ATATÜRK SLANDERED AS DEVIL! 3million "FAITHFULSERVANT" YouTube Channel Arabic Propaganda

[Bosniensis]

Ataturk was also a Balkan Turk. He didn't hate Balkans he saved what he could and created a new nation. He had to create new nations empires era was finished in the world you need to act in accordance with what the time demands. So you don't need to hate Ataturk.

I have nothing against the fact that he created a Nation. He had to (Just as we Bosniak's had to)

But imagine being part of civilization that was Muslim + Multi-Ethnic and suddenly it becomes "Turan only"

Wait a minute, Istanbul was our home as well (before Islam and after Islam) and now he made us feel like Aliens in Turkey.

I blame him for not making Turkish Nation more attuned to the history of Balkans and Anatolia and less so to Turans who live among Anatolians.

Just like Trabzon Turks, Bosniaks and Albanians should be regarded as CORE Turkish populace.

[Blondie]

I think there is now a severe fight going on between the conventional Aryan invaders (!) fans and the Indian autochtanous Aryan fans, how fun. The only truth is Aryan concept doesnt belong to those groups mentioned, thats why there is no consensus on how, where and when it started lol. Also, there are zillions of such twisted historical articles roaming around, even I can write one, depending on my own politics and interests. That this one is published by Harvard makes it a totally unbiased one? its not the case, especially in ancient history arena

Anyway, I am repeating, second hand sources are garbage, not only sided but also open to demagogy and interpretation in every way. So one should always look at the first hand sources, especially the very old ones, like the ones I am constantly sharing, free from personal or political interpretations. Did you hear about Tamerlan, great Turkic ruler Timur who ruled Turkics and some Mongolic tribes in Central Asia late 1300s:

''Magni Tamerlanis,Scythorum İmperatoris Vita (The Life of Tamerlan, the Emperor of Scythians)'', Petrus Perondinus, 1553 Vatican

Adile Ayda, history researcher and the first female ambassador of Turkey in Rome wrote: ''This book was written and presented to the patriarch of Alexandria, in which the people of Tamerlan was sometimes called as Scythiand and sometimes as Tartars. As Scythians were referred to central Asian Turks, not Mongols nor antoher nation. The evidence for this is in the 10. page of the book, writes as 'He is called blessed Temir/Timur (iron/steel in Turkish) which means in Scythian language 'the holder of of blessed sword' (Temirus Gutlus fuit appelatus, quae vox Scythica lingua fortunatu gladiu exprimit). So in 16th century westerners called Turks in Cental Asia as Scythians, and after the imposition of Aryanism and Indo-europeanism, this reality tried to be hid from the eyes'' Adile Ayda, The First Ancestors of Turks, Ankara, 1987, p. 39-41

Attachment 94586

Source from 15. century? Don't make me laugh, the writer of this source lived 1500 years later than scythians and there were no scientific education and modern science (genetic, linguistic) at this time. The profs from Harvard are more credible.

Aryans were iranic peoples, the "arya" or "ārya" word came from the Sanskrit language which belong to Indo-Iranian linguistic group. Scythians, sarmatians were all iranic speaker, their religion was the Zoroastrianism not the turkic tengrism:
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/scythians

Genetic is another thing. Iranic peoples had r1a-z93 haplogroup which originated from East Europe (unlike turkics who came from east-central asia):



"Proto-Indo-Iranian speakers, the people who later called themselves 'Aryans' in the Rig Veda and the Avesta, originated in the Sintashta-Petrovka culture (2100-1750 BCE), in the Tobol and Ishim valleys, east of the Ural Mountains. It was founded by pastoralist nomads from the Abashevo culture (2500-1900 BCE), ranging from the upper Don-Volga to the Ural Mountains, and the Poltavka culture (2700-2100 BCE), extending from the lower Don-Volga to the Caspian depression.

The Sintashta-Petrovka culture, associated with R1a-Z93 and its subclades, was the first Bronze Age advance of the Indo-Europeans west of the Urals, opening the way to the vast plains and deserts of Central Asia to the metal-rich Altai mountains. The Aryans quickly expanded over all Central Asia, from the shores of the Caspian to southern Siberia and the Tian Shan, through trading, seasonal herd migrations, and looting raids.

Horse-drawn war chariots seem to have been invented by Sintashta people around 2100 BCE, and quickly spread to the mining region of Bactria-Margiana (modern border of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Afghanistan). Copper had been extracted intensively in the Urals, and the Proto-Indo-Iranians from Sintashta-Petrovka were exporting it in huge quantities to the Middle East. They appear to have been attracted by the natural resources of the Zeravshan valley for a Petrovka copper-mining colony was established in Tugai around 1900 BCE, and tin was extracted soon afterwards at Karnab and Mushiston. Tin was an especially valued resource in the late Bronze Age, when weapons were made of copper-tin alloy, stronger than the more primitive arsenical bronze. In the 1700's BCE, the Indo-Iranians expanded to the lower Amu Darya valley and settled in irrigation farming communities (Tazabagyab culture). By 1600 BCE, the old fortified towns of Margiana-Bactria were abandoned, submerged by the northern steppe migrants. The group of Central Asian cultures under Indo-Iranian influence is known as the Andronovo horizon, and lasted until 800 BCE.

The Indo-Iranian migrations progressed further south across the Hindu Kush. By 1700 BCE, horse-riding pastoralists had penetrated into Balochistan (south-west Pakistan). The Indus valley succumbed circa 1500 BCE, and the northern and central parts of the Indian subcontinent were taken over by 500 BCE. Westward migrations led Old Indic Sanskrit speakers riding war chariots to Assyria, where they became the Mitanni rulers from circa 1500 BCE. The Medes, Parthians and Persians, all Iranian speakers from the Andronovo culture, moved into the Iranian plateau from 800 BCE. Those that stayed in Central Asia are remembered by history as the Scythians, while the Yamna descendants who remained in the Pontic-Caspian steppe became known as the Sarmatians to the ancient Greeks and Romans.

The Indo-Iranian migrations have resulted in high R1a frequencies in southern Central Asia, Iran and the Indian subcontinent. The highest frequency of R1a (about 65%) is reached in a cluster around Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and northern Afghanistan. In India and Pakistan, R1a ranges from 15 to 50% of the population, depending on the region, ethnic group and caste. R1a is generally stronger is the North-West of the subcontinent, and weakest in the Dravidian-speaking South (Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh) and from Bengal eastward. Over 70% of the Brahmins (highest caste in Hindusim) belong to R1a1, due to a founder effect.

Maternal lineages in South Asia are, however, overwhelmingly pre-Indo-European. For instance, India has over 75% of "native" mtDNA M and R lineages and 10% of East Asian lineages. In the residual 15% of haplogroups, approximately half are of Middle Eastern origin. Only about 7 or 8% could be of "Russian" (Pontic-Caspian steppe) origin, mostly in the form of haplogroup U2 and W (although the origin of U2 is still debated). European mtDNA lineages are much more common in Central Asia though, and even in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan. This suggests that the Indo-European invasion of India was conducted mostly by men through war. The first major settlement of Indo-Aryan women was in northern Pakistan, western India (Punjab to Gujarat) and northern India (Uttar Pradesh), where haplogroups U2 and W are the most common today."
https://eupedia.com/europe/Haplogrou...l#Indo-Iranian

The spreading of r1a-z93 population was connected to iranic migration to East, the original scythians were iranic.

In 2017, a genetic study of various Scythian cultures, including the Scythians, was published in Nature Communications. The study suggested that the Scythians arose independently of culturally similar groups further east. Though all groups studies shared a common origin in the Yamnaya culture, the presence of east Eurasian mitochondrial lineages was largely absent among Scythians, but present among other groups further east. Modern populations most closely related to the Scythians were found to be populations living in proximity to the sites studied, suggesting genetic continuity.[3]

Another 2017 genetic study, published in Scientific Reports, found that the Scythians shared common mitocondrial lineages with the earlier Srubnaya culture. It also noted that the Scythians differed from materially similar groups further east by the absence of east Eurasian mitochondrial lineages. The authors of the study suggested that the Srubnaya culture was the source of the Scythian cultures of at least the Pontic steppe.[33]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5337992/

Greeks described them light skinned caucasoid peoples (not turanids or asiatics like turkics), original source from Hippocrates:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d71...1fa9cc15a5.pdf

Scythians and turkics had different origin, different names, different genetic and different religion. The only exception are east asian scythians who migrated to present day Mongolia and Altay, they mixed with asiatic locals (turkics, mongols) this population can connect to proto-turkics, but it doesn't mean proto-turkics were original scythians with (indo-) european origin. Unfortunatelly the turkish historical science is absolutely not "free" and independent of politics, just look the question of armenian genocide.

[Reis-i Cumhur]

I have nothing against the fact that he created a Nation. He had to (Just as we Bosniak's had to)

But imagine being part of civilization that was Muslim + Multi-Ethnic and suddenly it becomes "Turan only"

Wait a minute, Istanbul was our home as well (before Islam and after Islam) and now he made us feel like Aliens in Turkey.

I blame him for not making Turkish Nation more attuned to the history of Balkans and Anatolia and less so to Turans who live among Anatolians.

Just like Trabzon Turks, Bosniaks and Albanians should be regarded as CORE Turkish populace.

Most of Anatolians (even my father side) were thinking they are turks or descended from turks even before Ataturk.
My greatgreat grandfather who was born in 1831 had turkish name.So We were already turkıfied.According to my father his grandfather thought we came from Central Asia/Horasan LOL.I believe they have nothing to do with turkics btw but
Srlsy Dude nobody wants to be a fucking armenoid crap.Why should ı see myself as a greek or armenoid wog ? I agree wih Ataturk.Turks are the most Alpha race among Anatolians and other subhuman races.If i were him I would go with his ideas .I would say anatolian turks came from Iranian Turks or oghuz people(genetically we are almost same)
Fuck anatolian greek armenoid culture.We are fucking Barbarians Hell YEAH

[Marmara]

I have nothing against the fact that he created a Nation. He had to (Just as we Bosniak's had to)

But imagine being part of civilization that was Muslim + Multi-Ethnic and suddenly it becomes "Turan only"

Wait a minute, Istanbul was our home as well (before Islam and after Islam) and now he made us feel like Aliens in Turkey.

I blame him for not making Turkish Nation more attuned to the history of Balkans and Anatolia and less so to Turans who live among Anatolians.

Just like Trabzon Turks, Bosniaks and Albanians should be regarded as CORE Turkish populace.

Those who live in Turkey are already considered a core populace, they are not a minority in people's minds.

But how can we consider people who can't speak our language as our core populace?

[Bosniensis]

Most of Anatolians (even my father side) were thinking they are turks or descended from turks even before Ataturk.
My greatgreat grandfather who was born in 1831 had turkish name.So We were already turkıfied.According to my father his grandfather thought we came from Central Asia/Horasan LOL.I believe they have nothing to do with turkics btw but
Srlsy Dude nobody wants to be a fucking armenoid crap.Why should ı see myself as a greek or armenoid wog ? I agree wih Ataturk.Turks are the most Alpha race among Anatolians and other subhuman races.If i were him I would go with his ideas .I would say anatolian turks came from Iranian Turks or oghuz people(genetically we are almost same)
Fuck anatolian greek armenoid culture.We are fucking Barbarians Hell YEAH

I'd rather be Armenoid than British or American.

Don't humiliate your own people by trying to be British or Mongol Turk.

You can't claim to be British or Tartar or Avar or Pecheng if you are not one.

History of Anatolian people is among the largest in the world.

There is no shame in being Armenian or Syrian for those are forfathers of European literacy and culture.

[DarkSecret]

I have nothing against the fact that he created a Nation. He had to (Just as we Bosniak's had to)

But imagine being part of civilization that was Muslim + Multi-Ethnic and suddenly it becomes "Turan only"

Wait a minute, Istanbul was our home as well (before Islam and after Islam) and now he made us feel like Aliens in Turkey.

I blame him for not making Turkish Nation more attuned to the history of Balkans and Anatolia and less so to Turans who live among Anatolians.

Just like Trabzon Turks, Bosniaks and Albanians should be regarded as CORE Turkish populace.

They are already an important part of Turkish nation. Nothing different from Laz, Kurd or whatsoever.

[Bosniensis]

Those who live in Turkey are already considered a core populace, they are not a minority in people's minds.

But how can we consider people who can't speak our language as our core populace?

A lot of people were forced to learn Turkish language in Attaturk reforms, I hope you understand that.

Ottomans on Balkans spoke many languages, Turkish included. Nobody told them they are "foreigners".

If you would ask my Great Grandfather "Why you wear Fez" he wouldn't reply: "Because I want to become Turk" but rather "This is our hat".

Also, all our enemies here are saying: "Bosniaks are remenants of Turkish presence on Balkans".

Also, 160.000 Ottoman soldiers died in Attempt to protect Bosnia from Austria, Serbia etc.. They were all from Marmara region, Bulgaria etc..

We have been under occupation by Serbo-Croatian regimes for decades and only recently in 90's we liberated what we could. (which is a miracle by itself) only to

find that some people of Istanbul are saying: "We don't know who you are, we don't want to have anything with you" or to hear Kurds saying in Turkish parliament: "Bosniaks go home, this is not your country".

I would never expect to hear something like that from Anatolian Turks especially not from converts of Anatolia and Balkans.

[Heaven]

I have nothing against the fact that he created a Nation. He had to (Just as we Bosniak's had to)

But imagine being part of civilization that was Muslim + Multi-Ethnic and suddenly it becomes "Turan only"

Wait a minute, Istanbul was our home as well (before Islam and after Islam) and now he made us feel like Aliens in Turkey.

I blame him for not making Turkish Nation more attuned to the history of Balkans and Anatolia and less so to Turans who live among Anatolians.

Just like Trabzon Turks, Bosniaks and Albanians should be regarded as CORE Turkish populace.

Why care for other people when you build something on your own?Trabzon Turks are part of Turkey with their everything and cannot be considered same as people from Balkans or Middle East. Not very ethics to ask that. You cant tell a mother to consider the child of the neighbour same as own child.

[Nanushka]

''Unfortunatelly the turkish historical science is absolutely not "free" and independent of politics, just look the question of armenian genocide.''

..as if the western and russian 'science' is free and independent of politics, lol, this is being ridiculous

Turks have all the right to research and put resulting articles about their origins, and the truth about their origins is already given in the old sources. What makes you think that old and ancient sources are not credible? Only your prejudice and their divergence from what you believe to be true isnt it? Its humiliating on your account, who are you to judge the unique and priceless knowledge provided by ancient historians and scholars to academia? You are not in a position to decide which ancient source is credible or not, even the professors are not doing it, stop playing the authority. Apart from parroting the same wikipedia-ish shit and referring to unnecessary eupedia genetics (R1a is Cuman btw), your only other argument is repeating irrelevant 'armenian genocide' thing (which has never been proven) over and over again. This is a cheap trick. If you want to talk about real genocide you know where and which directions to look at, proven ones. You are a bad-faith actor and not someone that I can ever take seriously from now on

This piece of info is for smarter ones who knows how to discuss:

Ármin Vámbéry, Hungarian linguist and historian on Asia, wrote in 1885 in his work Das Türkenvolk in seinen ethnologischen und ethnographischen Beziehungen: ''Byzantium historian Menander Protector (6.century AD) says about Turks as 'Turks to whom Byzantium emperor Justinian II sent envoy were earlier known as Sakae''. He adds: "As a matter of fact, we figured out Sakaes were Turkic for a very long time. Yakut Turks already call themselves Sakha, a thoroughly Turkic name, just like Greeks and Persians called the Turks that lived north of Iran in ancient times”

VamberyI.jpg
VamberyII.jpg
VamberyIII.jpg
Vambery.jpg

[Turul Karom]

There was no scientific study of languages in the medieval age. Check this video what i linked, Prof. Türk Attila and Prof. Török Tibor is member of MTA and this thing is based on the newest genetic sources. The Árpáds had pure turkic genetic, it was a homogenous turkic population (+ culture, alphabet, names, symbols etc), Török said: it's simple imbossible that this homogenous turkic population were not turkic speakers. And the language what we call "hungarian language" today was in the Carpathian Basin before Árpáds, and it was not the turkic speaker Árpáds language, the local medieval hungarian (not turkic) topograhy, the small number of conquerors are all prove it.

I thought that you said it was your sister who found this video? What is going on exactly with this identity switching? Also can you tell me what "pure Turkic genetics" are according to you? All the sources, including this, shows that we were a heterogeneous population that mixed over time. I remember when you said that there were no Turkic names at all for our leaders. I remember and can recall your posts easily, because I have integrity to actually hold someone to an argument standard. I just find it interesting that you would rather be conquered by Turkics than even be considered descended from them. That's somewhat amazing to me.

No, i used your calculator where you got 3%, and Saya got much more with your calculator, Kökény got 1,5%, as i remember Dunai, Benyzero got around 1% and Stears got 4%. Turkish users have much more asian genetic than hungarians by far.

Literally wrong. Demonstrably wrong. Everyone got higher than that on the K11. Even stears, who got above 6%. Are you talking about a different calculator? Can you even source it? You also don't say again what is "Asian".

You can find every single symbols/t shirts etc in these nationalist stores which is not forbidden like Arrow Cross. You also can find pro german t shirts with Tiger tank, iron cross etc.

Never said these things are forbidden but last time I checked these German-oriented items were in the minority. Or do you want to compare the quantities of Turkic steppe Hungarian items vs Germanic WW2 oriented items? Shops are named after Turan and Scythia, not Germania lol.

Yes only under Orbán government and it have pure political reasons. Orbán needs allies in East because everyone dislike him in the EU. In the socialism the Kádár government pushed this "brother Russia" bullshit, before that everyone was pro german in the 30' 40' years, when ottomans invaded Hungary everyone were pro austrian, and after the austrian opression everyone were pro ottoman. It have only political reasons who is the actual "brother". And you will see if Orbán fails, Hungary will exit out of this Turkic Council.

Horrible examples because during the communist governments Hungary was occupied and forced to accept these things. Or is Orbán occupying Hungary to you? I don't like any empires, so this line of dialogue is pointless. If the Turkic council wanted to "federate" then I would have more issues, but right now who is it that is looking to federate Hungary?

Oh right, the EU.

No its not, only in your propaganda.

Like your propaganda where you lie about me, and claim I say Hungarians are Mongols and that I identify as some East Asian stereotype?

Remind me again, could you cite that claim? Oh, right. No. When you were called out, you just said you couldn't be hassled to remember.

For someone who throws around "propaganda" accusations so frequently, Goebbels would be very disappointed in yours.

Because this is the true. Hungarians are closest to Austrians, croats, slovenes, czechs, slovaks and very far away from any turkic nation.

Yawn. Again, how about you give the criteria and regions for this? I have never said, in all my years here, that we do not cluster on average with our neighbors. But let me know when you have a Germanic or Slavic event the size and legacy of kurultaj in Hungary.

This is just your identity, majority of hungarians don't consider themselves turkic, check this poll:
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...-%E9rzed-magad

Garbage poll.

The problem is you don't respect other hungarians identity and you want to force your turkic identity to others.

Wrong. It's anyones mantle to pick up, which is totally on them. Do you need me to quote myself from the past? I dare you to find where I have ever said that no Hungarian could hold another identity or meta-ethnicity preference, just that I am aware of the end result when that happens: they turn against Hungarian pre-settlement history and associate with their Germanic or Slavic identity. Just like you have, because I would imagine that you dislike these "foreign Árpád" men and women who have come to impose their name on the true Hungarians of the basin, hmmm?

Basically i don't agree with USE its a wrong thing but much better than if we would live under russian or chinese rule. I don't change my identity, me and my sister have different opinion in many question for example i am pro western she is pro eastern, she is more radical than me, she hate every religion unlike me, she is anti semitic i am not, she consider herself hungarian and can't speak german fluently, i am native german speaker i my identity is german etc etc. That's why i take back my profile because i don't want that other members gets confused about me.

Why would you even give it to her in the first place then? Can she not just make her own? It makes no sense that if you were so worried about this confusion in personality, that you would just give the account over to someone who is so radically different than you. Why are you two even so different? These are not small political differences but serious philosophical and origin differences in your minds.

The difference between us i prefer only facts and science. Firstly i check the newest sources and after that i create my opinion. For example i said Árpáds can't be turkics but now i admit i was wrong because i saw these newest sources and what MTA profs said so i can self correction.
Your thinking is totally different. Firstly you create an ideology (hungarians must be turkic) and after that you search sources about it and if something can't pass in your narrative you simple ignore it. That's called propagandist.

I post more studies than you, who loves to source wikipedia and blogs (which was also the weakness of Stears). You don't read the new studies but watch videos that you already disagree with so that you may pluck from them what you will. Hungarians don't need to be Turkic because it is know that Turkics provided the cultural and foundational level for "Hungary". You even said yourself, with great glee, how the people of Árpád were foreign Turkics, even in the top of this post series. How could you ever possibly keep your multiple, conflicting points straight? You simply go in circles. To complete the circle again, you want so desperately to not be associated with Turkics that you would rather pull yourself to any other group. You are willing to forsake even the legacy of the conquerors and the Árpáds and cut them from the Hungarian body. I remember when you used to say we had nothing to do with Turkics at all. How times have changed.