Turkish anti-history at its best!

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Dec 23, 2009 at 10:23

Tamer wrote :

> Ianus, Your history seems to be limited to a Greek Orthodox version of events.<

Tamer,what you write is sheer anti-historical nonsense that only a Turk like your Ghazi Kemal could invent and only an entirely brainwashed barbarian like yourself could believe. Anyway, it's interesting ethnographically what wild historical forgeries,inventions and lies come from the country where free speech and free research are banned and self-glorification at any cost rules supreme.

> Most Turks have always lived in their homeland, long before Greeks came from Southern Iran 300BC.<

This is nonsense.Turks are late comers in history.The earliest representative of Turkic barbarity are the Huns as first described by their contemporary Ammianus Marcellinus.These savages appear on the Don around 375 AD,enslave the Alans, push the Goths westwards and start what is called teh "Völkerwanderung" .The earliest known Turkic texts are the Orkhon Yenissey runic inscriptions dating back to c. the 8th century AD. Now the Turks were alwazs nomads and nomads have no 'homeland' as is demonstrated by teh lack of teh native Turkic term for homeland. 'Vatan' is Arabic and 'yurt' means 'tent the ground where tents are put up' , 'tent'.

The earliest Achaean migrations to what became Greece were not from Iran at all but from Southern Europe as it has been established by the archaeological, ethnographic and lingusitic evidence long since.The name "Hellas" was originally applied to a region in Epirus near Dodona, as mentioned by Aristotle (Meteorologica, I, 352b).

> The Armenians came from a region close.<

The proximity of ancient Armenian to ancient Greek suggests a long pre-historical community between the two.

> When the Greeks came much as "migrant workers".<

How do you know that? Does Allah write about it in his Quran ? You don't seem to have ever read Homer,cared for Thucydides or been interested in classical philology or archeaology.You announce here unverifiable revelations and absurd, anti-scientific claims.Thucidydes has a different explanation for the early migration and archaeology confrms what he says and what Homer has said before him.

> They felt into the regions the Pelasgians first settled.<

They did.I wonder why you're so interested in Pelasgians? Don't pretend to be the defender of the Pelasigians' rights, you Moslem nomadic invader from central Asia! Won't your justify the ruthless Kemalist genocide of Hellenism in Asia Minor in 1919-1923 as a revenge for the 'Turkic-speaking and Allah-worshipping' Pelasgians? All absurdity is possible in Turkey as long as it whitewashes Turkish crimes and repeated genocides.

> Then they learned much of their knowledge from the Etruscans, which related to the Thracians, Lydians and Amazones.<

When one looks at the Etruscan tombs and Etruscan history as we know it from literary sources one sees the opposite process taking part.The Etruscans borrowed much of their higher culture -including Greek letters- from the Hellenes they met and fought with in Magna Graecia.But how a Turk could know anything about it? The Quran doesn't write, Kemal didn't know anything about it.

> These two groups were related to the Sumerians.<

Nonsense! The Sumerians (the "Blackheaded" as they called themselves) were long dead both as a race as a langauge when the migrations of the Peoples of the Sea took palce.They were conquered by the Semitic Accadians.Amazons was a semi-mythical tribe by the way.The Thracians-Phrygians and Lydians were indo-European tribes as is attested by the scanty remains of their languages while neither Sumerians nor Turkic tribes belong to this group.

Anyway, it's funny to see how you stress the uncertain, the dubious, the suprious as certain and clear while you obscure and play down the sure and well-established. We know a lot about Greeks and Armenians. You impudently deny it and build a Turkish fatamorgana in their place as a dogma.What's your profession by the way?A Turkish snake-charmer?

> When the Huns came in the first wave of Turkic expansion back out of Central Asia(yes, i said back because the populations migrated quite a bit with wars, drought, climate changes), the Huns came across Oguz that lived in the Caucasus and spoke the same language.

What is this anti-historical drivel all about? The Mongoloid Huns first appeared on the Don in the 4th century AD. What you refered to earlier took place during the migrations of the People of the Sea which we know from Egyptian sources of the 19th-20th Dynasties, i.e. some 1500 years earlier.You have idea of chronolgy and probability and least of all decency and scholarly education. So your chronology is totally erratic.Your 'facts' are hardly ever checked, they are misinterpreted and arbitrary to fit the preceonceived absurd political scheme you're pursuing. What a comedy of anti-history!

> Further west, they found ancient populations in the Balkans that spoke Turkic.

Nobody spoke Turkic before the Huns and later Turkic tribes like the Avars,Pechenegs etc. arrived on the Black Sea steppes from Southern Siberia and Central Asia. You have no clue of history and of linguistic history at all!

> The Bulgar Turks that came West also encountered the same conditions. <

The Turkic speaking Bulgarians belong to the 7th century A.D. They fled from the Turcic Khasars. Part of them moved to the Danube while teh other part up the Volga where they established what is now known as Volga Bolgaria.

> Note, many Byzantine emperors, including Constantine(Khagan-iStan- tin) were ethnic Bulgar Turks that still worshipped the Sky Gods, like all Turks of the time.

Another of nonsense of yours,Turk! "Constantinus" is a Latin name and its etimology is well-known.It's purely Latin, not Turkic at all! It comes from the verb "consto' "stand together", "stand firm"...Do you speak Latin as well as you speak Armenian? De talibus barabris sicut tu solebant Romani dicere 'Sus Mivervam docet !'

> In summary, you were fed history that was limited and did not give the whole picture.

In summary ... I do assure you I have seen many ignoramuses in my life! But Turks surpass by far all of them. Their mythical thinking, aggressivity and complacency reinforced by the degenerating and mind-shrinking influence of Islam and backward Turkish nationalism complete the dismal picture of unreformable Turkish barbarity. You speak of 'the whole picture' and indeed the historical forgery you have proposed here is absolute. It could be produced and survive only in a country like Turkey.Any reality check will a death sentence for it.

> The Turks were always in Anatolia.<

Nonsense. The Seljuk Turks appeared there only around 1047 with their first robberies,killings and kidnappings.After Manzikert in 1071 they enslaved this beautiful wholly Hellenized country and they have been occupying it until now.This is history. Turks are alien barbarian invaders in Anatolia.They are nomads from Central Asia as the Kasakhs,Turkmens and Kyrgys are now.But while the latter have preserved their race intact, the Anatolian Turkic barbarians have lost their race.Their faces are the best proof they are nothing but Islamized Turkish-speaking Armenians, Greeks,Slavs.

> It was always a Turkic Cradle going back to Catalhoyuk-Konya(10,000years+).

Nonsense! The nomadic Seljuk Turks were all nomads and came from the Syr Daria region which they left around 950 A.D. And nomads have no fatherland at all! Turkish has no native word for "homeland". You Turks have robbed the land your are now living in.Now you are stealing even its past which not yours at all! ...

> There are thousands of artifacts, statues, runic Turkish text(much like the inscriptions in Lemnos) and more recently DNA.

Etruscans had so much to do with today's Turks as Islam has with the Etruscan religion.

The first Turkic texts come from the Yenissey-Orkhon valley in c. the 8th century AD. They are written in Iranian, Sogdian, signs. Altaic philology reconstructs the ancient Altaic culture on the bases of the Altaic pre-language just like the proto-Indoeuropean language serves to reconstruct the ancient Indo-European culture.

It was a very primitive and backward culture around the times as the Huns moved westwards, let alone earlier.There is an interesting study abou it by a Russian Altaic scholar - A.V. Dybo " The world of the pre-Altaic people according to the comparative data of historical linguistics". The author finds out i.al. that the pre-Altaic people (in the Turkish pseudo-historiography the alleged ancestors of Sumerians,Hittites etc. ) had no term for a temple or the house of the ruler; there was no pre-Altaic word for the 'wheel". Pre-Altaic has names for spirits and shamans and shamanic ceremony but has no pantheon comparable to what is know from Sumerian,Hittite or Greek mythology etc. etc. In short, what the Turks say is confirmed by nothing.

> Most of history in the West relied on translating ancient text to only Greek, Latin, Arabic, and Persian.<

... And Ataturk was the greatest linguist of all times. I remember his etymologies ( "Niagara" according to Kemal came from "Ne yaygara!" - "What tumult!" and "Amazon from "Ama uzun!" -"But it's long! ;) and Bernal's, who was a Sinologist,PC drivel you're repeating. Nietzsche said about people like them that for a swine everything derives from the swine. Nietzsche was a classical philologist by the way.

> Many inscriptions, particularly Sumerian and Etruscan, make much more sense in Turkish, because their language structures are ONLY similar to TURKISH. <

One more nonsense of yours.Sumerian is an ergative language like Georgian.Turkic languages aren't.The Turkic peoples were all late comers on the satge of history and contributed nothing to civilization at all. In short, you have no clue what you're talking about. I call it 'Turkish education'

> This is a scientifict fact. <

And who doubts it in Turkey is jailed for how many years, if I may ask? "Science" like Kemal's virtue and the perfection of Turkishness all need plenty of jails,scimitars,thugs and informants to remain holy, don't they?

> The remnants of Avars, Huns, Pomaks, Cumans and Kipchaks have same traditians of the Oguz. I'll part by reminding you that Romulus, was founded by the Etruscans(Central Asian stock).

... I know. Muhammed, the founder of the only possible religion in Turkey was also a Turk, wasn't he? And the Arabs have how many percent of Turkic DNA to the recent tests conducted by the most outstanding Turkish "scientistis" ?

> The Etruscans symbolized the city with a She-Wolfe feeding small human babies, much like the ancient Turkic Ergenekon(Dede Korkut) story.<

Ashina was a zoophile and impregnated the she-wolf with ten sons - the heads of the ten principal Turkic tribes. The Father of Romulus was Mars and his mother was Rea Silvia.Both quite human. Can't you see the difefrence,Turkish anti-historian? Ancient Turks were zoophiles.Ancient Romans and Etruscans weren't.

> Ironically, the Etruscans referred to what Greeks called Rome, as Red Apple as it symbolized peace and prosperity. The Turks believed the essence of their being was to create Kizil Elma, a land where peace and prosperity prevailed. Kizil Elma translated is Red Apple.<

Yes.. . d New York is called 'Big Apple' and in Turkish it is "Buyuk Elma" and I am sure the great Turks founded also New York where their lobby is now buying American politicians to get more sophisticated weapons to Turkey to fight 'Mountains Turks' known wrongly as "Kurds" and prepare another invasion of de-Turkified Turks known wrongly as "Armenians" and if necessry to re-play the genocide of 1915 in say 2015 to prove Erdogan's wise saying that "no Moslems have ever commited a genocide"...

> Note, Quick Notes- Greek DNA of today links most Greeks to Ethiopia and Sub-Sahara.

Oh, really? Constantine VIII writes Greece was Slavonic for a long time, so we Slavs who look like those Greeks and whom we gave in part our genes must also be negroes,needn't we?...But ,wait. If Turks really come from dogs as Ashina's story tells us , then how many common DNA exsists between Turkic genes and dog genes? That's a fascinating question, by Allah the Turk! And if found positive, it might explain the savage Turkish behaviour as documented by all historical sources on Turkey.The Turks behaved like beasts .Why ? ... Because of their dog DNA!

> A quarter is the same as the Turkic genes(J2).

Seriously speaking, Anatolian Turks have long lost their Turkic race at all.Just look at your European face and ask why you don't look like a Kasakh or an Uzbek who are real Turks? So sell that bullshit of "Turkish genes" on the next TV show on Turkish TV where you'll prove the superiority of circumcision over non-circumcision and show how this ancient Turkic custom had been exported to the Jews from the Altai and how the Jewish Turks handed it over to Islam to have it back among the Turks who are fathers,invetors and especially heirs to all civilization and the entire world , not just the parts they have robbed and occupied so far!

> As for the "ancient" Armenians, their language is comprised of 60-65% Turkish words.

Do you know any single Armenian word? Armenian is one of the oldest Indo-European languages and its literature begins at the time when the Turks was still leading a zoophile and cannibalistic life in the forests and swamps of the Altai region and had not heard of the word "writing" at all. The old tradition of ignorance and barbarity seems to have never died among the Turks -the most bastardized and impure race I am aware of.

>Their DNA is mainly Iranian.<

I was afraid you would say "Turkish"! ... Evidently, there are no dog genes in them as in proud descendants of Ashina and his wolf wife.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".