In the past weeks we saw major geostrategic developments made by the initiative of the turkish diplomacy.
These developments are directed to the eastern turkish neighbours only, who had bilateral problems with Ankara in the past.
Syria, Iraq and even Armenia and Iran have been secured as "friendly nations" with many sacrifices and most of all with the destruction of the turkish-israeli anti-arab (and anti-muslim in some extend) axis in Iran`s case.
On the other hand we observe the continuing acts of hardening of the turkish fascists stands against her european neighbours - Greece, Bulgaria and Cyprus (search the news if you need more info).
The question is, are the turks preparing to wage the Thracian war and do they really believe that they have ANY chances?
P.S.: For the dear turkish WAFFERs - guys, if you have some savings in turkish currency make sure you exchange it for euros or swiss francs.
***The only thing needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing***
This message has been edited by newBalkans on Oct 15, 2009 9:39 PM This message has been edited by newBalkans on Oct 15, 2009 9:23 PM
"Balkan" comes from a Turkish word meaning "a chain of wooded mountains".[1] The ancient Greek name for the Balkan Peninsula was the "Peninsula of Haemus ( , Chersónsos tou Haímou).
if you don't like Turks, why do you use a Turkish word as your login name ? you should use greek name haimou or so.....
***did you know that Balkan is a Turkish word: ***
This is not the subject of mine post.
However...Balkan is bulgarian word actually, just like the personal name - Attila, and many more. The turks only stole them like many more greek things...well this is the best a turk can do, just to steal and lie.
***The only thing needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing***
This message has been edited by newBalkans on Oct 15, 2009 10:17 PM
Dolphins dominate (Login JeuneTurk) The Conquerors (Turkey)
Re: Why Turkey is securing her back(a$$)?
October 15 2009, 10:18 PM
However...Balkan is bulgarian word actually, just like the personal name - Attila, and many more. The turks only stole them like many more greek things...well this is the best a turk can do, just to steal.
I don`t care how your low capacity parents named your brother. You are a good example of your`s family mental capabilities and I will not be surprised if tomorrow you name your own children with christian or greek names and to claim they are muslim because you use them in your family.
***Wow, even claiming Attila The Hun as a Bulgarian. Dude, wtf is Bulgarian first of all? There is no such thing. ***
What you do for a living? I hope you don`t try to make money with your brain...it`s lost cause...instead try with a$$. At least nobody will "hurt"
***The only thing needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing***
This message has been edited by newBalkans on Oct 15, 2009 10:47 PM
Dolphins dominate (Login Kafkas-Azeri) The Conquerors (Turkey)
Re: Why Turkey is securing her back(a$$)?
October 15 2009, 10:48 PM
So what does Attila means in your Slavic language, genious?
'Dude, hunnic does not mean turkic, but mongol and yes the bulgarian nation is predominantly slavic and nobody does not contest that.'
What are you smoking? LOL Attila the Hun and the Hunnic aristocracy spoke a Turkic language. This has been confirmed by latest research data. In addition, Hunnic aristocracy had Turkic names such as Oktar, Muncuk, Aybars etc.
Dolphins dominate (Login Kafkas-Azeri) The Conquerors (Turkey)
In the past weeks we saw major geostrategic developments made by the initiative of the turkish diplomacy.
These developments are directed to the eastern turkish neighbours only, who had bilateral problems with Ankara in the past.
Syria, Iraq and even Armenia and Iran have been secured as "friendly nations" with many sacrifices and most of all with the destruction of the turkish-israeli anti-arab (and anti-muslim in some extend) axis in Iran`s case.
On the other hand we observe the continuing acts of hardening of the turkish fascists stands against her european neighbours - Greece, Bulgaria and Cyprus (search the news if you need more info).
The question is, are the turks preparing to wage the Thracian war and do they really believe that they have ANY chances?
This is a good possibility, but the problem for the Turks is that they cannot realistically take on Greece, Bulgaria, and Cyprus at the same time. Both Greeks and Bulgarians can field over half a million men if reserves are called up and I'm not even going to consider PKK attacks on Turkish installations in the East.
Seal of the great and respected House of Laskareon, Komnenon, Palaiologon, Aggelon of Byzantium. In Christ, believers of God.
Emperors of the Romans, Vandals, and all of Anatolia.
Bulgarians call Attila Avitehol as far as I know. Bulgarians were a Hunnic/Turkic tribe at the beginning but then they got assimilated by slavic tribes. After they adopted Christianity, this assimilation process intensified and they lost their Turkic/Hunnic identity almost totally over time.
this stupid slav thinks they are original bulgars. listen to me boy, you have nothing common with my ancestors. if atilla was alive, he would slaughter you without a blink just because you are a slav.
P.S.: For the dear turkish WAFFERs - guys, if you have some savings in turkish currency make sure you exchange it for euros or swiss francs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh no, you're going to ask for more "Corba parasi" now? What more you want, komsi?
Dolphins dominate (Login Kafkas-Azeri) The Conquerors (Turkey)
***this stupid slav thinks they are original bulgars. listen to me boy, you have nothing common with my ancestors. if atilla was alive, he would slaughter you without a blink just because you are a slav.***
now listen to me boy!
Go and ask your grandfather why he, the "brave" turk and muslim, flee so quikly the bulgarian lands to save his eunuch giblets from the sons of Attila - the bulgarians!
BTW even Attila liked only blonde and redhead girls. The generation after him was only half mongolian and half germano-slavic. When the bulgars came into the Balkans (centuries after the Attila`s dead), there was not much left from the pure mongol looking.
***The only thing needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing***
This message has been edited by newBalkans on Oct 15, 2009 11:21 PM
'Go and ask your grandfather why he, the "brave" turk and muslim, flee so quikly the bulgarian lands to save his eunuch giblets from the sons of Attila - the bulgarians! '
Assimilation of original Turkic/Hunnic Bulgarians by slavs led to their weakening and they became a weaker race over time then got ruled by Turks for 500 years. Case closed...
***Assimilation of original Turkic/Hunnic Bulgarians by slavs led to their weakening and they became a weaker race over time then got ruled by Turks for 500 years. Case closed...***
XAXAXAXA What a low brain fascist fool!!! XAXAXA
Maybe your grandfather was "ill" from fear and missed the battles of Eastern Thrace against the bulgarians back in 1912-13?!?
I see that`s the reason why your father was born. You see, it will be difficult for him to make kids if he was dead.
***The only thing needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing***
This message has been edited by newBalkans on Oct 17, 2009 3:05 PM
Here, educate yourself. It`s for free and you will not learn such a thing in your backwarded turkish town university (the best possible place for anti-science - a turkish made discipline).
After Attila's death, his son Ellac overcame his brothers Dengizich and Ernakh (Irnik) to become king of the Huns. However, former subjects soon united under Ardaric, leader of the Gepids, against the Huns at the Battle of Nedao in 454. This defeat and Ellac's death ended the European supremacy of the Huns, and soon afterwards they disappear from contemporary records. The Pannonian basin then was occupied by the Gepids, whilst various Gothic groups remained in the Balkans also.
Later historians provide glimpses of the dispersal and renaming of Attila's people. According to tradition, after Ellac's loss and death, his brothers ruled over two separate, but closely related hordes on the steppes north of the Black Sea. Dengizich is believed to have been king (khan) of the Kutrigur Bulgars, and Ernakh king (khan) of the Utigur Bulgars, whilst Procopius claimed that Kutrigurs and Utigurs were named after, and led by two of the sons of Ernakh. Such distinctions are uncertain and the situation is not likely to have been so clear cut. Some Huns remained in Pannonia for some time before they were slaughtered by Goths. Others took refuge within the East Roman Empre, namely in Dacia Ripensis and Scythia Minor. Possibly, other Huns and nomadic groups retreated to the steppe. Indeed, subsequently, new confederations appear such as Kutrigur, Utigur, Onogur / (Onoghur), Sarigur, etc., which were collectively called "Huns". Similarly, the 6th century Slavs were presented as Hun groups by Procopius. However, it is likely that Graeco-Roman sources habitually equated new barbarian political groupings with old tribes. This was partly due to expectation that contemporary writers emulate the great writers of preceding eras. Apart from exigencies in style was the belief that barbarians from particular areas were all the same, no matter how they changed their name.
***The only thing needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing***
This message has been edited by newBalkans on Oct 15, 2009 11:54 PM
idiot bulgarian doesnt aware original roots of bulgarian people..
"read and educate yourself bulgar."
"Bulgars were a seminomadic people, probably of TURKIC descent originally from Central Asia, who during the 2nd century migrated into the North Caucasian steppe.
"
"Between 377 and 453 they took part in the Hunnic raids on Central and Western Europe. Anthropological data collected from early Bulgar necropolises from Dobrudja, Crimea and the Ukrainian steppe shows that Bulgars were a high-statured Caucasoid people with a small Mongoloid admixture, and practiced artificial cranial deformation of the round type"
turquality (Login Aegeanfighter) The Conquerors (Turkey)
Re: Why Turkey is securing her back(a$$)?
October 16 2009, 12:32 PM
"Why Turkey is securing her back(a$$)?"
what a stupid question from paranoid bulgar lol..should we have a problem with Syria,Armenia and Iraq?
----------------------------------------------------------------
NE MUTLU TÜRKÜM DIYENE
In the past weeks we saw major geostrategic developments made by the initiative of the turkish diplomacy.
_________
Correct, we all are witnessing the strengthening of Turkish influence and expanding of its its sphere. It is inevitable for a country like Turkey.
__________
These developments are directed to the eastern turkish neighbours only, who had bilateral problems with Ankara in the past.
Syria, Iraq and even Armenia and Iran have been secured as "friendly nations" with many sacrifices and most of all with the destruction of the turkish-israeli anti-arab (and anti-muslim in some extend) axis in Iran`s case.
_______________
You are contradicting yourself and do not make any sense.
For the Israeli case, we have a conflict of interests and our interests are more important than our political relationship especially with a country like Israel.
Elaborate on these alleged 'many sacrifices' if you know what you are talking about.
_______________
On the other hand we observe the continuing acts of hardening of the turkish fascists stands against her european neighbours - Greece, Bulgaria and Cyprus (search the news if you need more info).
____________
What is the basis of this allegation? Elaborate on this please...
____________
The question is, are the turks preparing to wage the Thracian war and do they really believe that they have ANY chances?
____________
We are not getting ready for a war, we have been prepared since 1915 and we still occupy the alleged historical greek motherland. Molon Labe...
P.S.: For the dear turkish WAFFERs - guys, if you have some savings in turkish currency make sure you exchange it for euros or swiss francs.
___________
It does not matter at time of war which currency you posses for the next major one will annihilate all the material values we posses but the gold...
***This is a good possibility, but the problem for the Turks is that they cannot realistically take on Greece, Bulgaria, and Cyprus at the same time.***
I`m afraid there is no chance Bulgaria to participate in the Thracian war if she is not attacked by Turkey. But I`m sure that Greece and Cypros have enough military power to made the job done. Even if a bulgarian-greek military treaty exist I can not imagine Bulgaria to participate on aggressive war on the greek side against Turkey. However a common defencive and logistics opperations are possible.
***Both Greeks and Bulgarians can field over half a million men if reserves are called up and I'm not even going to consider PKK attacks on Turkish installations in the East. ***
File, the bulgarian army or the kurdish freedom fighters are not factors in the greek-turkish Tracian war. They will follow only to their own logics and it would be naive from greek behalf to wait gains from these sides. However if defencive and military treaties existed between Greece and Bulgaria, the situation would be definitely on greek favour. I`m also sure that Bulgaria will never let Turkey to win the Thracian war and in case the greek armies in Thrace suffer a crushing defeat from the turks, the brother orthodox nation of Bulgaria will do her best to make those muslim pagans losing the war.
***The only thing needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing***
This message has been edited by newBalkans on Oct 17, 2009 2:52 PM
***"Bulgar" in Kazan Turkish language means "Rebel".***
Dude,
there is not such thing like "Kazan Turkish". The tatars were and still are mongol stock people. They were under bulgarian and turkic influence indeed, but they never has been turkish! I know you are immigrant in Turkey and have interests to talk about the tatars as for turks, but you must know that the science does not care about your turkish wannabe story.
***"Bulga" means stir and "Bulgar" means stirrer.***
Correct, the name Bulgar (as ethnonym) come to live after Attila`s dead and the destruction of the hunnic tribal alliance (many german and slavic tribes participated in this alliance mainly as infantry). When the survivals of this alliance moved from Panonia to North Black sea area after the battle of Nedao in 454 they begin to use the name Bulgar to underline their mixed origin alongside the hordes names Utigur and Kutrigur. They became Utigur Bulgars, Kutrigur Bulgars and eventualy only Bulgars when the Old Great Bulgaria (or Onoguria) was formed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Great_Bulgaria)
***The only thing needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing***
Leyteris, first of all, I live in the USA. I have been in Turkey several times for short durations, and find out myself that Kazan Turkish (Tatar) language and Turkish are about 80% compatible, and slowly getting even closer as the contacts between Tatars and Turks increase. I for one have no problems in communicating with the Anatolian Turks speaking my native language ("Ana til" in Tatar and "Ana dil" in Turkish).
***I have been in Turkey several times for short durations, and find out myself that Kazan Turkish (Tatar) language and Turkish are about 80% compatible, and slowly getting even closer as the contacts between Tatars and Turks increase.***
Dude, the bulgarian language is also about 80% compatible with the russian and every bulgarian does not have problem to understand the other slavic languages without linguistic preparation. The same is with the germanic languages and most of the romanic languages. And so What?!? Does they do not exist as separate languages because of this fact?!? As I said above the modern tatar language was under the strong influence of the turkic languages and eventually became something like the irish and scotish english, or the Pidginhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgin). And so what?!?
***The only thing needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing***
This message has been edited by newBalkans on Oct 17, 2009 4:23 PM