In majority Balkanites are not Indoeuropeans...

[Rethel]

2/3-3/4 of them are generally non-IEs.
Now you can understand, why they behave like they behave.





State
nr of people
% of IEs
nr of IEs
% of non-IEs
nr of non-IEs


Albania
2 900 000
25%
725 000
75%
2 175 000


Bośnia
3 600 000
21,5%
774 000
78,5%
2 826 000


Bułgaria
7 100 000
28%
1 988 000
72%
5 112 000


Croatia
4 200 000
32,5%
1 365 000
67,5%
2 835 000


Montenegro
680 000
17%
115 600
83%
564 400


Greece
11 000 000
27%
2 970 000
73%
8 030 000


Kosovo
1 900 000
25,5%
484 500
74,5%
1 415 500


Macedonia
2 070 000
26%
538 200
74%
1 531 800


Mołdavia
3 470 000
46,5%
1 613 550
53,5%
1 856 450


Romania
19 500 000
33,5%
6 532 500
66,5%
12 967 500


Serbia
7 000 000
24%
1 680 000
76%
5 320 000


Slovenia
2 065 000
56%
1 156 400
44%
908 600


Hungary
9 830 000
48%
4 718 400
52%
5 111 600


BALKANES
75 315 000
32,74%
24 661 150
67,26%
50 653 850


BALKANES without Hungary,
Slovenia, Romania and Moldova
40 450 000
26,30%
10 640 300
73,70%
29 809 700

[Graecian]

Retarded indian troll,
Finns are way lower in ''indoeuropean'' ancestry. Are the behaving as expected too?
Irish are the with the most R1b in Europe. Are they behaving as expected too?
African negroids with IQ 60, have the most R1b in the WORLD. Are they behaving as expected?

Bottom line: You are a retard.

[Laberia]

2/3-3/4 of them are generally non-IEs.
Now you can understand, why they behave like they behave.





State
nr of people
% of IEs
nr of IEs
% of non-IEs
nr of non-IEs


Albania
2 900 000
25%
725 000
75%
2 175 000


Bośnia
3 600 000
21,5%
774 000
88,5%
3 186 000


Bułgaria
7 100 000
28%
1 988 000
72%
5 112 000


Croatia
4 200 000
32,5%
1 365 000
67,5%
2 835 000


Montenegro
680 000
17%
115 600
83%
564 400


Greece
11 000 000
27%
2 970 000
73%
8 030 000


Kosovo
1 900 000
25,5%
484 500
74,5%
1 415 500


Macedonia
2 070 000
26%
538 200
74%
1 531 800


Mołdavia
3 470 000
46,5%
1 613 550
53,5%
1 856 450


Romania
19 500 000
33,5%
6 532 500
66,5%
12 967 500


Serbia
7 000 000
24%
1 680 000
76%
5 320 000


Slovenia
2 065 000
56%
1 156 400
44%
908 600


Hungary
9 830 000
48%
4 718 400
52%
5 111 600


BALKANES
75 315 000
32,74%
24 661 150
67,26%
50 653 850


BALKANES without Hungary,
Slovenia, Romania and Moldova
40 450 000
26,30%
10 640 300
73,70%
29 809 700



Source?

[Rethel]

Source?

Leftpedia.

[Harkonnen]

Retarded indian troll,
Finns are way lower in ''indoeuropean'' ancestry. Are the behaving as expected too?
Irish are the with the most R1b in Europe. Are they behaving as expected too?
African negroids with IQ 60, have the most R1b in the WORLD. Are they behaving as expected?

Bottom line: You are a retard.

Yes, we are behaving as expected. Finns are through and through un-Indo-European in culture, which is why these Polish gypsies make me vomit.

[Graecian]

Yes, we are behaving as expected. Finns are through and through un-Indo-European in culture, which is why these Polish gypsies make me vomit.

No, i mean, i consider Finns( true Finns, not the mongoloids that pollute your Nation) the best behaved Scandinavians, in general. I adore your metal bands and your nationalistic way of life. Also, i consider you the most civilized of the northerners.

Something almost ALL, fully R1a(indoeuropean, allegedly) nations arent. The most corrupt, violent, criminal Nations in Europe, are R1a nations. Such ''indoeuropean'' superiority :p

[Rethel]

make me vomit.

You do not even know, how true this saying of yours is... :laugh:

[Laberia]

Leftpedia.

Rethel, when our ancestors lived in the middle of the marbles and gold, your ancestors lived in the mud.

[arvanite]

Rethel, when our ancestors lived in the middle of the marbles and gold, your ancestors lived in the mud.

I still live in marbles and gold.

[Rethel]

Rethel, when our ancestors lived in the middle of the marbles and gold, your ancestors lived in the mud.

1. Assuming that you are correct - then what????? What revevance it has with the quote or the topic?
2. Who are your ancestors? You never said it, neither putted into description.

[Laberia]

1. Assuming that you are correct - then what????? What revevance it has with the quote or the topic?
2. Who are your ancestors? You never said it, neither putted into description.

1) You have not to assume, you have to accept. It's relevant because help you to understand better.
2) Excuse me?

[Rethel]

1) You have not to assume,

It was a figure of speech, saying on the margine, that I will not disscuss this matter.
The point was: if was so, then what? and what it has to do with the quote yu've made and the topic of the thread.


you have to accept. It's relevant because help you to understand better.

How it is relevant x thousands years ago of dead civilization to the number of IEs in the region today?
If I would give the numbers of the Turks on the Balkans, the relevancy would be the same. None. Even
the relevancy of former Ottoman Porta or winning the independence by balkan states >100 years ago
would be none in such case. But nevermind. I guess you just wanted to say something, but you didn;t
know what you should :p


2) Excuse me?

You said: when our ancestors lived in the middle of the marbles and gold, your ancestors lived in the mud.

How do you know, which ancestors are yours? Maybe yours were those who lived in the mud at the time...

[Laberia]

It was a figure of speech, saying on the margine, that I will not disscuss this matter.
The point was: if was so, then what? and what it has to do with the quote yu've made and the topic of the thread.



How it is relevant x thousands years ago of dead civilization to the number of IEs in the region today?
If I would give the numbers of the Turks on the Balkans, the relevancy would be the same. None. Even
the relevancy of former Ottoman Porta or winning the independence by balkan states >100 years ago
would be none in such case. But nevermind. I guess you just wanted to say something, but you didn;t
know what you should :p



You said: when our ancestors lived in the middle of the marbles and gold, your ancestors lived in the mud.

How do you know, which ancestors are yours? Maybe yours were those who lived in the mud at the time...

1)Source?
2) I am Albanian. You are Polish.

[Rethel]

1)Source?

Source of what?


2) I am Albanian. You are Polish.

:picard2:

Are you aware, that this is not thread about Albanians and Poles? :picard1:
Then, if you had in mind Albanians and Poles, when did they live in gold, and Poles in the mud? :picard1:

[Seya]

so what's the percentage of IEs in Poland?

[Rethel]

so what's the percentage of IEs in Poland?

~70%
In worst datas 2/3.
In the best 3/4.
(In one was 85% but there had to be something wrong :) )
70% is according to the same leftpedic source, as I took for the Balkans.

[Seya]

~70%
In worst datas 2/3.

can u pls give me a link to your source? i'm very curious

[Rethel]

can u pls give me a link to your source? i'm very curious

Here you are (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml) :)

[kingjohn]

so now poland is an Übermensch country because of the high R1a haplogroup ?
rethel how old are you?
i feal like you are 18 years old or something

[Bosniensis]

@OP

I've been saying for years now that we are Not IE people.

IE people are "barbarians".

Roman Empire was built by non-IE people aka. Balkanites: Albanians, Greeks, Anatolians, etc..

[Laberia]

@OP

I've been saying for years now that we are Not IE people.

IE people are "barbarians".

Roman Empire was built by non-IE people aka. Balkanites: Albanians, Greeks, Anatolians, etc..

And this is an another BS.

[Laberia]

Source of what?



:picard2:

Are you aware, that this is not thread about Albanians and Poles? :picard1:
Then, if you had in mind Albanians and Poles, when did they live in gold, and Poles in the mud? :picard1:
1) Source of all your claims.
2) It`s not about Albanian and Poles. But i am Albanian, descendant from the oldest population of this Peninsula. Meanwhile you are a Polish, a Slav.

[Bosniensis]

And this is an another BS.

When Constantine the Great succeed his father Constantius he had to fight Franks in 305 or 306 A.D and he said: "I've never
seen those Barbarians wearing such a good equipment and their organisational skills are almost good as ours. Next time we fight them in such a large
numbers we won't be able to protect our Empire from them"

Later he moved a capital from Rome to Constantinople for he knew that Gaul and Italy will fall into hands of foreigners. AND IT HAPPENED.

I don't deny the fact that at least 30% of Italians are Natives but a significant portion of those people are either:

1. Killed
2. emigrated to Balkans
3. moved south

Romans were not R1a or R1b people (only in minority)

Gaul was butchered by Clovis I and other IE people
Northern Italy was butchered by Liuteprand the Lombard, Frankish armies, while South was terrorized by Normans.

Those are all Foreigners, IE people who invaded and defeated Western court of Roman Empire.

It's all easy to understand if you follow the history, battles, letters written by Emperors, Popes etc..

[Laberia]

.........
The Ancient Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians, etc, were Indoeuropean people. You know this?

[Bosniensis]

The Ancient Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians, etc, were Indoeuropean people. You know this?

That term Indo-Euroepan is severly abused today.

Tell me then, If Greeks are IE people why did they build a Gates of Alexander here:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Hyrcania-Alexanders-gates-map.svg

If Greeks are Indo-European.. why were they SO AFRAID of IE people?

Another thing...

Both Christians and Muslims agree that Gog and Magog (group of peoples) originate from that Area against whom Alexander and Persians
built a forts to protect themselves, and they defended it together (even if tolerance among the Persians and Greeks wasn't always good).

So, Both Persians and Greeks, defending the same borders towards north against the people who are "Indo Europeans" like them...

That doesn't seem logical at all.

So called Gog and Magog people (Slavic-Turkic-Germanic) peoples are those against whom Greeks and Persians built those Citadels/Bunkers, and those people
now have conquered 70% of Europe in between 2nd and 7th century A.D.

[Laberia]

That term Indo-Euroepan is severly abused today.

Tell me then, If Greeks are IE people why did they build a Gates of Alexander here:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Hyrcania-Alexanders-gates-map.svg

If Greeks are Indo-European.. why were they SO AFRAID of IE people?

Another thing...

Both Christians and Muslims agree that Gog and Magog (group of peoples) originate from that Area against whom Alexander and Persians
built a forts to protect themselves, and they defended it together (even if tolerance among the Persians and Greeks wasn't always good).

So, Both Persians and Greeks, defending the same borders towards north against the people who are "Indo Europeans" like them...

That doesn't seem logical at all.

So called Gog and Magog people (Slavic-Turkic-Germanic) peoples are those against whom Greeks and Persians built those Citadels/Bunkers, and those people
now have conquered 70% of Europe in between 2nd and 7th century A.D.

And why ancient Greeks build Gates against the Illyrian tribes of Epir? Do you understand that your questions are non-sense?

[Bosniensis]

And why ancient Greeks build Gates against the Illyrian tribes of Epir? Do you understand that your questions are non-sense?

You can't compare Illyrians whom Greeks called "Barbarians" for the reason they were inferior to them. Illyrians are clearly something different, and any walls
that Greeks have built against them pale in comparison against those citadels I've previously talked about.

We have built walls against Orthodox Serbs in War so.. you can't take that as a comparison.

Truth is ... that Persians and Greeks cooperated against a GREAT threat, important threat which wasn't LOCAL in a nature like your example.

[Laberia]

You can't compare Illyrians whom Greeks called "Barbarians" for the reason they were inferior to them. Illyrians are clearly something different, and any walls
that Greeks have built against them pale in comparison against those citadels I've previously talked about.

We have built walls against Orthodox Serbs in War so.. you can't take that as a comparison.

Truth is ... that Persians and Greeks cooperated against a GREAT threat, important threat which wasn't LOCAL in a nature like your example.
And what`s your point? That Ancient Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians, etc, were not Indoeuropean people?

[Bosniensis]

And what`s your point? That Ancient Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians, etc, were not Indoeuropean people?

No. Arabs have an interesting view on that subject.

They called those people "Banu Asfar" which means Golden faced/yellow faced people (med. people imho.)

and I've found a discussion where Arabs clearly state that Romans "the way Greeks, Illyrians and others were called in Ancient times" are the people
who came to existence in Pra-Ancient times when Ethiopians ( a nation who was the most powerful back then) conquered the lands where Romans now live, they
ruled for Centuries and eventually mixed with Blonde populace from whom through many years later emerged the Civilization of "Romans".

This can not be confirmed yet. But that's what I have found by looking into Persian and Arabs writings.

That view might be funny to me and you, we cannot accept it nor dismiss it cause we don't have any proofs.

But obviously that's a good HINT and possible explanation of behavior that Greeks and Romans had against Germanic peoples, Slavic and Turkic peoples.

[Laberia]

No.
Why?

Arabs have an interesting view on that subject.

They called those people "Banu Asfar" which means Golden faced/yellow faced people (med. people imho.)

and I've found a discussion where Arabs clearly state that Romans "the way Greeks, Illyrians and others were called in Ancient times" are the people
who came to existence in Pra-Ancient times when Ethiopians ( a nation who was the most powerful back then) conquered the lands where Romans now live, they
ruled for Centuries and eventually mixed with Blonde populace from whom through many years later emerged the Civilization of "Romans".

This can not be confirmed yet. But that's what I have found by looking into Persian and Arabs writings.

That view might be funny to me and you, we cannot accept it nor dismiss it cause we don't have any proofs.

But obviously that's a good HINT and possible explanation of behavior that Greeks and Romans had against Germanic peoples, Slavic and Turkic peoples.
Why you have posted this here?

[Bosniensis]

Why?

Why you have posted this here?

I posted that as an explanation that African influence had a major impact in creation of Hellenic World (Balkans included),
while Indoeuropeans had a 0 interaction with Africans.

While Greeks and Romans had some influence from IE people (cause they had relations with them, mostly hostile but still), they
were still a separate group of peoples that emerged from a mixture of Hamitic and Japhetic peoples.

So the true answer would be: Greeks are partially IE people, while predominantly more closely related to Africans, Anatolians and Persians with whom they
mixed and cooperated much more.

That's why it's not acceptable to Call Illyrians, Greeks and Romans (Indo Europeans) or to compare them with IE people.

[Laberia]

I posted that as an explanation that African influence had a major impact in creation of Hellenic World (Balkans included),
while Indoeuropeans had a 0 interaction with Africans.

While Greeks and Romans had some influence from IE people (cause they had relations with them, mostly hostile but still), they
were still a separate group of peoples that emerged from a mixture of Hamitic and Japhetic peoples.

So the true answer would be: Greeks are partially IE people, while predominantly more closely related to Africans, Anatolians and Persians with whom they
mixed and cooperated much more.

That's why it's not acceptable to Call Illyrians, Greeks and Romans (Indo Europeans) or to compare them with IE people.

So, your theory is based in something that:


This can not be confirmed yet.
Do you think that all this is serious?

[Rethel]

1) Source of all your claims.

Which claims? I just explained you what you did claim and how it is irrelevant here.


2) It`s not about Albanian and Poles. But i am Albanian, descendant from the oldest population of this Peninsula. Meanwhile you are a Polish, a Slav.

But it is irrelevant either to the quote which you made and to the topic of the thread.
And Albanians are not the oldest. Bearly 800 years of known history, so sorry. At that
time, Poles were making a local empire, so what are you talking about at all?? And the
Albania was irrelevant small roman province on the end of the world.

More than that, my ancestors did not live in Poland or were Poles at that time, so your
claim is sensless thricely. Probably neither yours were Albanians at that time, so, what
are you talking about at all? do you really want to be a master of non existing problems?

[Seya]

I posted that as an explanation that African influence had a major impact in creation of Hellenic World (Balkans included),
while Indoeuropeans had a 0 interaction with Africans.

While Greeks and Romans had some influence from IE people (cause they had relations with them, mostly hostile but still), they
were still a separate group of peoples that emerged from a mixture of Hamitic and Japhetic peoples.

So the true answer would be: Greeks are partially IE people, while predominantly more closely related to Africans, Anatolians and Persians with whom they
mixed and cooperated much more.

That's why it's not acceptable to Call Illyrians, Greeks and Romans (Indo Europeans) or to compare them with IE people.

how can u explain the fact that Romans, Greeks and the rest of the Balkans (including the ancient ones like illyrians, thracians/dacians) speak an IE language?

[Bosniensis]

So, your theory is based in something that:

Do you think that all this is serious?

Just because something isn't proven doesn't mean it's incorrect.

Also, we know that there are Subjective reasons (Agenda/interest) of IE people to keep something like that hidden.

It is my opinion that before 4th century, Italy, Spain and Gaul was inhabited by predominantly NON-IE people just like modern Balkans.

@OP of this thread is correct, we are not real IE people we are something else.

IE people were murderous, and they exterminated peoples of conquered lands just like Serbs did with Srebrenica.

If Serbs managed to exterminate Srebrenica in 1995, what makes you think that Franks did not slaughter entire Gaul?

[DarknessWin]

And who give a shit about Indoeuropean cucks ???

Its a myth that Indoeuropeans created great Civilizations, its just a language.
True Meds and Balkanites are ancient people with great history when indoeuropeans were a bunch of gypsies came from India

All of your History is based in Meds and native Europeans, all of European Heroes are not indoeuropeans too
Like Alexander the Great,Napoleon,Spartakus,Leonidas,Ceasar and even Ragnar was not Indoeuropean but Native nordic

[Lollipop]

Just because something isn't proven doesn't mean it's incorrect.

Also, we know that there are Subjective reasons (Agenda/interest) of IE people to keep something like that hidden.

It is my opinion that before 4th century, Italy, Spain and Gaul was inhabited by predominantly NON-IE people just like modern Balkans.

@OP of this thread is correct, we are not real IE people we are something else.

IE people were murderous, and they exterminated peoples of conquered lands just like Serbs did with Srebrenica.

If Serbs managed to exterminate Srebrenica in 1995, what makes you think that Franks did not slaughter entire Gaul?

Srbrenica genocide did not exist.

[Laberia]

Just because something isn't proven doesn't mean it's incorrect.

Also, we know that there are Subjective reasons (Agenda/interest) of IE people to keep something like that hidden.

It is my opinion that before 4th century, Italy, Spain and Gaul was inhabited by predominantly NON-IE people just like modern Balkans.

@OP of this thread is correct, we are not real IE people we are something else.

IE people were murderous, and they exterminated peoples of conquered lands just like Serbs did with Srebrenica.

If Serbs managed to exterminate Srebrenica in 1995, what makes you think that Franks did not slaughter entire Gaul?
Something that it`s not proven it`s not correct.
And you can not use it as argument to prove your theory because sounds ridiculous. When you will prove your theory, return here and use it. What do you think?

[Lollipop]

And who give a shit about Indoeuropean cucks ???

Its a myth that Indoeuropeans created great Civilizations, its just a language.
True Meds and Balkanites are ancient people with great history when indoeuropeans were a bunch of gypsies came from India

All of your History is based in Meds and native Europeans, all of European Heroes are not indoeuropeans too
Like Alexander the Great,Napoleon,Spartakus,Leonidas,Ceasar and even Ragnar was not Indoeuropean but Native nordic

Native Nordic?Not Indoeuropean?
Greek is an Indoeuropean language

[Rethel]

so now poland is an Übermensch country because of the high R1a haplogroup ?
rethel how old are you?
i feal like you are 18 years old or something


I see you are still talking with your own imagination. Sick imagination.
I will not answer, becasue it is sensless, if you allready did this insted
of me knowing better what I think, having your own "truth" about what
I said - even if I did not say - which was made up buy yourself, so, any
try to explain, how it is, will be probably futile, so, I will not bother to try.

[Bosniensis]

Srbrenica genocide did not exist.

They did commit mass murder, that's what Serbs accept. around 5k+ civilians.

Genocide is a political term used to make massacre look bigger than it actually was.

We use the word "Genocide" cause mass media is spamming our brains.

[Laberia]

I see you are still talking with your own imagination. Sick imagination.
I will not answer, becasue it is sensless, if you allready did this insted
of me knowing better what I think, having your own "truth" about what
I said - even if I did not say - which was made up buy yourself, so, any
try to explain, how it is, will be probably futile, so, I will not bother to try.
Talking about sick imagination. lol.
"People generally fall into two categories: R1 and others" http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.png

[Bosniensis]

Something that it`s not proven it`s not correct.
And you can not use it as argument to prove your theory because sounds ridiculous. When you will prove your theory, return here and use it. What do you think?

I will never prove my theories here. How can I prove my theory anywhere when modern historians from Britain and France denounce Byzantine Historians from 14th century as liars.

You see, I am forced to Learn THEIR history, yet when I am citing a Byzantine historians they say: "He was a liar".

That's why only those who have the Power decide what's truth and what isn't. You as a observer must decide yourself what seems more logical and truthful to you, cause Truth is never being taught in Schools.

Modern History books are written not to insult anyone.. and how can that be closer to truth than your OWN exploration, reading etc...

[Laberia]

I will never prove my theories here. How can I prove my theory anywhere when modern historians from Britain and France denounce Byzantine Historians from 14th century as liars.

You see, I am forced to Learn THEIR history, yet when I am citing a Byzantine historians they say: "He was a liar".

That's why only those who have the Power decide what's truth and what isn't. You as a observer must decide yourself what seems more logical and truthful to you, cause Truth is never being taught in Schools.

Modern History books are written not to insult anyone.. and how can that be closer to truth than your OWN exploration, reading etc...
If you can not prove your theories, than you have to stop with this charade. Stop offending the intelligence of the members here with your mix of charlatanism and crisis of identity. Science is not what you see in the mirror when you shave your beard in the morning. Hey today i look like a illyrian, meanwhile yesterday i was like a thracian and so on.

[Lollipop]

They did commit mass murder, that's what Serbs accept. around 5k+ civilians.

Genocide is a political term used to make massacre look bigger than it actually was.

We use the word "Genocide" cause mass media is spamming our brains.

It cannot be a genocide, because the muslims started it first.Srebrenica was used by the west as justification for serbian aggression and american and nato intervention.Anyway, women and children were sent away, and the men who were killed were mostly muslim combatants who had been raiding Serb villages surrounding the city for years, killing literally thousands of Serbs. They had it coming, and they thought they could get out of it by hiding among civilians. Turned out they couldn't.


>General Philippe Morillon testimony at the session of the ICTY 12 February 2004:

>JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you saying, then, General, that what happened in 1995 was a direct reaction to what Naser Oric did to the Serbs two years before?

>THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, Your Honour. I am convinced of that. This doesn't mean to pardon or diminish the responsibility of the people who committed that crime, but I am convinced of that, yes.
[14]

>Detachments of Orić's units from Srebrenica killed many Serbs during the attacks on Serb villages. In 1992, hundreds of Serb civilians were reportedly killed.[8][9] Bosnian troops in Srebrenica were often unable to restrain the large groups of civilians who took part in the attacks on the Serb villages.[10]

> Bosnian troops in Srebrenica were often unable to restrain the large groups of civilians who took part in the attacks on the Serb villages.[10]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnALEecbZ-k

tl;dr
>Srebrenica was an enclave under Dutch rule with Muslims in it
>around Srebrenica were Serbian villages
>the muslims exited the city and killed Serbs at night
>couple thousand Serbs were killed
>Ratko Mladić hears about this
>enters Srebrenica, expells the Dutch (none of them were harmed)
>the muslims took arms
>they were purged, but not even close to 5k were killed

[Rethel]

Talking about sick imagination. lol.
"People generally fall into two categories: R1 and others" http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.png

And how it claims, that somebody says something, which he did not say?

Do you even read, what you are quoting, or you just write no matter what,
only for writing something or attackong somebody? Because this is another
time, whan you write something, what is not relevant to the quote which
you've made and what is not based on the same reason. So how it is whith
you? Are you just a troll or an average Balkanite?

[Bosniensis]

It cannot be a genocide, because the muslims started it first.

Problem is that TITO has managed to convince Balkan muslims that Yugoslavia was their country as well. Orthodox people
did not deny it publicly but they refused to accept muslims as equals in Yugoslavia and they showed that when power was shared, they
looked upon the muslims as a defeated adversary.

So when Serbs started preaching Serbian Nationalism, Muslims complained by saying: "That was not the Yugoslavia Tito promoted", but
Serbs said: "It never was".

It was THEN when muslims started revolt against Yugoslavia, supposed "Secret oppression against Muslims" became a Public and Serbs said:
"What do you muslims want from Yugoslavia, we have defeated Ottoman Empire".

So from their standpoint: Muslims were Aggressors on THEIR Yugoslavia.
But from the standpoint of muslims: Muslims only wanted to have equal rights that Tito promised and never fulfilled.

It's hard to talk about Yugoslav Wars, there is really too much into it to put into single post.

[Lollipop]

Problem is that TITO has managed to convince Balkan muslims that Yugoslavia was their country as well. Orthodox people
did not deny it publicly but they refused to accept muslims as equals in Yugoslavia and they showed that when power was shared, they
looked upon the muslims as a defeated adversary.

So when Serbs started preaching Serbian Nationalism, Muslims complained by saying: "That was not the Yugoslavia Tito promoted", but
Serbs said: "It never was".

It was THEN when muslims started revolt against Yugoslavia, supposed "Secret oppression against Muslims" became a Public and Serbs said:
"What do you muslims want from Yugoslavia, we have defeated Ottoman Empire".

So from their standpoint: Muslims were Aggressors on THEIR Yugoslavia.
But from the standpoint of muslims: Muslims only wanted to have equal rights that Tito promised and never fulfilled.

It's hard to talk about Yugoslav Wars, there is really too much into it to put into single post.

It does not take a scientist to understand that muslims have no place in Yugoslavia or Europe for that matter.

[Laberia]

It does not take a scientist to understand that muslims have no place in Yugoslavia or Europe for that matter.
The white knight who will deffend Europe. The king of the sewers of Bucharest, Bruce Lee, the master of Deymark:
http://casajurnalistului.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/P1350286.jpg

[Bosniensis]

It does not take a scientist to understand that muslims have no place in Yugoslavia or Europe for that matter.

So if your mother and father convert to Islam would you remove them from Europe?

Do you know that in wars against muslims on Balkans brother fought against brother?

Do you know that Serbian royal families from middle ages are Muslims.

Do you know that many Orthodox Serbs fought on OUR side cause they were shocked how we were threated by Belgrade?

It easy for you in Romania to talk about muslims when there are no muslims among your populace.

If you had to for example to kill your own cousin who is muslim you wouldn't be speaking that harshly against muslims.

And who gave Orthodoxes Right to convert to that Jewish religion?

Europe wasn't built by Christians.

[DarknessWin]

Native Nordic?Not Indoeuropean?
Greek is an Indoeuropean language

Indoeuropean languages are a myth, BULLCRAP

They took samples and make DNA tests in ancient Greek population and they had the same dna like today.
Neolithic population created everything, even Mycenaean warriors were Neolithic

Mycenaean was pre Spartan civilization and they were even stronger.
Warrior civilization and no Indoeuropeans

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-civilizations-greece-revealing-stories-science.html

If Mycenaean's were Neolithic and not Indoeuropean , then the European myths collapse.
Indoeuropeans were gypsies came from India

https://www.timetravelturtle.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Greece-2012-202_web-lrg.jpg

https://previews.123rf.com/images/anzebizjan/anzebizjan1504/anzebizjan150400022/38862764-Tourist-posing-under-famous-Lion-gate-entrance-to-ancient-Mycenae-Greece--Stock-Photo.jpg

http://www3.northern.edu/marmorsa/agamemnon.jpg

Agamemnon the great King was neolithic Myceanean.
So who give a fuck about gypsies from India and their myths that they give language to Europe??
Indoeuropeans were savages in Europe

[DarknessWin]

Talking about sick imagination. lol.
"People generally fall into two categories: R1 and others" http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.png

We must sent them back in India.
Balkans had great History when they were a bunch of savages

[Vlatko Vukovic]

2/3-3/4 of them are generally non-IEs.
Now you can understand, why they behave like they behave.





State
nr of people
% of IEs
nr of IEs
% of non-IEs
nr of non-IEs


Albania
2 900 000
25%
725 000
75%
2 175 000


Bośnia
3 600 000
21,5%
774 000
78,5%
2 826 000


Bułgaria
7 100 000
28%
1 988 000
72%
5 112 000


Croatia
4 200 000
32,5%
1 365 000
67,5%
2 835 000


Montenegro
680 000
17%
115 600
83%
564 400


Greece
11 000 000
27%
2 970 000
73%
8 030 000


Kosovo
1 900 000
25,5%
484 500
74,5%
1 415 500


Macedonia
2 070 000
26%
538 200
74%
1 531 800


Mołdavia
3 470 000
46,5%
1 613 550
53,5%
1 856 450


Romania
19 500 000
33,5%
6 532 500
66,5%
12 967 500


Serbia
7 000 000
24%
1 680 000
76%
5 320 000


Slovenia
2 065 000
56%
1 156 400
44%
908 600


Hungary
9 830 000
48%
4 718 400
52%
5 111 600


BALKANES
75 315 000
32,74%
24 661 150
67,26%
50 653 850


BALKANES without Hungary,
Slovenia, Romania and Moldova
40 450 000
26,30%
10 640 300
73,70%
29 809 700



You are really laughable. Go educate yourself. If you want reason why Balkanites have crazy mentality it is becouse this mentality is created during a lot of wars during history on Balkan. Balkan peninsula was the bassinet of wars in history. That is the reason of our mentality.

[DarknessWin]

@OP

I've been saying for years now that we are Not IE people.

IE people are "barbarians".

Roman Empire was built by non-IE people aka. Balkanites: Albanians, Greeks, Anatolians, etc..


Indoeuropeans called gypsies from Romans and Greeks.
Greeks made comedy and fun with them in their theaters

Now they say that we speak Indoeuropean language. BULLCRAP
I see no connection with the languages in the gypsy land aka India

[DarknessWin]

You are really laughable. Go educate yourself. If you want reason why Balkanites have crazy mentality it is becouse this mentality is created during a lot of wars during history on Balkan. Balkan peninsula was the bassinet of wars in history. That is the reason of our mentality.

We balkanians fought each other but also have respect for each other,
the north cucks cant challenge us

[Vlatko Vukovic]

We balkanians fought each other but also have respect for each other,
the north cucks cant challenge us

I know. But it is the reason of "lunatic Balkan mentality".

[Vožd]

I2a hg is not indoeuropean?

[Сербо Макеридов]

I2a hg is not indoeuropean?

I haplogroup is paleo-European, Cro-Magnons were holders of I haplogroup.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon#Genetics

[Dragoon]

Southeast Europeans are better than most Western and North Europeans.
Their mentality was surely influence by invaders of the Muslim kind.
Then by conflicts during WW2.

Because they are small they are easily divided by foreign forces.
Even Yugoslavia combined fell because of differences and foreign influence.

[Rethel]

I2a hg is not indoeuropean?

Nope. Is pre- (i.e. before) indoeuropean.
The best shot which can be made in modern
lingustic terminology is baskoidic.


I haplogroup is paleo-European, Cro-Magnons were holders of I haplogroup.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon#Genetics

We used to use it here, but remember, that Cro-Magnon is a term for humans generally
as the map in your own link, with lying datation and false routs of migration, shows.