What's new

Russia, Iran, Iraq, Greece no longer 'national threat' to Turkey

Another link !

31 January, 2010
CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS, RUSSIAN & GREEK VOLUNTEERS IN BOSNIA

PHOTO: Christian terrorists from Greece during the 1995 Srebrenica Genocide offered "Heil Hitler" salute.


VIDEO: Russian terrorists in Skelani in 1993. Skelani was a pre-war Bosnian Muslim village with 950 Bosniak residents and 160 Serbs. Russian volunteers participated in the massacres against the Bosniak population of Skelani.

Little has been told about Christian terrorists who came -- in the name of "Christianity" -- to fight in Bosnia by raping, torturing and slaughtering Bosnian Muslim civilians - and ultimately, committing the genocide in Srebrenica. Many of these Orthodox Christian terrorists participated in the massacres against the largely unarmed Bosniak Muslim population in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Not even one of them faced the justice.

On the other hand, there has been a lot of talk about 0.1% of volunteers, who came from Islamic countries to join Bosniak-defence forces and fight against the Serbian fascists in Bosnia. Out of 200,000 soldiers in the Army of Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, there was only few hundred or 0.1% of mujahadeens who fought alongside our forces in the central, northern, and possibly western parts of Bosnia around Bihac (but not in Srebrenica). A much larger percentage of the Christian terrorists fought alongside the Bosnian Serb Army led by genocidal commander Ratko Mladic.

Recently, a Greek volunteer and participant in the Srebrenica Genocide, Stavros Vitalis, sued a prominent Greek journalist, Michas Takis, for revealing the depth of a Greek involvement in the Genocide in Bosnia. Shouldn't be the other way around?

Greek terrorists are not the only ones who helped Ratko Mladic slaughter Bosnian Muslims. According to the Government-owned (and controlled) Russian papers "Pravda.ru", in 2003, the commissioner of the Hague Tribunal, Vanessa Le Roa,

"demanded the delivery of the Russian military men who had volunteered to wage war in Bosnia... Vanessa Le Roa affirmed up to 700 Russian military men were waging war in Yugoslavia ten years ago. Investigators of The Hague Tribunal have allegedly collected enough evidence to prove Russian military men's participation in punitive operations against Muslims and Croatians."

However, to this day, nothing has been done to bring these terrorists to justice. It is important to note that the Christian terrorism in Bosnia dates back to the act of assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Bosnian Serb terrorist Gavrilo Princip on 28 June 1914. This terror act ignited the World War I and indicrectly caused the suffering of millions of people. Yet, we don't see much talk about the Christian terror in the Balkans. Can anyone explain WHY?

SREBRENICA GENOCIDE IS NOT A MATTER OF ANYBODY'S OPINION; IT'S A JUDICIAL FACT RECOGNIZED FIRST BY THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA AND SUBSEQUENTLY BY THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE.

posted by Srebrenica Genocide at 2:49 PM


I very much doubt these are true. Very very much, especialy the hitler salute... not realy.. not even hard core rightists in Greece make that salute. For me that is a dead ringer that this story is manufactured.

There was an extensive investigation by the media and the press during the serbian wars, about Greeks fighting with the serbs.

There was only one Greek who came forward to give an interview and he said he fought with the serbs, but he clearly stated he met no others during the war.


These stories are being "circulated" mainly by german media, I do not know why and I do not know why now... if there was serious Greek involvement in the Serbian wars, this would not have been published now.. but back then.
 
.
Too much MIT in here...

Look guys, Turkey is a country created by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1922.
I believe that it is a country - morphoma, created by the western countries and i believe that is gonna be part again as i said in 3 counties (Kurdistan,Anatolia and Ionia).
Believe it or not i'm not care.

Turk in their language means "strong" (that say it all).

Further analysis shows that Turkey is afraid to engage in a conflict with Greece, because they will forced to move troops to the East, so Kurds will make PARTY :cheers: in the East !!!

As I said, Stop enlighten us with your deep knowledges and evidences.. :rofl:

Joke aside, Keep your conspiracy theories for yourself...
 
. .
I find that very difficult to believe .. very difficult to believe..

perhaps you misunderstood what they were saying...

sometimes Greeks, especially refugees from those areas, have the tendency to say

"Constantinople is ours" or "Smyrni is ours" but in greek this simply means "we made them" or "we built them"

What a joke statements !!! Smell knowledge. Really
 
Last edited:
.
I can not tell all historical facts for you but simply...

-It is you who attacked on Turkey invaded by Britain, French and Italy in 1918-19's to perform your famous Megalo IDEA (hidden in the deep your your sentences and It comes from your historical pains. Anatolia was a Greek land but Turks came here and took our lands bla bla bla !!! A different concept of crying )

-It is you who killed hundreds of civilian Turks including babies like barbars in Cyprus for "ENOSIS" in 1970's and You took what you deserved...

-It is you who sent troops to Kardak islands and claimed that Kardak is a Greek island and You took what you deserved...

-It is you who claims 12 miles claim While Turkey is accepting 6 miles in Aegean.

Starting point of this debate.. Turks create problems. Ok !! Enlighten us more with international relationships, UN mediations, historical evidence please... :)
 
.
What a joke statements !!! Smell knowledge. Really

Megali Idea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Or for f**** shake, you have thorougly busted our b***s with this megali idea bullshit..

your remarks are completely out of chronological context, political context, or international conditions of the time things are done.

to you 1900, 1922, 1954, 1821, 1974 are all the same really.. which shows how shallow minded you are...

if I were to think like you think, I would probably conclude that the Greek revolution of independence in 1821 was a turkish civil war... !!!!

please .. go finish school and come back when you get an education.
 
.
your remarks are completely out of chronological context, political context, or international conditions of the time things are done.

"Constantinople is ours" or "Smyrni is ours" but in greek this simply means "we made them" or "we built them"


I can confess that You are the one who do not have any idea about incidents, historical facts but suppose yourself typed something important. When someone typed an article proving adverse of what you claimed, You immediately response with Historical evidences, UN agreements, international relationshiprules like "No No It can not be true or I find that very difficult to believe" presenting your deep knowledge and How you are master a subject discussed with your evidences. :)

I can confess one more time that You must be the sole Greek on net not claiming to have some ambitious over Turkish territories. It is because You live in abroad and You do not have any idea about what your compatriots think for those issues or You are telling lies. Take a look the statements of anther Greek of PDF "Alaou". He always states Istanbul and Izmir as a part of future European land and divide Turkey into many pieces

so Do not worry about our governmental threat perception, generals and our truths. We are fully aware of the threats around us hidden and act as How It has to be.
 
Last edited:
.
Starting point of this debate.. Turks create problems. Ok !! Enlighten us more with international relationships, UN mediations, historical evidence please... :)

-It is you who attacked on Turkey invaded by Britain, French and Italy in 1918-19's to perform your famous Megalo IDEA (hidden in the deep your your sentences and It comes from your historical pains. Anatolia was a Greek land but Turks came here and took our lands bla bla bla !!! A different concept of crying )

-It is you who killed hundreds of civilian Turks including babies like barbars in Cyprus for "ENOSIS" in 1970's...

-It is you who sent troops to Kardak islands and claimed that Kardak is a Greek island..

-It is you who claims 12 miles claim While Turkey is accepting 6 miles in Aegean.

Turks create problem. It is your own thesis in this thread. Prove it with historical facts as you mentioned as always instead of changing the subjects into personnel.
 
.
I can confess that You are the one who do not have any idea about incidents, historical facts but suppose yourself typed something important. When someone typed an article proving adverse of what you claimed, You immediately response with Historical evidences, UN agreements, international relationshiprules like "No No It can not be true or I find that very difficult to believe" presenting your deep knowledge and How you are master a subject discussed with your evidences. :)

I can confess one more time that You must be the sole Greek on net not claiming to have some ambitious over Turkish territories. It is because You live in abroad and You do not have any idea about what your compatriots think for those issues or You are telling lies. Take a look the statements of anther Greek of PDF "Alaou". He always states Istanbul and Izmir as a part of future European land and divide Turkey into many pieces

so Do not worry about our governmental threat perception, generals and our truths. We are fully aware of the threats around us hidden and act as How It has to be.


oh I am not backing down, I will not let anything drop, but as I said before.. I am not 5 years old like you, i have a job and I am busy..but as soon as I finish.. your ridiculous positions will be toast... just wait...

:coffee:
 
.
About genocide!

You claimed that some volunteers from Greece take part at the masaceur of Srebrenica...I don't know.
Lets suppose that you have right.
They were indepedent peoples and if they take part, they take as individuals.
Many Turks are fighters of Al-Qaeda, but noone says that Turkey support Al-Qaeda. It's the same... Greece as a country it was neutral in Serbo-Bosnian war. Also as a NATO member, Greece participate with allies in peace proccess.

Let's have a look now at the GENOCIDES that Turkey commite...

At 1915 commite the Armenian GENOCIDE
At 1922 commite the Greek GENOCIDE
At 1955 through out all the Greeks from Konstantinoupoli

You act like Barbarians!!
You believe in the right of the strongest, but as i said before you have an expire date as a nation if you continue to behave like this.

Konstantinoupoli,Smurni, Prousa, Chalkidona etc etc was Greek until you through us out with your methods....

Today, we don't claim none of this territories, we only want peace... But you want more more more...

Lets live together as neighbours peacefully.
Do you accept that? No!

You think that you are very mighty and you can take more!
 
.
About genocide!

You claimed that some volunteers from Greece take part at the masaceur of Srebrenica...I don't know.
Lets suppose that you have right.
They were indepedent peoples and if they take part, they take as individuals.
Many Turks are fighters of Al-Qaeda, but noone says that Turkey support Al-Qaeda. It's the same... Greece as a country it was neutral in Serbo-Bosnian war. Also as a NATO member, Greece participate with allies in peace proccess.

Let's have a look now at the GENOCIDES that Turkey commite...

At 1915 commite the Armenian GENOCIDE
At 1922 commite the Greek GENOCIDE
At 1955 through out all the Greeks from Konstantinoupoli

You act like Barbarians!!
You believe in the right of the strongest, but as i said before you have an expire date as a nation if you continue to behave like this.

Konstantinoupoli,Smurni, Prousa, Chalkidona etc etc was Greek until you through us out with your methods....

Today, we don't claim none of this territories, we only want peace... But you want more more more...

Lets live together as neighbours peacefully.
Do you accept that? No!

You think that you are very mighty and you can take more!

You forgot to mention Pontus Genocide. Trolling is the best for Greeks !!! :) Every defeat story is a new genocide for you. Classic Desperate Greek mentality...

BTw, As everybody realised that Both Greeks are cutting down their own thesis with adverse statements...
 
.
oh I am not backing down, I will not let anything drop, but as I said before.. I am not 5 years old like you, i have a job and I am busy..but as soon as I finish.. your ridiculous positions will be toast... just wait...

:coffee:

This "5 years old" card and your personnel attacks supported by "historical evidences" to hide the actual subject of this thread is just childless. Even every statement of yours have been cut down by a member in this thread but you have already been talking with a big mouth...

Hope to see you introducing more about your knowledges supported by more historical evidences, UN agreements and Human right resolutions to enlighten us with general truths...

Thanks !!!

:pop::pop:
 
Last edited:
.
Ok my mentally challenged friend

let's see how you shoot your mouth off to these...

you asked me about the core of the issue... here it is...


One needs to tackle three items when considering the Greek-turkish dispute in the Aegean.

First of all, what exactly is the dispute?

When did the dispute arise?

What does the international law dictate?

Greece’s steady position is that the only dispute with turkey is about the continental shelf in the Aegean.
The issue is mainly a legal one , as it is clearly defined by international law, however, it requires political initiative since both parties (Greece, turkey) need to address the international tribunal in Hague. This is something however that Turkey categorically refuses to do, instead proposing a bi-lateral political (i.e. not based on international law) agreement.
Furthermore however, the Turkish side demands that IF there is such a bi-lateral discussion, more items should be added in the agenda.

These are:
*The extend of the Greek Airspace
*The dispute of the right (of Greece) to extend sea borders to 12 miles.
*Demilitarisation of the Greek islands of the Eastern Aegean.
*The NATO (both countries are members of) operational control of the Aegean to pass to Turkish Headquarters.

Let’s present things in a bit more detail.

Definition of the Continental shelf.
“The definition of the continental shelf and the criteria by which a coastal State may establish the outer limits of its continental shelf are set out in article 76 of the Convention. In addition, the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (the "Conference") adopted on 29 August 1980 a "Statement of Understanding" which is contained in Annex II to the Final Act of the Conference.

The term "continental shelf" is used by geologists generally to mean that part of the continental margin which is between the shoreline and the shelf break or, where there is no noticeable slope, between the shoreline and the point where the depth of the superjacent water is approximately between 100 and 200 metres. However, this term is used in article 76 as a juridical term. According to the Convention, the continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the submerged prolongation of the land territory of the coastal State - the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance. The continental margin consists of the seabed and subsoil of the shelf, the slope and the rise. It does not include the deep ocean floor with its oceanic ridges or the subsoil thereof .

According to article 76, the coastal State may establish the outer limits of its juridical continental shelf wherever the continental margin extends beyond 200 nautical miles by establishing the foot of the continental slope, by meeting the requirements of article 76, paragraphs 4 - 7, of the Convention ”
Source : CONTINENTAL SHELF - GENERAL DESCRIPTION

Beginning of the dispute.
Greek goverments, exercising articles of the Geneva Convention (1958), award licences for seabed exploration for oil during the 60’s. By November 1973, 15 agreements with various companies (foreign) have been made and made public.
The Turkish government for the FIRST time disputes the continental shelf on the same month, November 1973.

What does the Greek side argue:
*Islands have a continental shelf just as continental shores do.
*The definition of the continental shelf, when there is no agreement between the involved parties, is done based on the principle of median line and equal distance.
*Greece is exercising its territorial right in said areas since the aforementioned areas are part of the Greek continental shelf, as dictated by Articles 1 and 2 of the Geneva Convention.

What does the Turkish side argue:
*Islands have NO continental shelf, because they are outbursts (!!??) of the seabed.
*The principle of median line and equal distance is applied when there is no agreement and there are special circumstances not allowing different boundary definition. There are NO (!?) such special circumstances.
*The easternmost Greek islands are so close to Turkey that if the median line principle is applied and used then turkey will be with practically non existent continental shelf.
*The Aegean is a semi –closed sea, dictating special adjustments (!!??)
*Turkey is a non participating member of the Geneva Convention.

****** However, and this is the most interesting bit, Turkey DOES accept the Geneva Convention and the International Hague court decree regarding the continental shelf dispute between Germany, Denmark and Holland.
Isn’t that a bit hypocritical. ??????

ANOTHER ISSUE.
The extend of the territorial waters in the Aegean.

What does the international law dictate?
According to the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) the extend was set to 3 miles, with the Montreux Convention and subsequent treaty (1936) Greece extended its territorial waters to 6 miles. Turkey followed suit and extended to 6 in 1964. With the Convention of Montego Bay (1982),United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which “In total, the Convention has been signed by 159 States (including the former German Democratic Republic and the former Yugoslavia) and has been ratified or acceded to by more than 140 States and the European Community.” Greece ratified the convention treaty (1995) and reserved the right to extend its territorial waters to 12 miles.
***Turkey is a non participant although it was a participant on the two former treaties.

CURIUS BIT .. Turkey is threatening Greece with a “Casus belli” if the territorial waters are extended to 12 miles since 1974. A full 8 years before the Montego bay treaty…. Strange isn’t?

Arguments of the two sides.
*Turkish side argues that a) it is a non participant of the treaty and b) the Aegean is a special case that the treaty doesn’t apply to.

*Greek side argues that the Treaty is a coding of the International law of the seas and leaves no room for interpretation or differentiation. The right is reserved to be exercised whenever is deemed necessary and is absolute.


AIRSPACE
According to the treaty of Lausanne (1923) airspace was defined to 3 miles. Greece with a presidential decree of 1931 extended the airspace to 10 miles even before it extended its territorial waters based on the Montreux in 1936. This decree was not contested by Turkey before 1975-6.

Arguments of the two sides.

*Turkish side.
Turkey simply argues that the 10 miles do not correspond to the territorial waters boundaries of 6 miles.

*Greek side
Greece argues that the 10 miles have not been contested (no official record prior to 1975 anywhere) by Turkey for half a century and hence were “de facto” accepted. Furthermore, now that Greece reserves the right to extend to 12 miles, the 10 miles of airspace are less than that and are covered by the treaty and international law.

“By international law, the notion of a country's sovereign airspace corresponds with the maritime definition of territorial waters as being 12 nautical miles (22.2 km) out from a nation's coastline. Airspace not within any country's territorial limit is considered international, analogous to the "high seas" in maritime law. However, a country may, by international agreement, assume responsibility for controlling parts of international airspace, such as those over the oceans. For instance, the United States provides air traffic control services over a large part of the Pacific Ocean, even though the airspace is international.”

For now I leave you these, and I expect your comments, lets hope they will not be childish.

:coffee:
 
.
Ok my mentally challenged friend

let's see how you shoot your mouth off to these...

you asked me about the core of the issue... here it is...


One needs to tackle three items when considering the Greek-turkish dispute in the Aegean.

First of all, what exactly is the dispute?

When did the dispute arise?

What does the international law dictate?

Greece’s steady position is that the only dispute with turkey is about the continental shelf in the Aegean.
The issue is mainly a legal one , as it is clearly defined by international law, however, it requires political initiative since both parties (Greece, turkey) need to address the international tribunal in Hague. This is something however that Turkey categorically refuses to do, instead proposing a bi-lateral political (i.e. not based on international law) agreement.
Furthermore however, the Turkish side demands that IF there is such a bi-lateral discussion, more items should be added in the agenda.

These are:
*The extend of the Greek Airspace
*The dispute of the right (of Greece) to extend sea borders to 12 miles.
*Demilitarisation of the Greek islands of the Eastern Aegean.
*The NATO (both countries are members of) operational control of the Aegean to pass to Turkish Headquarters.

Let’s present things in a bit more detail.

Definition of the Continental shelf.
“The definition of the continental shelf and the criteria by which a coastal State may establish the outer limits of its continental shelf are set out in article 76 of the Convention. In addition, the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (the "Conference") adopted on 29 August 1980 a "Statement of Understanding" which is contained in Annex II to the Final Act of the Conference.

The term "continental shelf" is used by geologists generally to mean that part of the continental margin which is between the shoreline and the shelf break or, where there is no noticeable slope, between the shoreline and the point where the depth of the superjacent water is approximately between 100 and 200 metres. However, this term is used in article 76 as a juridical term. According to the Convention, the continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the submerged prolongation of the land territory of the coastal State - the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance. The continental margin consists of the seabed and subsoil of the shelf, the slope and the rise. It does not include the deep ocean floor with its oceanic ridges or the subsoil thereof .

According to article 76, the coastal State may establish the outer limits of its juridical continental shelf wherever the continental margin extends beyond 200 nautical miles by establishing the foot of the continental slope, by meeting the requirements of article 76, paragraphs 4 - 7, of the Convention ”
Source : CONTINENTAL SHELF - GENERAL DESCRIPTION

Beginning of the dispute.
Greek goverments, exercising articles of the Geneva Convention (1958), award licences for seabed exploration for oil during the 60’s. By November 1973, 15 agreements with various companies (foreign) have been made and made public.
The Turkish government for the FIRST time disputes the continental shelf on the same month, November 1973.

What does the Greek side argue:
*Islands have a continental shelf just as continental shores do.
*The definition of the continental shelf, when there is no agreement between the involved parties, is done based on the principle of median line and equal distance.
*Greece is exercising its territorial right in said areas since the aforementioned areas are part of the Greek continental shelf, as dictated by Articles 1 and 2 of the Geneva Convention.

What does the Turkish side argue:
*Islands have NO continental shelf, because they are outbursts (!!??) of the seabed.
*The principle of median line and equal distance is applied when there is no agreement and there are special circumstances not allowing different boundary definition. There are NO (!?) such special circumstances.
*The easternmost Greek islands are so close to Turkey that if the median line principle is applied and used then turkey will be with practically non existent continental shelf.
*The Aegean is a semi –closed sea, dictating special adjustments (!!??)
*Turkey is a non participating member of the Geneva Convention.

****** However, and this is the most interesting bit, Turkey DOES accept the Geneva Convention and the International Hague court decree regarding the continental shelf dispute between Germany, Denmark and Holland.
Isn’t that a bit hypocritical. ??????

ANOTHER ISSUE.
The extend of the territorial waters in the Aegean.

What does the international law dictate?
According to the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) the extend was set to 3 miles, with the Montreux Convention and subsequent treaty (1936) Greece extended its territorial waters to 6 miles. Turkey followed suit and extended to 6 in 1964. With the Convention of Montego Bay (1982),United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which “In total, the Convention has been signed by 159 States (including the former German Democratic Republic and the former Yugoslavia) and has been ratified or acceded to by more than 140 States and the European Community.” Greece ratified the convention treaty (1995) and reserved the right to extend its territorial waters to 12 miles.
***Turkey is a non participant although it was a participant on the two former treaties.

CURIUS BIT .. Turkey is threatening Greece with a “Casus belli” if the territorial waters are extended to 12 miles since 1974. A full 8 years before the Montego bay treaty…. Strange isn’t?

Arguments of the two sides.
*Turkish side argues that a) it is a non participant of the treaty and b) the Aegean is a special case that the treaty doesn’t apply to.

*Greek side argues that the Treaty is a coding of the International law of the seas and leaves no room for interpretation or differentiation. The right is reserved to be exercised whenever is deemed necessary and is absolute.


AIRSPACE
According to the treaty of Lausanne (1923) airspace was defined to 3 miles. Greece with a presidential decree of 1931 extended the airspace to 10 miles even before it extended its territorial waters based on the Montreux in 1936. This decree was not contested by Turkey before 1975-6.

Arguments of the two sides.

*Turkish side.
Turkey simply argues that the 10 miles do not correspond to the territorial waters boundaries of 6 miles.

*Greek side
Greece argues that the 10 miles have not been contested (no official record prior to 1975 anywhere) by Turkey for half a century and hence were “de facto” accepted. Furthermore, now that Greece reserves the right to extend to 12 miles, the 10 miles of airspace are less than that and are covered by the treaty and international law.

“By international law, the notion of a country's sovereign airspace corresponds with the maritime definition of territorial waters as being 12 nautical miles (22.2 km) out from a nation's coastline. Airspace not within any country's territorial limit is considered international, analogous to the "high seas" in maritime law. However, a country may, by international agreement, assume responsibility for controlling parts of international airspace, such as those over the oceans. For instance, the United States provides air traffic control services over a large part of the Pacific Ocean, even though the airspace is international.”

For now I leave you these, and I expect your comments, lets hope they will not be childish.

:coffee:


Smelling really historical evidences, UN regulations and many others. :)

After accused Turkish threat perception, Turkish generals and many others with bombastic statements like "Turks want to destroy Greeks, They are barbarians, Anatolia was a Greek land, Turks thieved our lands, While denying that Greeks do not have any claim over Turkish territory (but Your compatriots and All Greeks I have met in net, beated you with opposite claims)", Your statements have been cut down by historical evidences and opposite claims supported by sources but You as a member who like taking with all those evidences started crying like "No No Those can not be true, It is realy really hard to belive" and Finally you have claimed that "Turks create problem". When I listed my response to beat your poor claims about our nation with following;

-It is you who attacked on Turkey invaded by Britain, French and Italy in 1918-19's to perform your famous Megalo IDEA (hidden in the deep your your sentences and It comes from your historical pains. Anatolia was a Greek land but Turks came here and took our lands bla bla bla !!! A different concept of crying )

-It is you who killed hundreds of civilian Turks including babies like barbars in Cyprus for "ENOSIS" in 1970's...

-It is you who sent troops to Kardak islands and claimed that Kardak is a Greek island..

-It is you who claims 12 miles for territorial waters and 10 miles for airspace, While Turkey is accepting 6 miles and 3 miles.

After all those, It is clear Which side create problems.


--------------------------------------

Unfortunately, You are a person who do not have any idea about importance of Malazgirt war in history but accusing the members with nonsense sentence and change the actual subject of this thread towards personel. I am the one who is trying to communicate with a person like you. :wave:

I will not type pages of articles taken from a link to support my ideas but I will support my claims with some resolutions and "I will represent How Turks did not create Aegean problem". Anyhow There is two thessis discussed by both country and It is the ınternational justices that solve this problem.


-Main problem is the statements of Greeks like "Aegean is a Greek lake" in there so Turks always need to defend the benefits in this waters. I mean Turkiye is trying to defend its benefits, While Greeks are trying to increase them...

-According to Turk thesis, The differences between Greek territorial waters and airspace create problems. (see Cenevre 1958 and UNCLOS 87 1 b). I mean While Turkey want territorial waters remain how it has to be, Greeks always wants to increase the territories (For airspace From 3 to 10, For waters, From 6 to 12 miles) one sidedly but According to them Turks create problems...

The problem started with a decision of Greeks in 1931. Greek side agreed on increasing the limits of airspace to 10 miles from 3 one sidedly. In those years, Turkish side openly stated that It is unacceptable. After years later in 1974 (with Cyprus Peace Operation), Greek side carried this one sided agreement to a legal base and applied to ICAO. It is the first time Greek side tried to make international communicaty accpted this illegal activity. In 1975, Turkish side sent a teleks message to ICAO to tell that Turkish side never accept 10 miles. After that, same teleks message sent to Greek side in 5 May 1975, Then Turkey prepared many military exercises locating in those borders in Aegean to show the determination of Turk side.

Greece claims that the 10 miles have not been contested (no official record prior to 1975 anywhere) and hence were de facto accepted.

According to Turk thesis, Those activities are against the 1944 Chicago agreement 1. and 2. resolutions. Besides, Cenevre 1958 2. and United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 87 1 b resolutions support Turk thesis...

It is clear which side create problems in here... I will tell the others When I found the enough time to introduce Turk thesis for Aegean.
 
Last edited:
. .
Back
Top Bottom