What's new

GREECE occupied 16 Turkish Islands

@NickGr

You seem like a good fella, (or at least pretending to be nice since you are in a Turkish dominated forum).

You keep calling Turkey aggressor and imperialistic. Let's stop for a moment a and look back to last century. Greeks tried to invade our homeland. Greeks tried to massacre Turkish population in Cyprus. Greeks tried to start a drama on a tiny island which is visible from homeland (not yours). Every time Turks beat you.

We have no interests about fighting the Greeks or invading Greece mainland or it's islands. Yet, your people really like to start shit with Turkey.

The fact that it is a turkish dominated forum doesn't have anything to do with my behaviour, we're not in any sort of battlefield anyway, it's a forum here. I don't understand why we should get back a century looking at the ottoman empire and look at the 1920s and not 2,3 or 4 centuries ago or even more.

What i'm talking about is the successor state of the ottoman empire, Turkey thus i'm talking after 1923, when the new state was founded, after all, after the Lausanne treaty Greece and Turkey officially became allies with no territorial disputes, we even became members to the NATO alliance together. For the Cyprus matter i won't avoid the answer, it's true we wanted Enosis with Greece, with island having a greekcypriot ratio of 82% to 18% turkishcypriots, with .
Cyprus is a big topic of its own actually and needs a lot of discussion, but for now all i'm going to say in my opinion is that what happened was a combination of british, american well planned conspiracy, Cyprus leader Makarios arrogancy and tendency to play neutral or even go with the soviets if needed(the americans and british called him Castro of the Mediterreanean) when a kind of unification with Greece could have occured giving you a small part of land with military baseduring the most competitive period of the Cold War and your willingness to play the role the british and americans offered you. In the end either tragic, naive mistakes or even treachery of the greek military junta, that decided to replace the elected cypriot leader Makarios was what gave you the "pretext" you needed to invade, even though in 1974 no turkishcypriots were harmed during the coup, actually greekcypriots loyal to Makarios that resisted were killed by greek hands.
The attrocities that happened in Cyprus to both sides, including greekcypriots and turkishcypriots of course, were long before the 1974 invasion, the 1963-1964 period mostly, you didn't invade then but 10 years later.
Even before those attrocites you started the pogrom against the greek minority of Imvros, Tenedos and Istanbul, as a result the greek minority numbers only 2 to 3 thousand old people mostly in Istanbul and very few in those 2 islands, while at the same time the muslim minority of greek Thrace has somewhat increased in numbers.
Surely you claim greek islands, even inhabited ones, with "real" greek people on them.
Imia the most well known incident is ofc greek as i showed in the protocol attached to the turkish-italian agreement of 1932, you hadn't defied it since the 90s.

Greek people are doing what against turks? Stay where you are, put no claims and we can discuss or go to the international court about the continental shelf-territorial waters etc. When you raise a bigger and bigger turkish "Aegean" army with landing crafts as our turkish friend showed us before, especially designed as he said for invasion on greek islands, it's totally natural we will send defensive forces there, you can attack us not the other way around, except for some artillery barrages, perhaps combined with air bombardments that will inflict damage on the densely populated turkish coastal cities, we can't do anything more like initiating an invasion..
 
Every side is neither White neither Black... and that was since the beginning... So who did that or that has no real importance... and will never have... The only Q... is... "Who is stronger to claim what he wants..."
 
They don’t consider Turkey our homeland and they believe we are all barbarians from the east or forced converts. They will never shut up. It is our job to keep them honest and slap them silly if need be.

I can't talk on behalf of the greek people, so i'll speak for myself.
It's true you originally came from the east, as far as i know(correct me if i'm wrong) the original turks were an altaic, semi mongolian people genetically, just take a look at murals of that time how seljuks and ottomans looked like in those paints, none of them looks like Kemal Ataturk for example.
During the course of your conquests you changed genetically a lot, either by getting lots of women from the people of the persian and eastern roman empire(not only greeks, the eastern roman empire was a multiethnic empire), forced conversions or by your well known devshirme with which you manned mostly the janissaries corps. I think these are established facts, if i'm wrong please inform me otherwise.
On the right of homeland, etc i don't think this way, ok some stupid nationalists may think this way, the main point is you stay there for hundrends of years, you have the right to claim these lands are yours.
 
The fact that it is a turkish dominated forum doesn't have anything to do with my behaviour, we're not in any sort of battlefield anyway, it's a forum here. I don't understand why we should get back a century looking at the ottoman empire and look at the 1920s and not 2,3 or 4 centuries ago or even more.

What i'm talking about is the successor state of the ottoman empire, Turkey thus i'm talking after 1923, when the new state was founded, after all, after the Lausanne treaty Greece and Turkey officially became allies with no territorial disputes, we even became members to the NATO alliance together. For the Cyprus matter i won't avoid the answer, it's true we wanted Enosis with Greece, with island having a greekcypriot ratio of 82% to 18% turkishcypriots, with .
Cyprus is a big topic of its own actually and needs a lot of discussion, but for now all i'm going to say in my opinion is that what happened was a combination of british, american well planned conspiracy, Cyprus leader Makarios arrogancy and tendency to play neutral or even go with the soviets if needed(the americans and british called him Castro of the Mediterreanean) when a kind of unification with Greece could have occured giving you a small part of land with military baseduring the most competitive period of the Cold War and your willingness to play the role the british and americans offered you. In the end either tragic, naive mistakes or even treachery of the greek military junta, that decided to replace the elected cypriot leader Makarios was what gave you the "pretext" you needed to invade, even though in 1974 no turkishcypriots were harmed during the coup, actually greekcypriots loyal to Makarios that resisted were killed by greek hands.
The attrocities that happened in Cyprus to both sides, including greekcypriots and turkishcypriots of course, were long before the 1974 invasion, the 1963-1964 period mostly, you didn't invade then but 10 years later.
Even before those attrocites you started the pogrom against the greek minority of Imvros, Tenedos and Istanbul, as a result the greek minority numbers only 2 to 3 thousand old people mostly in Istanbul and very few in those 2 islands, while at the same time the muslim minority of greek Thrace has somewhat increased in numbers.
Surely you claim greek islands, even inhabited ones, with "real" greek people on them.
Imia the most well known incident is ofc greek as i showed in the protocol attached to the turkish-italian agreement of 1932, you hadn't defied it since the 90s.

I'm done arguing in this forum since a long time, so i will avoid a lengthy answer for your justification/reason for the Cyprus was. Also, by completely over looking Greece being the agressor not a century ago by invading Turkish mainland, you evaded.

But not develve on that as the readers can decide by themselves.

Greek people are doing what against turks?
In my previous post i briefly explained what Greek did to Turks over the century.

Stay where you are, put no claims
We have been staying where we are for the last century, it is you who doesn't stay put and trigger wars.

and we can discuss or go to the international court about the continental shelf-territorial waters etc.
You can go whereever you like as Turkey is not a signatory country for this "continental shelf - territorial waters".
It doesn't bind us.

When you raise a bigger and bigger turkish "Aegean" army with landing crafts as our turkish friend showed us before, especially designed as he said for invasion on greek islands, it's totally natural we will send defensive forces there, you can attack us not the other way around, except for some artillery barrages, perhaps combined with air bombardments that will inflict damage on the densely populated turkish coastal cities, we can't do anything more like initiating an invasion..
There is a misunderstanding here. The build up of our armed forces and having technological and numerical advantages against adversaries ensures our safety via deterrence.

It's not like Turkey is gonna attack some neighbouring country because of having the upper hand on the military (by that context we would have attacked Armenia long time ago.) Since whenever Greece felt like having the upperhand, it started war, enosis, etc... Having the upper hand in the military ensures that Greece would stay in their country and don't venture into dangerous adventures, like it did many times in the last century.
 
I'm done arguing in this forum since a long time, so i will avoid a lengthy answer for your justification/reason for the Cyprus was. Also, by completely over looking Greece being the agressor not a century ago by invading Turkish mainland, you evaded.

But not develve on that as the readers can decide by themselves.


In my previous post i briefly explained what Greek did to Turks over the century.


We have been staying where we are for the last century, it is you who doesn't stay put and trigger wars.


You can go whereever you like as Turkey is not a signatory country for this "continental shelf - territorial waters".
It doesn't bind us.


There is a misunderstanding here. The build up of our armed forces and having technological and numerical advantages against adversaries ensures our safety via deterrence.

It's not like Turkey is gonna attack some neighbouring country because of having the upper hand on the military (by that context we would have attacked Armenia long time ago.) Since whenever Greece felt like having the upperhand, it started war, enosis, etc... Having the upper hand in the military ensures that Greece would stay in their country and don't venture into dangerous adventures, like it did many times in the last century.

I evaded what? You have evaded most of my points.
The reason i didn't mention the greek campaign of the 1920s is as i told because it was the ottoman period, even though in its collapsing phase and not the state of Turkey, which was officially founded with the Lausanne treaty in 1923. It is very important because after that we officially became allies and some years later joined the NATO as well. So the ironic thing is that you put claims against an allied country.
If you want my point of view on the 1920s greek campaign, you will have the whole package of the seljuk-ottoman period aggression against greeks and specifically the eastern roman empire. Are you sure you want me to start? I prefer not even though it would show during the whole period of our coexistence who has been the aggressor. I think the past belongs to the past, so back to what you say next.

Turkey doesn't want because it is not a signatory country, you don't recognise eez for the greek islands as the international community and law does, you don't recognise search and rescue rights for Greece in half the Aegean, although there is a ton of greek islands there.

So here's how it goes again.. You want the islands you recognise as greek without eez, without search and rescue rights, with 6 nm territorial waters-continental shelf, with no army, claiming many greek islands(you don't even know which are these exactly, today they are 12, the next day 16, the other 18 and the day after that 152 according to kemalists and ultra nationalists and according to Erdogan you ask for revision of Lausanne treaty) and at the same time you build a bigger and bigger "Aegean" army in the coasts. You say you want to have the upper hand, because you "are afraid that you will be invaded due to the past greek aggression".

This argument ofc is totally out of reality, even if we accepted it, then you would build a bigger than the greek defensive army.
What military dogma do you have and what military exercises you do? An attacking dogma and your military exercises include landing on islands.
With what kind of weapons you do that? With fortifications, sea and land mines, artillery, aa missiles, etc? What do you have instead in huge numbers? No fortifications, no mines, lots of landing crafts for invasions. I don't know a lot about military weapons, so please inform me, but i wonder how can you defend using the landing crafts, you're going to get them to the shore and hide behind them as shields, "when we invade" on turkish coastal cities?
Let's go to the greek side, what military dogma we have and what military exercises we conduct? Defensive dogma and our exercises include defence of islands and reacquisition of islands. What kind of weapons do we have? Land fortifications, artillery, lots of aa missiles and land troops on the islands with few landing crafts.
 
''
Yunanistan 9 ada üzerinde kullanım hakkını kaybetti...

Eski Millî Savunma Bakanlığı Genel Sekreteri emekli Kurmay Albay Ümit Yalım'ın belgeli anlatımıyla aktaralım:

  • "Kuzey Ege adalarının hukuki statüsü, 30 Mayıs 1913 Londra Antlaşması, 13 Şubat 1914 tarihinde Yunan Kraliyet Hükümetine tebliğ edilen 6 büyük devlet (Almanya, Avusturya-Macaristan, İngiltere, Fransa, İtalya, Rusya) kararı,24 Temmuz 1923 Lozan Antlaşması ve 20 Temmuz 1936 Montrö Boğazlar Sözleşmesi ile belirlenmiştir.
  • Kuzey Ege Adalarının egemenliği değil, sadece kullanma hakkı yani zilyetlik (possession) hakkı verildi... Yunanistan'ın adaları askeri maksatlarla kullanmayacağı kararlaştırıldı.
  • Yunanistan 1960'lı yılların başında Doğu Ege Denizi'ndeki adaları silahlandırmaya başladı. Türkiye, adaları silahlandırdığı için Yunanistan'ı ilk defa 29 Haziran 1964'te protesto etti.

  • Yunanistan Doğu Ege Adalarına Tabur seviyesinden Tümen seviyesine kadar mekanize ve tank birlikleri yerleştirdi, adaları ağır silahlar ile donattı.
  • Kuzey Ege Denizi'nde, Midilli Adası'nda bir Mekanize Piyade Tümeni, Limni, Sakız ve Sisam adalarında birer Mekanize Piyade Tugayı, Taşoz, Semadirek, Bozbaba, İpsara ve Ahikerya adalarında ise Tabur Görev Kuvveti-Alay Muharebe Grubu arasında değişiklik gösteren askeri birlikler konuşlu bulunuyor.

  • Yunanistan, Ege Ordusu'nun Türkiye'den kendisine yönelik açık bir tehdit olduğunu iddia ediyor ve adaları Birleşmiş Milletler Şartının 51'inci maddesinde belirtilen meşru müdafaa hakkı gereği silahlandırdığını belirtiyor. Türkiye'nin, Ege bölgesine askeri birlik yerleştirmesinin önünde hiçbir engel yoktur. Ayrıca Türkiye, adaların silahlandırma faaliyetlerinden çok sonra 1975'te Ege Ordusu'nu kurdu. Ege Ordusu bir eğitim ordusudur. Eğitime yönelik yapılanma içinde olan bu askeri varlığın, Yunanistan için bir tehdit olması ve meşru müdafaa hakkına gerekçe gösterilmesi uluslararası antlaşmalara ve uluslararası hukuka aykırıdır.
Yunanistan'ın askeri faaliyetlerini gösteren belgeler

  1. 14 Mart 2017'de Taşoz Adası'nda ve 13 Mart 2017'de Semadirek Adası'nda seferberlik tatbikatı icra etti.
  2. 31 Mayıs 2017'de Bozbaba Adası'nda topçu atışı yaptı.
  3. Midilli Adası'nda 5 Nisan 2017'de paraşüt tazeleme eğitimi, 21 Mayıs 2017'de askeri tatbikat icra etti.
  4. Eski Savunma Bakanı Dimitris Avramopoulos 26 Haziran 2014'te Sakız Adası'na yaptığı ziyarette adaya konuşlandırılan kundağı motorlu top ve çok namlulu roketatarla gövde gösterisi yaptı.
  5. 06 Ekim 2016'da, Sakız Adası'nda icra edilen büyük çaplı Amfibi Taarruz Tatbikatına Yunan Savunma Bakanı Kammenos ve komuta heyeti katıldı.
3-553.jpg


adaa-12cm-en-001.jpg


Yunanistan hukuken kullanma hakkını kaybettiği Kuzey Ege Adalarını yani Taşoz, Semadirek, Limni, Bozbaba, Midilli, İpsara, Sakız, Sisam ve Ahikerya adalarını boşaltarak Türkiye'ye teslim etmelidir.''


''

Kaynak/The source: http://www.yenicaggazetesi.com.tr/yunanistan-9-ada-uzerinde-kullanim-hakkini-kaybetti-45722yy.htm

The whole article is a must-read for the Turkish readers in the link shared above.

Greece has lost the rights conditionally given only for surface usage in 9 islands due to breaks of 1913 London treaty, 1914 Süfera conference resolution, 1923 Lausanne treaty, 1936 Montreux treaty by arming 9 islands in norhtern Agean sea, and also conducting military exercises. Therefore, Greece has to leave the islands in favour of Turkish sovereignty.

Ps: In the first picture taken in 11.Dec.2017, Greek tanks on the island of Sisam are illegally moved and barrels of Greek tanks are pointed at the city of Aydın/Turkey.
In the second picture taken in 11.Dec.2017, an Apache attack helicopter is illegally on the island of Sisam.
 
Last edited:
It's
Because of the risk of the Greek Primeminister Alexis Tsipras to land at Kardak islands elements from the Turkish navy and coast guard are patrolling the area. Also activity from the Greek side is confirmed.

Lol, only turkish news say so, no greek news ever mentioned the possibility of going in greek Imia(just to remind), he went to the island of Kalymnos to speak to its people.
 
It's


Lol, only turkish news say so, no greek news ever mentioned the possibility of going in greek Imia(just to remind), he went to the island of Kalymnos to speak to its people.
We experienced such low minded and provocative actions before and we know that the possibility of such thing is high so we sent our forces to prevent an event that will not bring any good to the two countries and instead it will bring to the instability of the area and will ruin the work of the two sides. The best measure is the preventive measure. If there is something to counter afterwards that means that there is a fault on another level so we are making the needed moves to prevent such problems.
 
''


Greece has lost the rights conditionally given only for surface usage in 9 islands due to breaks of 1913 London treaty, 1914 Süfera conference resolution, 1923 Lausanne treaty, 1936 Montreux treaty by arming 9 islands in norhtern Agean sea, and also conducting military exercises. Therefore, Greece has to leave the islands in favour of Turkish sovereignty.

Ps: In the first picture taken in 11.Dec.2017, Greek tanks on the island of Sisam are illegally moved and barrels of Greek tanks are pointed at the city of Aydın/Turkey.
In the second picture taken in 11.Dec.2017, an Apache attack helicopter is illegally on the island of Sisam.

We would be total fools, if we let you build up your "Aegean" army with more and more landing crafts letting the islands unarmed(although as i l aready told the islands mentioned in the Paris peace treaty where Turkey wasn't a signing part can be armed regularly since the signing parts haven't protested against it), islands in which you don't recognise search and rescue responsibility, eez, or claiming smaller islands next to them.

No gentlemen, you can have the advantage of making the first move, which is important to military operations, but we will clearly have the advantage of showing everyone the truth, that you are the aggressor as well as the advantage of defending our land. Succesfully..
 
Ok. You want obvious a show down. It may happen.


Turkey defends only Turks and Turkish Cypriots interests.Thats my point. There is no expansion policy from our side.
Thats his legitime right. But your Defence Minister wants to provoce a military conflict.

In Imia we lost 3 greek navy officers flying in a helicopter either due to mechanical failure, or because you shot it down during a reconaissance operation(with the most possible scenario being the second), so he went there with a helicopter to honor them, in any case the no men, no flags, no ships in greek Imia wasn't harmed. Your chief of General Staff Huluci Akar was doing what in Imia when he went there? You are doing what in Imia staying there now?
 
Ok. You want obvious a show down. It may happen.


Turkey defends only Turks and Turkish Cypriots interests.Thats my point. There is no expansion policy from our side.
I want everything to be set with peace but when the others country Primeminister and his crazy advisors are close to a disputed point where there were multiple provocations before I want to prevent it to happen again and instead send forces to show force and make it impossible for the Greek representatives to land. As long as showdown is in the interest of the Turkish people and in the interest of the Republic of Turkey I would do it. Its going to happen or its going to happen no other choice. Failure is not an option.
 
When the time is right all the islands of the Aegean Sea will be liberated and returned to their rightful owners, and so will Atina, Selanik and other Turkish-Ottoman cities.

64886-004-2353B724.gif
 
Back
Top Bottom