Who, in their right mind would agree to apartheid in their country?

What kind of human being tries to enforce and fights for apartheid. The scummy kind.

[erolz66]

Who, in their right mind, ....

Are you now claiming the 1960 agreements are invalid because Makarios and Greece 'were not in their right mind' and thus that justifies the use of covert and illegal acts including ethnic violence to unilaterally remove those parts of the agreements you do not like whilst maintaining all the ones you do like remain legal valid ?

[Maximus]

Who, in their right mind, ....

Are you now claiming the 1960 agreements are invalid because Makarios and Greece 'were not in their right mind' and thus that justifies the use of covert and illegal acts including ethnic violence to unilaterally remove those parts of the agreements you do not like whilst maintaining all the ones you do like remain legal valid ?

Dude, those so called agreements are legally invalid and in contradiction with international norms, laws and the UN charter.

The TC's were and continue to fight for apartheid and want to keep the stolen property of others and enough rights each for 4 people. This is why no one recognizes them as an independent.

[erolz66]

Dude, those so called agreements are legally invalid and in contradiction with international norms, laws and the UN charter.

Dude if those agreements truly were legally invalid then the RoC would not legally exist as a sovereign nation, member of the UN and EU.

What you really mean is those bits of the agreements we signed that we do not like are invalid, because we do not like them and thus we are justified in using any means including illegal ethnic violence to remove the parts we do not like and all those parts we do like remain valid because we do like them. And whilst arguing this you want to negotiate a new agreement with us ?

[Maximus]

Dude, those so called agreements are legally invalid and in contradiction with international norms, laws and the UN charter.

Dude if those agreements truly were legally invalid then the RoC would not legally exist as a sovereign nation, member of the UN and EU.

What you really mean is those bits of the agreements we signed that we do not like are invalid, because we do not like them and thus we are justified in using any means including illegal ethnic violence to remove the parts we do not like and all those parts we do like remain valid because we do like them. And whilst arguing this you want to negotiate a new agreement with us ?

Are you trying to support apartheid for your community?

Are you trying to say that the RoC does not legally exist?

[erolz66]

Are you trying to support apartheid for your community?

No, the only one here talking about apartheid is you.

Are you trying to say that the RoC does not legally exist?

Once again the only person here who is arguing that the international agreements that changed the status of Cyprus from a British colony to an independent Nation state are legally invalid is you and you do so to try and justify the illegal use of ethnic violence by your community against mine apparently.