Talk:Security Forces Command

Cyprus Problem
From an ımpartıal observer who served wıth the UNFICYP Command Staff ın 75 /76 and knows both sıdes only too well...

'The real core of the dıspute ıs Cyprus's geo-strategıc locatıon, just 60 mıles from Turkey's southern border.

Turkey cannot tolerate Greek domınatıon of such an unsınkable aırcraft carrıer - ever. Therefore Greek demands for Enosıs were always goıng to be a casus bellı

Makarıos's abrogatıon of the 1960 Consıtıutıon ın 1963 was the spark that ıgnıted the tınder. The resultıng bloodshed agaınst the Turkısh mınorıty brought ın the UN and an uneasy peace.

The bloody Greek-Cyprıot coup and cıvıl war of 1974, wıth Nıcos Sampson's threat of Enosıs, (Unıon wıth Greece) was the fınal straw.

The UK could (and many felt should) have ıntervened as a guarantor power of the 1960 Constıtutıon but refused to act. That opened the door for Turkey to ıntervene as another guarantor power. Turkey's ınterventıon/ınvasıon was not the catalyst for the sıtuatıon but the response to the ıllegal Greek Cyprıot coup.

Sınce then the sıtuatıon has become entrenched and lockked ınto a polıtıcal ımpasse wıth Turkey holdıng on to ıts gaıns and the Greeks lookıng for revenge. The geographıcal split clearly does not reflect the sıze of populatıon. The UN Annan Plan of 2004 was a possıble solutıon but the South rejected ıt. The only solutıon now appears to be a two state solutıon of some kınd federated or otherwıse.

The EU's role merely clouds the ıssue as South Cyprus holds a veto over Turkısh actıons. Impartial observers belıeve that only the UN can really solve the problem - gıven a wıllıngness to do so by the protagonısts.'

Problem solved
Then lets solve many problems at once,

1. Sent the Turks and Turkish Cypriots back to Turkey,

2. Send the Greeks and the Greek Cypriots back to Greece,

3. Move the Israeli Jews in Israel to Cyprus,

4. Let the Israeli Arabs have Israel.

That way :

a. The Greeks and Greek Cypriots get their Enosis,

b. The Turks and Turkish Cypriots get their unification,

c. The Jews get their Homeland with definable and defensible borders,

d. The Arabs get Palestine.

And we are all happy!!--Degen Earthfast (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Or everybody's pissed off...--209.213.220.227 (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger and Bias
This is the best I can do, merging from the two parent articles (now redirected here). I must be asking for trouble.... – Kaihsu 11:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is too biased and pro-Greek. I'm sad to see this kind of nonsense in Wikipedia. --Gokhan 11:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I bet you have not read the second section of the article. Add a NPOV introduction section if you will. – Kaihsu 11:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I read it, that was also NPOV written by a similar minded person. I now corrected it. --Gokhan 11:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As I know, there are 33,000 troops from Turkey on the island not 40,000. With respect, Deliogul 11:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A probably futile attempt
I have re-written two sentences. BOTH sides of the argument are still presented but the NPOV implications have been removed. Now I know this is a sensitive subject but lets all treat it like adults. Adam777 22:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's OK but I also think this article is unnecessary at best. I think that was started by a POV editor as a fork.  Now we are trying to clear his/her mess.  I think TRNC has its own army + there are Turkish troops stationed there.   Therefore this article could be better instead of a political agenda article. Anyway, thanks for being cool.  --Gokhan 06:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to all involved for keeping their cool. – Kaihsu 13:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

senseless opinions or just plane facts
DO we really need senseless opinions in this article or just plane facts what the army faction is?

Discussion about cyprus dont belong in this article. To my choice, this article is supposed to state facts about this particular army faction and not points of view which are fuled by an 40 year ongoing dispute between the greek and turks.

And by the way, dividing an article which is supposed to state facts, is highly unappropriate, while in fact the statements made under "turkish view" are the facts of this article.

This is one of the problems i see on wikipedia more often lately. People mask their opinion in an article, and get away with it. But this article should either state factional information over the army faction and not subjective points of view.

I therefore call upon removal of the greek section, because its irrelevant to this particularly army faction (its like justifying and dejustifying actions = masked opinion), and that the title "turkish view" be removed, so that what is under this section stays as a simple explanation of what this army faction is about.

Wikipedia gets the signs of failure more often, because everyone can write what it wants, putting a lot of nonsense or opinion into an article (masked or not), and so called point of views. These issues in my last sentence attack the factional value of an article. This probably and most likeley is also true for other aticles. Facts only and no opinions in this article.

I have taken the initiative to shorten this article to FACTS ONLY. User:80.56.155.7

NPOV Fork / New Article
A new article on the military of northern cyprus has been created at: Turkish Military Forces in Northern Cyprus. The name reflects that the TRNC is not recognised by the UN, which this article fails to do so (POV). The article is NEUTRAL POV, and covers the military personnel and assets of the Turkish military, which this article also fails to do so.

Before editing or redirecting the new article, please discuss the issue, or all changes will simply be reverted and arbitration sought.

(User383739 13:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

NPOV STILL
removed all the superfluous POV form this article as it is only about the Turkish Cypriot Security Force. Personal opinions are irrelevant in the article--Tomtom9041 (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)