Y-chromosomal haplogroup distribution in the Tuzla Canton of Bosnia and Herzegovina

[Tschaikisten]

My dear friend, your life has been an illusion. I2 Din is an Illyrian haplogroup, regardless what Jovan Deretić fans say.

Jovan Deretic supports I2a1b ''Dinaric'' Illyrian theory, just like you.
You two are sick minds, you are something like Bosniak Deretic, which can not accept science facts.

[epirot]

The results are expected, except abnormally high R1a, which is very symptomatic, since Marjanović is a known pro-Serb and pan-Slavist.

So, this means that being pro-Serb means being pro-Slav -> pro-Bosnian -> pro-Bosniak.
This also means that the west ALWAYS teaches every new nation of theirs (Bosniaks, Croats, Albs, Baltics, Poland, and especially Ukraine their new toy etc...) to be :
a) ultra-pseudo-nationalistic
b) always at war with as much neighbours as possible

[epirot]

Jovan Deretic supports I2a1b ''Dinaric'' Illyrian theory, just like you.
You two are sick minds, you are something like Bosniak Deretic, which can not accept science facts.

Jovan Deretic is just a follower of other great Serbian historians : Milos Milojevic, Olga Lukovic, etc....
All of them, have some small errors in their theories since they tend to ignore the tribe of the true Greeks in the south. But they are MUCH closer to the truth than the majority of modern Serb pseudo-nationalists (this includes all the pro-German Serb pseudo-nationalists, and all modern anti-Croat, anti-Bulgarian, pro-Greek Serb pseudo-nationalists).

[epirot]

N and J haplogroups also arrived with Turks. Obviously, Serbs are the people with the most Turkish blood so that was probably influenced by them.

I remind you back then, being "white" or "tanned" was not the A-Z of the world. It is stunning that the theory of the "Turkish" blood does not even exist for :
- Bulgarians (with turks longer than Serbs, closer to Turks)
- Makedonians (with turks longer than Serbs, closer to Turks)
- Albanians (Practically turks)
- Greeks (with turks longer than Serbs, closer to Turks)
- Cypriots (with turks much longer than Serbs, much closer to Turks)

It stinks yet another anti-Serb, anti-Turkish trick by miles away.

[Not a Cop]

How did slavs get to Sardinia, Basque countries, Dacia and Heartland Albania?
Just because people living in Balkans in those area might declare themselves as slavs, doesn't make them slavs, just slavicized. Balkanians look nothing like Russians or Ukrainians and I2 is nonexistant in Slavic motherland of Russia.

I2 is actually 15-20% among East-Salvs, making it 2nd or 3rd most common haplo.

[epirot]

I2 is actually 15-20% among East-Salvs, making it 2nd or 3rd most common haplo.

Right. Also the saxon-german "history" school teaches us that those balkanians speaking Slav languages are not actually Slavic, just "Slavicized". Also the same school teaches us that Slavs came in very small numbers and that they were very primitive, whereas the natives had noble Greek or Latin/Roman blood and were much more advanced. (it is 100% clear that the Bosniak mudjehedins way of thought -hrulj and the rest- are the product of the long lasting German/Austrian occupation of Bosnia). So this begs the question, how could a small number of primitive savages enforce their language to the much more numerous, wealthy and civilized "locals"????

They key to this answer for anyone having done a most basic research is this : the "locals" didn't appear till 1050+ AD and they were brought in haste by the Roman/Frank Kingdoms to break the continuity of the autochthonous (and much older) Slavs.

Slavs have CONSISTENTLY been the target for the west. For over 1500 yrs.

[RandoBloom]

Right. Also the saxon-german "history" school teaches us that those balkanians speaking Slav languages are not actually Slavic, just "Slavicized". Also the same school teaches us that Slavs came in very small numbers and that they were very primitive, whereas the natives had noble Greek or Latin/Roman blood and were much more advanced. (it is 100% clear that the Bosniak mudjehedins way of thought -hrulj and the rest- are the product of the long lasting German/Austrian occupation of Bosnia). So this begs the question, how could a small number of primitive savages enforce their language to the much more numerous, wealthy and civilized "locals"????

They key to this answer for anyone having done a most basic research is this : the "locals" didn't appear till 1050+ AD and they were brought in haste by the Roman/Frank Kingdoms to break the continuity of the autochthonous (and much older) Slavs.

Slavs have CONSISTENTLY been the target for the west. For over 1500 yrs.

How could Saxons force such a language on Bretons? How could Normans enforce such change on Saxons?

Slavs are uncouth religious fanatics and savages that need to be put down in order to produce world peace

[epirot]

How could Saxons force such a language on Bretons? How could Normans enforce such change on Saxons?

Slavs are uncouth religious fanatics and savages that need to be put down in order to produce world peace

Are you trying to play the dump or are you for real? I laid down the two principles of the berlin school and proved that this is wrong in 5 lines.

As to your silly question, no ever claimed that the local Celts had a superior civilization than the Saxons. Or that Saxons were few, uncivilized savage and insignificant. Slavs are not religious fanatics. The few of them who are (Balije, Ustase, etc...) are the ones who create all problems.

[Dick]

I2 is actually 15-20% among East-Salvs, making it 2nd or 3rd most common haplo.

Don't tell Bosniensis that or he'll have a heart attack.

[Peterski]

Bump. Any updates?