Erdogan's Adviser:"We will break the legs of the Greek Prime Minister if he sets foot on Imia"

[PointOfViewGun]

I asked you some time ago to show me a Treaty that specifically gives Smyrni (or Izmir, as you call it) to Turkey. You could find none. So according to what you tell us here, Smyrni is "disputed territory". I could do the same with all the cities and villages in Anatolia. Is there a treaty that specifically names each and every one? Apparently not. Therefore all of Anatolia is "disputed territory". Your "argument", therefore, such as it was, is invalid.
The reference for the map the pdf you linked has is in a book by author Deniz Bolukbasi. That map is so jumbled, that it shows the border line at some points being literally over islanda or islets. I personally doubt it is the original. On the other hand, all the other maps clearly show the boundary:
So we have one rather jumbled map that appears only AFAIK in one turkish source, and we have a whole HOST of sources, many of them non-Greek, clearly showing the boundary where it is.
And we even have turkish maps from 1991 that show Imia as Immia adalari (Imia islands, if I am not mistaken):
and another:
It is quite interesting that Nebaki, here, is not a t all concerned with the "turkish letters on british maps"

You claimed there was not a single map showing Kardak Turkish and I showed you one. You are free to check its validity as it's clearly referenced.

By the way, the second map you posted there contradicts with a bunch of other maps you posted. It forgets Agathonisi and some other formations and provides a different border line that actually puts Kardak islets on the Turkish side.

Aside from what Nebaki pointed out about one of the maps you posted, which is a mistake that no Turkish official map maker would do, its a map of the FIR which is not necessarily based on the land and sea borders. FIRs are civil aviation areas that often coincide with territories of foreign countries.

Your point about Izmir was already answered in my post #122, but the context wasn't Izmir, but Ankara. The same arguments apply to Izmir as well. So, please don't lie about what I could or couldn't find.

A treaty could use the following to indicate sovereignty:
a) name a landmass: Samos island is Greek.
b) describe border lines if that said landmass is divided: Maritsa river makes up the border between Turkey and Greece.
c) refer to landmasses: Patmos island and adjacent islets are Greek. This would include Tragonisi as Greek.

Kardak is not named, described in a border line, or referred to as a landmass in any way in any of the treaties we talked about. This goes for Agathonisi and a number of other islands/islets as well.

[Yayattasa]

Ugh, that islet is so insignificant I couldn't even spot it in the maps you all posted til today. Turkey could show some goodwill and transfer its claim over it to Greece (saying it's theirs and that they are kind in a single statement, requiring Greece to accept it) before all this started. They would be looking way more reliable to the international community than now.

[Exarch]

First Turkish bodyguards beat up American citizens during Erdog's visit to the US and now his aides are threatening fellow NATO members with grievous boidly harm. Even a high lord would come down and discipline his vassals every now and then; why have the last 2 US Presidents proven to be so spineless when it comes to disciplining their own servants?

[ioannis76]

Ugh, that islet is so insignificant I couldn't even spot it in the maps you all posted til today. Turkey could show some goodwill and transfer its claim over it to Greece (saying it's theirs and that they are kind in a single statement, requiring Greece to accept it) before all this started. They would be looking way more reliable to the international community than now.

You don't get it. It's not really that islet. That islet(s) (two of them), if Turkey gets them, are a "pilot" for more claims. Already, they say that 18 islands and islets (some are inhabited) are theirs. One of them, is the island of Gavdos, which is south-WEST of the island of Crete:



THAT is the kind of insanity we're talking about here. And the Turkish populace actually supports THAT crazy claim. And some people come here and spew cliches about the politicians being the bad ones, and the people having nothing to split, and blah blah blah.

I think we can all see what's going on in here. With the exception of a few individuals, such as dogukan, one look at some recent posts will convince anyone that it's almost impossible to have a reasonable conversation with most individuals.

[PointOfViewGun]

You don't get it. It's not really that islet. That islet(s) (two of them), if Turkey gets them, are a "pilot" for more claims. Already, they say that 18 islands and islets (some are inhabited) are theirs. One of them, is the island of Gavdos, which is south-WEST of the island of Crete:
THAT is the kind of insanity we're talking about here. And the Turkish populace actually supports THAT crazy claim. And some people come here and spew cliches about the politicians being the bad ones, and the people having nothing to split, and blah blah blah.
I think we can all see what's going on in here. With the exception of a few individuals, such as dogukan, one look at some recent posts will convince anyone that it's almost impossible to have a reasonable conversation with most individuals.

Except the official Turkish position is not that these islands are Turkish but that they gray zones whose sovereignty are undetermined, hence, government institutions regard them as international territories while Greece wants to claim them as its own. In fact, this whole conversation started with people's inability to ground the sovereignty of these landmasses on actual treaties.

[ioannis76]

Except the official Turkish position is not that these islands are Turkish but that they gray zones whose sovereignty are undetermined

Not really.
Like I say in the original post, it was Erdogan's advisor who said that Turkey will break the legs of any Greek (including the PM) if he sets foot on Imia. THAT is a clear way of saying that the islands are Turkish. It doesn't get any clearer than this.

[PointOfViewGun]

Not really.
Like I say in the original post, it was Erdogan's advisor who said that Turkey will break the legs of any Greek (including the PM) if he sets foot on Imia. THAT is a clear way of saying that the islands are Turkish. It doesn't get any clearer than this.

The Outstanding Aegean Issues - Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

Turkey does not have any claim over the islands, islets or such features which were unambiguously ceded to Greece by internationally valid instruments. Yet, it is an incontestable fact that there are many islets and geographical features in the Aegean Sea whose sovereignty is not indisputably given to Greece. Some of those disputed geographical features lay very close to Turkey’s coast in the in the Aegean Sea. Actually this issue is one of the stumbling blocks before reaching a settlement as regards the delineation of maritime boundaries between the two countries.

And some context on the Kardak crisis:

The recent crisis over the Kardak rocks has erupted by coincidence in such an atmosphere when Greece was making anouncements for recruitement of potential settlers from all over the world to some of these small islets and rocks. It is obvious that such a recruitment and settlement effort is in total disregard of the environmental concerns and the fragility of the ecosystems of the small islands and rocks in the Aegean. In addition, it is yet another proof of Greece's thirst for territorial expansion beyond areas ceded to her by the Lausanne Peace Treaty of 1923 and the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947.

The Kardak rocks lie just 3.8 nautical miles off the Turkish coast. The title deed of the rocks are registered on the Karakaya village of Bodrum prefecturate, Muğla province. For years Turkish fishermen have engaged in fishing activities on and around these rocks without any hinderance and Turkish vessels have navigated freely through the waters surrounding them. The series of events started by pure coincidence with the running aground of a Turkish bulk carrier named "Figen Akat" near these rocks on 25 December 1995.

In the following weeks there was no crisis. It all changed on 20 January 1996, nearly a month later, when the incident was leaked into the Greek periodical "GRAMMA" which is known to be close to the Greek Government. This leak took place only the day after Mr.Simitis was named to form the new Greek Government. A media campaign was launched by the Greek press with nationalistic overtones.

Then the Mayor of Kalimnos, a Greek island 5.5 nautical miles away from the Kardak rocks took upon himself to come to the rocks on 26 January and raise the Greek flag. Incidentally, the Greek flag had never been hoisted on the Kardak rocks before. In spite of this provocative action, the official Turkish reaction was very moderate. However, some Turkish journalists, no doubt concerned primarily with the circulation of their paper, hoisted the Turkish flag over Kardak the next day. This flag hoisting competition by individuals could have been considered innocent, had not the Greek side taken a decision to send troops to the Kardak rocks. This was an act of aggression or armed hostility against Turkish sovereignty. In the assessment of the crisis, one should never lose sight of this illegal Greek deployment on the Kardak rocks.

[ioannis76]

Greece was making anouncements for recruitement of potential settlers from all over the world to some of these small islets and rocks.

LOL @ that bullcrap. Imia was "inhabited" by the goats of some Greeks from Kalumnos. Show us the announcements.

total disregard of the environmental concerns and the fragility of the ecosystems

The only ones who are showing disregard for the environment is the Turkish side, which illegaly fishes in the Aegean:
http://int.ert.gr/illegal-fishing-by...group-reports/

Illegal fishing by Turkish trawlers in Greek waters on the rise, environmental group reports

Turkish trawlers are increasingly taking advantage of "gaps" in the policing of sea borders caused by heightened refugee flows in the Aegean to sneak into Greek waters and illegally cast their nets there, the Institute of Marine Conservation "Archipelagos" reported on Wednesday.

"In recent weeks, there is an increase in provocative incidents of illegal fishing by Turkish trawlers in Greek territorial waters of the eastern Aegean, especially in the sea between Samos-Agathonissi," an announcement by the non-governmental conservation group said.

The Kardak rocks lie just 3.8 nautical miles off the Turkish coast.

Which still makes it off limits, as the relevant treaty declared only what lies in the 3 mile range as turkish. But the turkish mentality is "if I can see it, it's mine".

This leak took place only the day after Mr.Simitis was named to form the new Greek Government.

After Papadreou's death, which clearly shows how the Turks took advantage of the situation in order to go for some land grab. Btw, GRAMMA? LOL, Really?

This was an act of aggression or armed hostility against Turkish sovereignty.

So why did Turkey send its troops on the OTHER islet and not on the islet where the Greek troops were, in order to kick them out?

LOL, the turkish story is so full of holes, I could take it and use it as a sieve.

[Roma_Victrix]

I'm sure the UN will be able to solve all the problems, what else would we have a global government for?

Actually, this is one of the various reasons why we have NATO. Both Greece and Turkey are members of NATO, as is the United States. If Turkey attempted to break their commitments to the alliance and start attacking other member states, I don't think the US would look too kindly on that. And the US military would do a bit more than send Erdogan a strongly-worded letter like the UN.

This is all a bunch of bravado, though. We all know it's going nowhere.

[ioannis76]

Actually, this is one of the various reasons why we have NATO. Both Greece and Turkey are members of NATO, as is the United States. If Turkey attempted to break their commitments to the alliance and start attacking other member states, I don't think the US would look too kindly on that. And the US military would do a bit more than send Erdogan a strongly-worded letter like the UN.

This is all a bunch of bravado, though. We all know it's going nowhere.

It depends. What some analysts here say, is that the US is waiting for Turkey to get rid of Erdogan, and return to "logic", ie genocides WITHIN the NATO alliance.
But the more the US shows "patience" toward an increasingly belligerent Turkey and shrugging off its actions as the hot US spokeswoman did, the more belligerent it becomes. At this point, Turkey considers itself a revival of the Ottoman Empire, and as such, has an increasing chance of disregarding anything the US will say, in a display of "imperial arrogance". Now, add to that Putin, who supports Erdogan's madness in order to cause a crackin NATO's front, and the US just might come to the point where it would have to do something about Turkey.
The question is not whether the US could defeat Turkey or not, the question is, how long this is going to take, and what forces would manifest in the wake of the complete collapse of any pro_NATO Turkey. Once ties are severed, would Turkey become a rogue state? For its neighboring countries, Greece very much included, it already is.

Already, Turkey forced the Italian ENI drill to move away from the Cypriot EEZ, in a blatant display of piracy.

http://english.cyprustimes.com/2018/...sh-aggression/

[bekiristein]

Actually, this is one of the various reasons why we have NATO. Both Greece and Turkey are members of NATO, as is the United States. If Turkey attempted to break their commitments to the alliance and start attacking other member states, I don't think the US would look too kindly on that. And the US military would do a bit more than send Erdogan a strongly-worded letter like the UN.

This is all a bunch of bravado, though. We all know it's going nowhere.

The US wont be involved directly. Also dont forget that they havent supported Greece on the issue. Unfortunately for Greece Turkey is much more important.

[Yayattasa]

The US would just arm Kurds across the frontier, then allow for an unified Kurd insurgency uniting Iranian, Turkish, Syrian and Iraqi Kurds in Turkish soil among the turmoil. Kurdish infantry is reliable, and NATO (united) would provided air superiority. Syria and Israel (and most Arab powers) also hate Erdo, so the area is clear from their interference, and, perhaps by proxy, Russian interference as well.

Turkey becoming hostile to Greece has nothing to gain (perhaps only appease its nationalists), and everything to lose.

Rampant aggressiveness wouldn't trigger this scale of war, though. But UNSC sanctions have proven brutal when they REALLY mean it. I hope Turks see this sooner than late.

[PointOfViewGun]

Check what was done to Greece when it orchestrated a coup in Cyprus, helping the ethnic cleansing attempt on the island. It might give come ideas...

[ioannis76]

btw, here you say:

Except the official Turkish position is not that these islands are Turkish but that they gray zones whose sovereignty are undetermined

Yet the excerpt that you posted, directly from the Turkish ministry of Foreign affairs says that:

This flag hoisting competition by individuals could have been considered innocent, had not the Greek side taken a decision to send troops to the Kardak rocks. This was an act of aggression or armed hostility against Turkish sovereignty. In the assessment of the crisis, one should never lose sight of this illegal Greek deployment on the Kardak rocks.

Therefore, Turkey IS declaring that Imia is Turkish. So, where is your evidence?

[bekiristein]

Check what was done to Greece when it orchestrated a coup in Cyprus, helping the ethnic cleansing attempt on the island. It might give come ideas...

You mean the UN resolutions? Sigh....if you dont even admit that there was a genocide against the Armenians why anyone should take seriously your arguments.

[PointOfViewGun]

btw, here you say:
Yet the excerpt that you posted, directly from the Turkish ministry of Foreign affairs says that:
Therefore, Turkey IS declaring that Imia is Turkish. So, where is your evidence?

We're talking about a number of islands, not just Kardak islets that falls within the Turkish territorial waters. Don't get confused about the topic we're discussing.

You mean the UN resolutions? Sigh.... if you dont even admit that there was a genocide against the Armenians why anyone should take seriously your arguments.

So, by the same token I can dismiss any argument from anyone that accepts the Armenian allegations. Lovely...

[ioannis76]

We're talking about a number of islands, not just Kardak islets that falls within the Turkish territorial waters. Don't get confused about the topic we're discussing.

Imia was the first area to be put in question. Imia does NOT fall into Turkish territorial waters. You (your side) has yet to show ANY evidence whatsoever of this claim, and this thread, which is 15 pages long and has NO evidence of that, proves it. Imia is a clearly Greek territory, which was used by Turkey as a "pilot" in order to "grey out" areas of the Aegean. Turkey took advantage of Papandreou's death and the rise to power of Simitis, an anti-patriot. In the end, I do believe that the Greek Navy, Army and Airforce will have the final word.

So, by the same token I can dismiss any argument from anyone that accepts the Armenian allegations. Lovely...

The Armenian Genocide has been acknowledged by many countries, to the dismay of Turkey. Whether or not Turkey acknowledges it, is irrelevant. In a legal context, we might as well make it a prerequisite that the murderer in a murder case acknowledges his/her crime in order to be convicted.

[PointOfViewGun]

Imia was the first area to be put in question. Imia does NOT fall into Turkish territorial waters. You (your side) has yet to show ANY evidence whatsoever of this claim, and this thread, which is 15 pages long and has NO evidence of that, proves it. Imia is a clearly Greek territory, which was used by Turkey as a "pilot" in order to "grey out" areas of the Aegean. In the end, I do believe that the Greek Navy, Army and Airforce will have the final word.

True, you guys couldn't provide a single evidence of any of the islands or islets in question belonging to Greece, since that was what the entire discussion stemmed from. I have provided enough reasoning on all of these issues. You might disagree with it but by declaring them non-existent you expose meritlessness of your own position.

The Armenian Genocide has been acknowledged by many countries, to the dismay of Turkey. Whether or not Turkey acknowledges it, is irrelevant. In a legal context, we might as well make it a prerequisite that the murderer in a murder case acknowledges his/her crime in order to be convicted.

So, you think historical facts are to be based on popularity? Interesting logic... You want to make it a requisite for a murderer to acknowledge his crimes for him to be convicted? You clearly don't see the problem with that...

[Nebaki]

Imia was the first area to be put in question. Imia does NOT fall into Turkish territorial waters. You (your side) has yet to show ANY evidence whatsoever of this claim, and this thread, which is 15 pages long and has NO evidence of that, proves it. Imia is a clearly Greek territory, which was used by Turkey as a "pilot" in order to "grey out" areas of the Aegean. Turkey took advantage of Papandreou's death and the rise to power of Simitis, an anti-patriot. In the end, I do believe that the Greek Navy, Army and Airforce will have the final word.

Imia does NOT into Turkish territorial waters because of what? That Greece only accepts his illegal made territory and his foolish National ambitions? Even how close the Greek Side is claiming their territory so close to Turkish Mainland shows their illegal attempt.

The Armenian Genocide has been acknowledged by many countries, to the dismay of Turkey. Whether or not Turkey acknowledges it, is irrelevant. In a legal context, we might as well make it a prerequisite that the murderer in a murder case acknowledges his/her crime in order to be convicted.

Who are those Countries? Do those other Countries not have other Problems? So Turkey should also acknowledge it and then what? Did you even see the proof of that? Can you even proove it here? If not stick on Topic and don´t make such Dare allegations.

[PointOfViewGun]

As a side note, this from the Foreign Ministry website of the Greek government:

The Italo-Turkish Agreements of January 1932 and the additional protocol of 28.12.1932, on the basis of which the territorial waters of the two countries between the coast of Asia Minor and the Dodecanese islands were defined. It should be stressed that the Imia islets were ceded to Italy by the Treaty of Lausanne, which is easily confirmed by the fact that in Point 30 of the additional Protocol, which was signed on 28.12.1932, they are referred to as one of the points under Italian sovereignty from which the median line dividing the territorial waters between Italy and Turkey shall be calculated.

The protocol they cite above is objectively invalid. It's not a matter of interpretation.