Turks And The Illegal Theft Of Cyprus Options

[Kurd-BOSS]

"The turn of Cyprus is yet to come."
KEMAL ATATURK on Turkey's annexing of Alexandretta in Syria, 1939


"The importance of Cyprus to Turkey does not arise from a single cause; it is a necessary which emanates from the exigencies of history, geography, economy and military strategy."
Turkish Foreign Minister Zorlu, 1955

[b]"The radical solution... would be to cede one part of Cyprus to Greece and other, closest to the Turkish Asiatic coast, to Turkey."[/b]
Turkish Foreign Minister Erkin, June 1964

"Half the Aegean belongs to us. This is what the world must know. If the honour and interests of the Turkish nation are attacked we shall crush the head of the enemy."
Former Turkish Prime Minister Sadi Irmak

"All the Aegean islands off the Turkish mainland, including the Dodecanese islands, must belong to Turkey."
Former Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Alparslan Turkes

"Cyprus is the first step towards the Aegean."
Former Turkish Foreign Minister Melih Esenbel

"... the only way to abolish artificial borders in Cyprus is to extend the occupation to the island's southern shores."
Former Turkish Prime Minister Dervis Eroglu


"Cyprus is valuable as a right arm for a country interested in its own defence of for its own expansionist aims if it harbours such aims...
Many states to a certain extent because it suits their interests, want to see the Cyprus problem as our desire to protect the Turkish community on the island, whereas the actual problem is the security of 45 million Turks in the motherland together with the Turks in the island and the maintenance of the balance in the Middle East."
Turan Gunes, Minster of Foreign Affairs of Turkey at the time of the invasion of Cyprus. 'Hurriyet', (Turkish newspaper), 1980

"…we are not dealing here with a mere duty but with a mission. Our mission is to make Cyprus our motherland."
Turkish Foreign Minister Ihsan Sabri Caglayangil, 1980

"We will break the hands of anyone who touches our flag… touching our flag is akin to touching one of our women."



1- Greek civilization is believed to be one of the oldest in the world. Greek presence in Asia Minor is written in every historical encyclopedia. Is confirmed by every historician. Cyprus is the heart of Greek civilization for almost 4000 years. With no presence of any other people on Cyprus at the time.

2- Turkish mongol invasions in the 12th century affected the Greeks in Asia Minor. In 1974 ultimately steeling the beloved Cypriot Island.

3- No Turkish minister/politician speeks clean language, as politicians must speak on international standards and use diplomatic language. The Turkish politicians are either rude, attacking, discriminating and swearing.

4- Turks confess they stole the Island because it is strategical, not because it belongs to them. It never did, and will never belong to Siberian steppes nomads.

[Mordoth]

KEMAL ATATURK on Turkey's annexing of Alexandretta in Syria, 1939

MASHALLAH !!! ATATURK seems to revive for a while to say those wordsss !!! LoL , Ataturk was dead in November 10th 1938.

[Hosank]

he's got a point there...
either the date is wrong on the post..or the link is to be investigated...

[Kemalist]

KEMAL ATATURK on Turkey's annexing of Alexandretta in Syria, 1939

MASHALLAH !!! ATATURK seems to revive for a while to say those wordsss !!! LoL , Ataturk was dead in November 10th 1938.

PATHETIC!

Is that the best he could of come out with?

Perhaps he should put all this in his pipe and then smoke it...

By Michael Stephen, former British Parliamentarian (1992-97)

The assertion by Mr. Christides (May 10, 1999) that there was no ethnic cleansing or attempted genocide of Turkish Cypriots by Greek Cypriots is ridiculous. Until influential Greek Cypriots come to terms with the appalling behavior of their community toward the smaller Turkish Cypriot community and stop trying to persuade themselves and the world that each side was as much to blame as the other, there will be no reconciliation in Cyprus.

What did George Ball and Sir Alec Douglas say about the intentions of Archbishop Makarios vis a vis the Turkish Cypriots?

In his memoirs, American Undersecretary of State George Ball said: "Makarios's central interest was to block off Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriots could go on happily massacring Turkish Cypriots. Obviously we would never permit that. "The fact is, however, that neither the United Nations, nor anyone, other than Turkey ever took effective action to prevent it. On Feb. 17, 1964 the Washington Post reported that "Greek Cypriot fanatics appear bent on a policy of genocide."

Former British Prime Minister Sir Alec Douglas-Home said, "I was convinced that if Archbishop Makarios could not bring himself to treat the Turkish Cypriots as human beings he was inviting the invasion and partition of the island."

On July 28, 1960 Makarios, the Greek Cypriot president, said: "The independence agreements do not form the goal they are the present and not the future. The Greek Cypriot people will continue their national cause and shape their future in accordance with THEIR will." In a speech on Sept. 4, 1962 at Panayia Makarios said, "Until this Turkish community forming part of the Turkish race that has been the terrible enemy of Hellenism is expelled, the duty of the heroes of EOKA can never be considered terminated."

The Constitutional Coup

In November 1963 the Greek Cypriots demanded the abolition of no less than eight of the basic articles that had been included in the 1960 agreement for the protection of the Turkish Cypriots. The Turkish Cypriots, naturally, refused to agree. The aim of the Greek Cypriots was to reduce the Turkish Cypriot people to the status of a mere minority, wholly subject to the control of the Greek Cypriots, pending ultimate destruction or expulsion of the Turkish Cypriots from the island.

"When the Turkish Cypriots objected to the amendment of the Constitution, Makarios put his plan into effect, and the Greek Cypriot attack began in December 1963," wrote Lt. Gen. George Karayiannis of The Greek Cypriot militia ("Ethnikos Kiryx" 15.6.65). The general was referring to the notorious "Akritas" plan, which was the blueprint for the annihilation of the Turkish Cypriots and the annexation of the island to Greece.

Events leading to the sending of the UN Peace-Keeping Force to the island

On Christmas Eve 1963 the Greek Cypriot militia attacked Turkish Cypriot communities across the island. Large numbers of men, women, and children were killed and 270 mosques, shrines and other places of worship were desecrated.

On Dec. 28, 1963, the Daily Express carried the following report from Cyprus: "We went tonight into the sealed-off Turkish Cypriot quarter of Nicosia in which 200 to 300 people had been slaughtered in the last five days. We were the first Western reporters there, and we have seen sights too frightful to be described in print. Horror was so extreme that the people seemed stunned beyond tears."

On Dec. 31, 1963, The Guardian reported: "It is nonsense to claim, as the Greek Cypriots do, that all casualties were caused by fighting between armed men of both sides. On Christmas Eve many Turkish Cypriot people were brutally attacked and murdered in their suburban homes, including the wife and children of a doctor-allegedly by a group of 40 men, many in army boots and greatcoats." Although the Turkish Cypriots fought back as best they could and killed some militia, there were no massacres of Greek Cypriot civilians.

On Jan. 1, 1964, the Daily Herald reported: "When I came across the Turkish Cypriot homes they were an appalling sight. Apart from the walls they just did not exist. I doubt if a napalm attack could have created more devastation. Under roofs springs, children's cots, and gray ashes of what had once been tables, chairs and wardrobes. In the neighboring village of Ayios Vassilios I counted 16 wrecked and burned out homes. They were all Turkish Cypriot's. In neither village did I find a scrap of damage to any Greek Cypriot house."

On Jan. 2, 1964, the Daily Telegraph wrote: "The Greek Cypriot community should not assume that the British military presence can or should secure them against Turkish intervention if they persecute the Turkish Cypriots. We must not be a shelter for double-crossers."

On Jan. 12, 1964, the British High Commission in Nicosia wrote in a telegram to London: "The Greek [Cypriot] police are led by extremist who provoked the fighting and deliberately engaged in atrocities. They have recruited into their ranks as 'special constables' gun-happy young thugs. They threaten to try and punish any Turkish Cypriot police who wishes to return to the Cyprus Government... Makarios assured Sir Arthur Clark that there will be no attack. His assurance is as worthless as previous assurances have proved."

On Jan. 14, 1964, the Daily Telegraph reported that the Turkish Cypriot inhabitants of Ayios Vassilios had been massacred on Dec. 26, 1963 and reported their exhumation from a mass grave in the presence of the Red Cross. A further massacre of Turkish Cypriots, at Limassol, was reported by The Observer on Feb. 16, 1964; and there were many more.

On Feb. 6, 1964, a British patrol found armed Greek Cypriot police attacking the Turkish Cypriots of Ayios Sozomenos. They were unable to stop the attack.

On Feb. 13, 1964, the Greeks and Greek Cypriots attacked the Turkish Cypriot quarter of Limassol with tanks, killing 16 and injuring 35.


On Feb. 15, 1964, the Daily Telegraph reported: "It is a real military operation which the Greek Cypriots launched against the 6,000 inhabitants of the Turkish Cypriot quarter yesterday morning. A spokesman for the Greek Cypriot government has recognized this officially. It is hard to conceive how Greek and Turkish Cypriots may seriously contemplate working together after all that has happened."



Further attempts for ENOSIS

On Sept. 10, 1964, the U.N. Secretary-General reported that "UNFICYP" carried out a detailed survey of all damage to properties throughout the island during the disturbances... It shows that in 109 villages, most of them Turkish-Cypriot or mixed villages, 527 houses have been destroyed while 2,000 others have suffered damage from looting. In Ktima 38 houses and shops have been destroyed totally and 122 partially. In the Orphomita suburb of Nicosia, 50 houses have been totally destroyed while a further 240 have been partially destroyed there and in adjacent suburbs."

The U.K. House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs reviewed the Cyprus question in 1987 and reported unanimously on July 2 of that year that "although the Cyprus Government now claims to have been merely seeking to 'operate the 1960 Constitution modified to the extent dictated by the necessities of the situation,' this claim ignores the fact that both before and after the events o#, December 1963 the Makarios Government continued to advocate the cause of ENOSIS and actively pursued the amendment of the Constitution and the related treaties to facilitate this ultimate objective."

The committee continued: "Moreover, in June 1967 the Greek Cypriot legislature unanimously passed a resolution in favor of enosis, in blatant contravention of the 1960 Treaties and Constitution." (Art. I of the Treaty of Guarantee prohibited any action likely to directly or indirectly promote union with any other state or partition of the island, and Art. 185(2) of the Constitution is to similar effect.)

Professor Ernst Forsthoff, the neutral president of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus, told Die Welt on Dec. 27, 1963: "Makarios bears on his shoulders the sole responsibility for the recent tragic events. His aim is to deprive the Turkish community of their rights". In an interview with the UPI press agency on Dec. 30, 1963 he said, "All this happened because Makarios wanted to take away all constitutional rights from the Turkish Cypriots."

The Failure of the UN and the others

The United Nations not only failed to condemn the forcible usurpation of the legal order in Cyprus, but actually rewarded it by treating the by then wholly Greek Cypriot administration as if it were the government of Cyprus (Security Council Res. 186 of 1964). This acceptance has continued to the present day, and reflects no credit upon the United Nations, nor upon Britain, nor the other countries who have acquiesced.

On Aug. 12, 1964, the UK representative to the United Nations wrote to his government in London as follows:

"What is our policy and true feelings about the future of Cyprus and about Makarios? Judging from the English newspapers and many others, the feeling is very strong indeed against Makarios and his so-called government, and nothing would please the British people more than to see him toppled and the Cyprus problem solved by the direct dealings between the Turks and the Greeks. We are of course supporting the latter course, but I have never seen any expression of the official disapproval in public against Makarios and his evil doings. Is there an official view about this, and what do we think we should do in the long run? Sometimes it seems that the obsession of some people with "the Commonwealth" blinds us to everything else and it would be high treason to take more active line against Makarios and his henchmen. At other times the dominant feature seems to be concern lest active opposition against Makarios should lead to direct conflict with the Cypriots and end up with our losing our bases."

Exclusion of the Turkish Cypriots from representation at the international fora

Thereafter Turkish Cypriot MPs, judges, and other officials were intimidated or prevented by force from carrying out their duties. According to the Select Committee, "The effect of the crisis of December 1963 was to deliver control of the formal organs of government into the hands of the Greek Cypriots alone. Claiming to be acting in accordance with the doctrine of necessity, the Greek Cypriot members of the House of Representatives enacted a series of laws which provided for the operation of the organs of government without Turkish Cypriot participation."

The report of the Select Committee continued: "Equality damaging from the Turkish Cypriot point of view was what they considered to be their effective exclusion from representation at and participation in the international fora where their case could have been deployed... An official Turkish Cypriot presence in the international political scene virtually disappeared overnight." It is not therefore surprising that the world has been persuaded to the Greek Cypriot point of view.

Atrocities of the Greek Cypriots

More than 300 Turkish Cypriots are still missing without trace from these massacres of 1963/64. These dreadful events were not the responsibility of "the Greek Colonels" of 1974 or an unrepresentative handful of Greek Cypriot extremists. The persecution of the Turkish Cypriots was an act of policy on the part of the Greek Cypriot political and religious leadership, which has to this day made no serious attempt to bring the murderers to justice.

The UK Commons Select Committee found that "there is little doubt that much of the violence which the Turkish Cypriots claim led to the total or partial destruction of 103 Turkish villages and the displacement of about a quarter of the total Turkish Cypriot population was either directly inspired by, or connived at, by the Greek Cypriot leadership."

The UN secretary-general reported to the Security Council: "When the disturbances broke out in December 1963 and continued during the first part of 1964, thousands of Turkish Cypriots fled their homes, taking with them only what they could drive or carry, and sought refuge in safer villages and areas."

On Jan. 14, 1964, "ll Giorno" of Italy reported: "Right now we are witnessing the exodus of Turkish Cypriots from the villages. Thousands of people abandoning homes, land, herds. Greek Cypriot terrorism is relentless. This time the rhetoric of the Hellenes and the statues of Plato do not cover up their barbaric and ferocious behavior."

The Greek Cypriots sometimes allege that it was they who were attacked by the Turkish Cypriots, who were determined to wreck the 1960 agreements. However, the Turkish Cypriots were not only outnumbered by nearly four to one; they were also surrounded in their villages by armed Greek Cypriots; they had no way of protecting their women and children, and Turkey was 40 miles away across the sea. The very idea that in those circumstances the Turkish Cypriots were the aggressors is absurd.

The role of the mainland Greek troops in overthrowing of Makarios

There were further attacks on the Turkish Cypriots in 1967. In 1971, General Grivas returned to Cyprus to form EOKA-B, which was again committed to making Cyprus a wholly Greek island and annexing it to Greece. In a speech to the Greek Cypriot armed forces at the time (quoted in "New Cyprus," May 1987) Grivas said: "The Greek forces from Greece have come to Cyprus in order to impose the will of the Greeks of Cyprus upon the Turks. We want ENOSIS but the Turks are against it. We shall impose our will. We are strong, and we shall do so."

By July 15, 1974, a powerful force of mainland Greek troops had assembled in Cyprus and with their backing, the Greek Cypriot National Guard overthrew Makarios and installed one Nicos Sampson as "president." On July 22, the Washington Star News reported: "Bodies littered the streets and there were mass burials... People told by Makarios to lay down their guns were shot by the National Guard."

Missing persons, what is the truth?
On April 17, 1991, Ambassador Nelson Ledsky testified before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "most of the 'missing persons' disappeared in the first days of July 1974, before the Turkish intervention on the 20th. Many killed on the Greek side were killed by Greek Cypriots in fighting between supporters of Makarios and Sampson."

On Nov. 6, 1974, Ta Nea reported that dates from the graves of Greek Cypriots killed in the five days between July 15-20 were erased in order to blame these deaths on the subsequent Turkish military action.

On March 3, 1996, the Greek Cypriot Cyprus Mail wrote: "(Greek) Cypriot governments have found it convenient to conceal the scale of atrocities during the July 15 coup in an attempt to downplay its contribution to the tragedy of the summer of 1974 and instead blame the Turkish invasion for all casualties. There can be no justification for any government that failed to investigate this sensitive humanitarian issue. The shocking admission by the Clerides government that there are people buried in Nicosia cemetery who are still included in the list of the 'missing' is the last episode of a human drama which has been turned into a propaganda tool."

On Oct. 19 1996, Mr. Georgios Lanitis wrote: "I was serving with the Foreign Information Service of the Republic of Cyprus in London... I deeply apologize to all those I told that there are 1,619 missing persons. I misled them. I was made a liar, deliberately, by the government of Cyprus . .... today it seems that the credibility of Cyprus is nil."

Had Turkey not intervened, what would have happened?

Turkish Cypriots appealed to the guarantor powers for help, but only Turkey was willing to make any effective response. On July 20, 1974 Turkey intervened under Article IV of the Treaty of Guarantee. The Greek newspaper Eleftherotipia published an interview with Nicos Sampson on Feb. 26, 1981 in which he said, "Had Turkey not intervened I would not only have proclaimed ENOSIS, I would have annihilated the Turks in Cyprus."

More attacks against the Turkish community

The Times and The Guardian reported on Aug. 21, 1974 that in the village of Tokhni on Aug. 14, 1974 all the Turkish Cypriot men between the ages of 13 and 74, except for eighteen who managed to escape, were taken away and shot.

There were also reports that in Zyyi on the same day all the Turkish-Cypriot men aged between 19 an 38 were taken away and were never seen again and that Greek-Cypriots opened fire on the Turkish-Cypriot neighborhood of Paphos killing men, women, and children indiscriminately.

On July 23, 1974, the Washington Post reported that "in a Greek raid on a small Turkish village near Limassol 36 people out of a population of 200 were killed. The Greeks said that they had been given orders to kill the inhabitants of the Turkish villages before the Turkish forces arrived." The Times and The Guardian also reported on the killings.

"The Greeks began to shell the Turkish quarter on Saturday, refugees said. Kazan Dervis, a Turkish Cypriot girl aged 15, said she had been staying with her uncle. The [Greek Cypriot] National Guard came into the Turkish sector and shooting began. She saw her uncle and other relatives taken away as prisoners, and later heard her uncle had been shot." (Times 23.7.74)

On July 28, 1974 the New York Times reported that 14 Turkish-Cypriot men had been shot in Alaminos. On July 24, 1974 France Soir reported that "the Greeks burned Turkish mosques and set fire to Turkish homes in the villages around Famagusta. Defenseless Turkish villagers who have weapons live in an atmosphere of terror and they evacuate their homes and go and live in tents in the forest. The Greeks' actions are a shame to humanity."

On July 22, Turkish Prime Minister Ecevit called upon the United Nations to "stop the genocide of Turkish Cypriots" and declared, "Turkey has accepted a cease-fire, but will not allow Turkish Cypriots to be massacred."

The German newspaper Die Zeit wrote on Aug. 30, "The massacre of Turkish Cypriots in Paphos and Famagusta is the proof of how justified the Turks were to undertake their intervention."

"Turkish Cypriots, who had suffered from physical attacks since 1963, called on the guarantor powers to prevent a Greek conquest of the island. When Britain did nothing Turkey invaded Cyprus and occupied its northern part. Turkish Cypriots have constitutional right on their side and understandably fear a renewal of persecution if the Turkish army withdraws", the Daily Telegraph wrote on Aug. 15, 1996.

At last, peace for the Turkish Cypriots

"Turkey intervened to protect the lives and property of the Turkish-Cypriots, and to its credit it has done just that. In the 12 years since, there have been no killings and no massacres" Lord Willis (Labor) told the House of Lords on Dec. 17, 1986.

On March 12, 1977, Makarios declared, "It is in the name of ENOSIS that Cyprus has been destroyed."

The United Nations, the Commonwealth, and the rest of the world have put political expediency before principle and failed to condemn this appalling behavior. Greek Cypriots are guilty of attempted genocide but no action has ever been taken against them. Instead they have been rewarded by recognition as the government of all Cyprus. The Turkish Cypriots by contrast were frozen out of the United Nations, the Commonwealth and almost every other international organization.















Now go **** yourselves! Next time try and do some research before jumping to conclusions trying to reach a climax

[Hosank]

????????????????


lol.

well hi there, i go by the name of hosank

and please..do not give us that BS about 'turkey intervened to save the lives of..."
the reality is that it was simply turkish imperialism..

and we can relate that to modern turkey's attempt to invade northern irak to 'protect' the local turkomen

[Kemalist]

Hi Hosank...I am not here to defend Turkey. I am here defending Turkish Cypriots from the foreigners (to Cyprus) trying to tell me I don't belong in MY country!

The reality was that the desire for ENOSIS was also Greek imperialism and bearing in mind the fate of Turks in Crete, the Turkish Cypriots had every right to oppose such a thing.

The coup in which Nicos Sampson (a well known Turk murderer) was made president (5 days prior to Turkeys arrival) by the Greek military gave Turkey every excuse under the sun to do as she pleased. Weather you nor anyone else likes it that is FACT and she was well within her right to come because had she failed to do so the Turkish Cypriots would of been long gone and the few that remained would be known as "Muslim Greeks" (<---). Thanks but NO THANKS!

Even Makarios himself said that he couldn't believe that the Junta (G.Military) did such a thing without even thinking of the consequences. Though saying that had it been left to him I'm sure he would of happily continued supporting the killings, he would of just done so in secret then cried about "intercommunal violence".

Sorry but the Greek governemnt literally handed Cyprus out on a plate. Furthermore I've heard many times from Greek Cypriots that the whole thing was planned before hand as talks about "double Enosis" had gone on between the Greeks & Turks. However Turkey took more then what was planned, hence why we have unoccupied "ghost towns" in Cyprus. There is proof that the CIA was also involved, so I'm afraid its more complicated then just "Turkey invaded".

Still at the end of the day it was all Cypriots who suffered and still continue to suffer to this day. It doesn't look like there will be a solution any time soon either since neither side is prepared to compromise...

[Mordoth]

Turks were 200 % right to liberate Cyprus .
And, Kemalist you've reminded us the true history about the isle .
Thanks for that ; and "Cyprus Question" is solved .

[Hosank]

mordoth, once again your turk logic fails.

kemalist
i do not agree with the junta, but i am totally opposed to an illegal occupation of cyprus by the turkish military.

im sure you must understand the thought held by the greek nationalists on the island.
they have been the original inhabitants for thousands of years.
and the small turkish minority that lived on the isle were the decedents of the ottoman overlords. those who took power on the island 300 years ago, those who claimed all the farmland business on their own, forcing the greeks to work on it.

i am not saying that it is the case today.
but just like in the balklans, where the fury to get rid of all signs of the oppressors lead to hatred for say bosniaks, albanians and balklan turks, because they represented the old regime.

muslims greeks? lol..you mean greek orthodox turks.


so let me ask you this question. what do you think about the fact that out of the turks in cyprus today, 2/3s are mainland turks that were relocated to the island in the past 25 years, and are not the local turks.?

[Kemalist]

mordoth, once again your turk logic fails.

kemalist
i do not agree with the junta, but i am totally opposed to an illegal occupation of cyprus by the turkish military.

im sure you must understand the thought held by the greek nationalists on the island.
they have been the original inhabitants for thousands of years.
and the small turkish minority that lived on the isle were the decedents of the ottoman overlords. those who took power on the island 300 years ago, those who claimed all the farmland business on their own, forcing the greeks to work on it.

i am not saying that it is the case today.
but just like in the balklans, where the fury to get rid of all signs of the oppressors lead to hatred for say bosniaks, albanians and balklan turks, because they represented the old regime.

muslims greeks? lol..you mean greek orthodox turks.
so let me ask you this question. what do you think about the fact that out of the turks in cyprus today, 2/3s are mainland turks that were relocated to the island in the past 25 years, and are not the local turks.?

Muslim Greeks-Greek Orthodox Turks you know what I mean...he he he....

Ok to be honest with you for me personally mainlanders are not such a big problem but then again I am Turkish Cypriot. I am of mixed Turkish origin also, my dad is full Turkish and mum a Turkish Cypriot so I would be seriously dishonest if I was to say that I am really bothered by the presence of mainlanders from Turkey.
Saying that I can definately understand Greek Cypriots concerns about them since they see Turkey as the occupying force and having all those people live in the houses that they don't have the right to return to must really be a dreadfull thing for them so I'm not suprised at how much they don't like mainlanders. I try not to be biased on the Cyprus issue and unless someone from the Greek Cypriot community is completely inconsiderate I think I do a pretty good job of it.

Again I can completely understand and relate to their part of the story too. One thing I definately have a problem with is (or was rather) mainlanders that Turkey was sending in order to keep Denktash in power. It wasn't so much who they were sending but rather the ones they were sending. A lot of the Turkish Cypriot community were fed up with the amount of uncultured, uneducated, jobless people that were flocking to the North part of the island from Turkey and doing absolutely nothing (this included both Turkish and Kurdish settlers). This had a really negative impact on the Turkish Cypriot view of Turkish people as it seemed that Turkey was sending the people they didn't want themselves to Cyprus and once there was so many of them it gave a really bad example of mainlanders and also a bad example to the international opinion of the Cyprus problem. I am not one to judge and I don't like doing so but if anyone would of seen it for themselves they would of understood what I mean. No Turkish Cypriot would have a problem with any mainlander from Turkey or anyone for that matter, providing they come to live and contribute to being a part of Cyprus rather than walking the streets all day and night doing nothing. If I am not mistaken most of these people have already been sent back. Right now though there are thousands of Turkish mainlanders who are very welcome and very much part of the North whom I believe should be allowed to stay even in the even of settlement as they have families, homes (of their own) and contribute to life in Cyprus. I don't believe that everyone from Turkey should be made to pack up and leave, it's unfair, racist and unneccassary when they are considered a part of our community/identity.

So the answer to your question is, so long as they come for the right reasons and contribute to Cyprus they are very welcome, why shouldn't they be? To be honest unless you can speak the language there is no telling the difference between Turkey Turks and the Cypriot ones. Majority of the ones in Cyprus (nowadays) are good, honest and hardworking people, unless people are racist towards them then there is no need to send them back. It really would be a shame. I have plenty of mainlanders in my family and they are just like any other T/GC or any other person living in your own country. It's only due to Turkeys image that they are looked down on by GCs and a small number of TCs like they are scum that need to leave, perhaps because of Denktashs past mistakes also. Same thing applies to Greek mainlanders, there is a minority of Greek Cypriots who completely despise the mainlanders from Greece. This although unfair is to be expected as there will always be racism weather you're a Turk, Greek, Bosnian, Black, White, Green or Blue...

On the other issue of Ottomans, I agree that they were more than likely disliked by the overall Cyprus community.However I've also read that there were Turkish Cypriot uprisings (along with the help of Greek Cypriots) against the Ottomans and their taxes etc too, so I personally don't believe that there were many problems between TCs and GCs at the time. The Ottomans did cause the birth of Greek nationalism in Cyprus though. After being under foreign rule for pretty much the whole time they were there I'm not suprised they wanted to be annexed to Greece in the end. At the same time for the reasons I gave in my first reply the TCs were right in not wanting this to happen as the only thing TCs had was just that, being TCs. They didn't feel like they belonged in Turkey, Cyprus is their country too so it's understandable that they wouldn't want to be annexed to Greece, especially when you consider the malice of Makarios & CO and the fate of Turks in other Greek dominated countries.

These are just some of the reasons why there is no settlement, each side does have a valid reason to oppose the other. It's hard for each side to accept the others "needs/concerns" but if you look at in a neutral aspect then there definately is cause for concern for both parties in sooo many sectors.

I'll take my hat off to the ones who manage to sort it out but I seriously won't be holding my breath!

[Hosank]

i see..

but i read somewhere that there were twice as many mainlander turks on the island then cyprus turks after the invasion..

but, these people do not have anything to do with the conflict already in progress...

can't they just unify, have a greek state, and respect the rights of the non mainlander turkish community?

[Kemalist]

i see..

but i read somewhere that there were twice as many mainlander turks on the island then cyprus turks after the invasion..

but, these people do not have anything to do with the conflict already in progress...

can't they just unify, have a greek state, and respect the rights of the non mainlander turkish community?

Yes but a lot of them were sent back, not sure how many of them. Not sure if it was when Talat came into office or before either but I'll try find out the details and get back to you properly tomorrow.

[Hosank]

right, im waiting for it then

[Kemalist]

right, im waiting for it then

INDIGENOUS Turkish Cypriots number just over half the overall population of the north and represent a 74 per cent majority of ‘TRNC’ citizens, census results revealed yesterday.

“The population is divided into two: There are citizens, and those who work for citizens,” Peace Research Institute of Oslo (PRIO) researcher Mete Hatay told the Cyprus Mail yesterday, adding that the breakaway state had “begun to resemble a Gulf state where foreign workers constitute most of the labour force,”

Ethnic data gathered during a census carried out last April and published yesterday revealed that out of an overall population of 256,000, just over 178,000 were ‘TRNC’ citizens and that 120,000 were of full Turkish Cypriot parentage, with another 12,000 claiming one Turkish Cypriot parent.

Source - http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=30725

[irlandahay]

i see..

but i read somewhere that there were twice as many mainlander turks on the island then cyprus turks after the invasion..

but, these people do not have anything to do with the conflict already in progress...

can't they just unify, have a greek state, and respect the rights of the non mainlander turkish community?

nope...
Because turks are the overlords...they submit to no one...woohoo for turkish rulers!

[Hosank]

yes, but without the mainlander turks, cypriot turks are a small minority, they would be forced to respect greek rule, and greeks should consider them as full citizens, and respect their minority status, in according to human rights.

if the turks do no comply to that, then someone is being inconsiderate

[Kemalist]

yes, but without the mainlander turks, cypriot turks are a small minority, they would be forced to respect greek rule, and greeks should consider them as full citizens, and respect their minority status, in according to human rights.

if the turks do no comply to that, then someone is being inconsiderate

But the problem there Hosank is that Turkish Cypriots are not just a minority according to the Republics constitution. This is why the whole problem arose...because Makarios wanted to reduce Turkish Cypriots to a minority status. You have to bare in mind that there were many, many problems in Cyprus before the RoC constitution. There was a lot of violence and just about everyone was brainwashed into going against eachother. Enosis was the Greek Cypriots right, I agree, though at the same time it was well within the Turkish Cypriots right to oppose it also...

After all the violence in Cyprus, there was no way the Turkish Cypriots were going to agree to be reduced to a minority status. Not long after the constitution was signed Makarios, the man who signed it was already trying to breach it!!! For Turkish Cypriots to agree to the annexation of Cyprus with Greece along with mere minority status would of been suicide. Makarios didn't have good intentions and Turkish Cypriots had already seen his true colours by then. He was very untrustworthy and everyone picked up on this, including the international media.

The 1974 situation wasn't just Turkeys fault either. Greece, Britain and the USA was also involved. The Junta had connections with the CIA and it was with their help that Junta overthrew Makarios and gave Turkey the green light to come. Britain again just sat back and watched since partition was also in her best interests.

Believe it or not there was also cooperation between nationalists from both communities to bring about partition.
Partition was their dream and had Turkey not taken more then what was offered then there would be no Cyprus problem today.

[Hosank]

i agree on that point, but, i do not think politics in cyprus should be sectarianised like in lebanon. turkish cypriots should fully engage in the politics of cyprus, if they want to be considered full citizens. for example. i think it would be stupid (in a rhetorical united cyprus) to have a party representing the turkish ethnic group, and one for the greeks. it would make more sense for the parties to divide themselves between the traditional right and left or what ever.
and there should be a legal referendum to see if cyprus should join greece, or what ever...as long as it's done peacefully and legaly

[Kemalist]

i agree on that point, but, i do not think politics in cyprus should be sectarianised like in lebanon. turkish cypriots should fully engage in the politics of cyprus, if they want to be considered full citizens. for example. i think it would be stupid (in a rhetorical united cyprus) to have a party representing the turkish ethnic group, and one for the greeks. it would make more sense for the parties to divide themselves between the traditional right and left or what ever.
and there should be a legal referendum to see if cyprus should join greece, or what ever...as long as it's done peacefully and legaly

Yes I agree with you there. However what the actual people of Cyprus want doesn't matter since the people calling the shots have their own agendas. The people on top do not want a solution, and that applies to both sides. They are doing anything they can to delay it and make sure it doesn't happen.

As for Cyprus being annexxed to Greece, I don't think it's something Greek Cypriots still wish to see happen, saying that, both Greece and Cyprus are in the EU so they pretty much are "annexxed". A lot of things have changed anyways, we now have many people who are calling themselves "Cypriot" first and foremost. A lot of people want nothing to do with Greece or Turkey. Sometimes it saddens that people are trying to run away from their roots but then again I think this is something (maybe the only thing) that will really be able to bring them together. There is no (and has never been) a proper Cypriot identity. Theres been far too much influence from "motherlands" which have really messed up Cyprus and it's people. Still to this day there is Greek and Turkish flags flying all over the place. The national anthem is that of Greeces, theres Turkish flags painted on the mountains, Ataturk statues all over the place. This is a big problem for Cyprus.
Some people are too brainwashed to understand but Cyprus is it's own country. We have our own culture, our own way of doing things etc etc...Theres no need for influences from any other country.

Once Cyprus grows up and doesn't need it's "motherlands" influences and help, the Cyprus problem will be solved. While we have Greek/Turkish flags, national anthems, statues around there will be no solution.

Again the problems lie with the people we have in charge. They are too old fashioned and have too much connections with the Cyprobs history to make a difference. Turkish Cypriot leader is nothing more than a puppet of Turkey, while Greek Cypriot leader is nothing but a nationalist, who had involvement with EOKA and the plan to wipe out Turkish Cypriots. This is not a good base for a solution.

We seriously need to be rid of motherlands since all they've done is messed up our country. I thank Turkey for coming for our help, at the same time I do not appreciate the fact that she came locked us in the North and threw away the key!

[Hosank]

yeh, well, i think it would suck to forget your origins

[davit]

whos this kemalist guy anyways ??

you kemal when people just join here they say hi im new here in their first posts.NOT

GO ###### YOURSELF THIS IS MY COUNTRY ###### ###### GREEKS AND KURDS.

by the way im new

NO NO NO thats a bad way to start.

[Get Real!]

PATHETIC!

Is that the best he could of come out with?

Perhaps he should put all this in his pipe and then smoke it...

[b]By Michael Stephen, former British Parliamentarian (1992-97)

Stephen Michael or as he is sometimes known Michael Stephen, works for the infamous "BOW GROUP" hired by Turkey and/or the “TRNC” to help them out with their poor image and propaganda...

http://www.bowgroup.org/

...and as their motto says... “The Bow Group is the oldest - and one of the most influential - centre-right Think-Tanks in Britain”

So sites like…

http://www.mediaprof.org/tcvoices/ukhist.html

..are nothing but paid garbage propaganda by corrupt and immoral British politicians who have been given free holiday homes by the corrupt “TRNC” no doubt on Greek Cypriot land...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cyprus/story/0,1...,718969,00.html

Now go **** yourselves! Next time try and do some research before jumping to conclusions trying to reach a climax

You are nothing but a CLOWN who THINKS he does "research"!

[Get Real!]

INDIGENOUS Turkish Cypriots number just over half the overall population of the north and represent a 74 per cent majority of ‘TRNC’ citizens, census results revealed yesterday.

Indiginous what? There is no such thing as "INDIGENOUS Turkish Cypriots" you fool! It appears that you do not understand the meaning of the word “indigenous”. Indigenous means originating or occurring naturally in an area or environment.

The Turkish Cypriot people are the REMNANTS of the Ottoman invasion so there is NOTHING indigenous about them.

They DO NOT ORIGINATE and HAVE NOT OCCURRED NATURALLY from/on Cyprus but instead they first came to Cyprus UNINVITED in 1571.

When Australia talks of her indigenous population she is referring to the Aboriginals. When the US talks of their indigenous population they are referring to the American Indians.

The white American is NOT indigenous to the US and neither is the white Australian. By the same token the Turkish Cypriot is a descendant of the Ottomans who again ARE NOT indigenous to Cyprus.

The wikipedia states…

“…any ethnic group who inhabit the geographic region with which they have the earliest historical connection”

You have some VERY FUNNY ideas Kemalist which is why I'm here to help you with your problem.

[Mordoth]

Indiginous what? There is no such thing as "INDIGENOUS Turkish Cypriots" you fool!

No need to swear.

Do not forget that Greek population of Cyprus was also NOT SUMMONED to Cyprus .
They were also not indigenous population of Cyprus.

It appears that you do not understand the meaning of the word “indigenous”. Indigenous means originating or occurring naturally in an area or environment.

The Turkish Cypriot people are the REMNANTS of the Ottoman invasion so there is NOTHING indigenous about them.

An invasion from 1570s to 2007 ?

If so , i'd call pre-Ottoman eras Byzantine invasion / Armenoid invasion periods .

They DO NOT ORIGINATE and HAVE NOT OCCURRED NATURALLY from/on Cyprus but instead they first came to Cyprus UNINVITED in 1571.

When Australia talks of her indigenous population she is referring to the Aboriginals. When the US talks of their indigenous population they are referring to the American Indians.

Nobody invited us , we 've conquered the island by draining our blood ,so island is OURs.
( I Do not care about Australia , Zimbabwe...etc do not try to specialize the issue with non-related stupid statements. Australia...etc issues have no relationship/similarity with this.

“…any ethnic group who inhabit the geographic region with which they have the earliest historical connection”

You have some VERY FUNNY ideas Kemalist which is why I'm here to help you with your problem.

Who knows that modern-day christian publics are non-remnants of some invasions ?
( Finnic , Hungarian people are Turanic and Christian and came there by Hunnic migrations, what about them ? )

[Get Real!]

Do not forget that Greek population of Cyprus was also NOT SUMMONED to Cyprus .
They were also not indigenous population of Cyprus.

You seem to have a SERIOUS lack of education on the history of Cyprus yet you want to comment!

The indigenous Cypriot has been traced as far back as 8,500BC on the island of Cyprus and the oldest known/preserved settlement "Choirokoitia" is dated from around 4,000BC and was added to Unesco's World Heritage List in 1998.

http://www.moxon.net/cyprus/a_brief_history_of_cyprus.html

By contrast the first Greeks to arrive on the island were Myceneans (people from the southern part of Greece called “Sparti”) at around 1500BC with the aim of trading their goods. Some of these Greeks stayed and lived on the island and in time their influence was successful enough to shape language, religion, and the culture of Cyprus.

Cypriots occupied Cyprus for over 5,000 years BEFORE the very first Greek showed up. So, putting it all together the earliest civilizations discovered in Greece, Turkey, and Cyprus are:

Turkey (Hittite Empire) 1900-1300 BC
Greece (Minoan in Crete) 2700..1450 BC
Greece (Mainland Helladic) 2800..2100 BC.
Cyprus (Choirokoitia) 4,000 BC

An undetermined percentage of contemporary "Greek Cypriots" (in name) are DIRECT DESCENDANTS of ancient Cypriots and are thus the INDIGENOUS people of Cyprus.

[davit]

Turkey (Hittite Empire) 1900-1300 BC

so i see that you dont agree to genicide eh cochroach

[Hosank]

what are you talking about davit?

and, arn't the original inhabitants of cyprus related to the hellenic peoples? or is it the phoenecians? (just asking)

mordoth, i find your hold on logic to be dwindling these past few months.
if i follow your logic, i could simply take a few of my friends, on a boat, and land on any island, no matter how inhabitated, start pillaging and killing, and then claim righful ownership to it, because i have taken it with my blood, no matter what the indigenous people think. and considering that 'your blood' was usually that of christian slaves converted to fanatical islam and forced to spill their blood for you...
i mean mordoth, you also took algeria with your blood, why do you not claim that too?

[arrow]

mordoth, i find your hold on logic to be dwindling these past few months.
if i follow your logic, i could simply take a few of my friends, on a boat, and land on any island, no matter how inhabitated, start pillaging and killing, and then claim righful ownership to it, because i have taken it with my blood, no matter what the indigenous people think. and considering that 'your blood' was usually that of christian slaves converted to fanatical islam and forced to spill their blood for you...

And you may as well change your name into Cortes, or what ever the names of the " colonisers" that did exactly what you posted above to New Zealend and Australia

Oh but I forgot, the people of those lands were never good enough to have those lands becouse they had no culture and their population were to low, right Hosank

[Hosank]

well, so what you are saying is that since the spanish have done it, then it is justifiable for the turks to do it too?...oh wait, the turks did it before cortez, i wonder who got the idea from whom..

and no, clearly after all this time you had to ponder about it, you still did not comprehend the essence of my post..but anyways, no point in discussing that with a turk, since even after he so vividly criticises the 'genocidal' actions of the white devil, while he has now helped complete this 'genocide' by moving to vancouver. (meanwhile he denies a genocide done by his own people on it's neighbour) it is easy to speak up against acts after they have been commited, and when such an action do not conflict with your personal comfort

[arrow]

Yea Hosank, try harder and people will forget what you posted about native Americans, just a little bit harder

[Hosank]

lol, so far the only 'people' who found my comments anything close far from the truth, is you, and you are still avoiding the argument.

[arrow]

Actaully I am not avoiding " the " argument I am just busy lately. Also I stated a few times that we should keep it in Turkiye and/or ermeni forums.

[Mordoth]

mordoth, i find your hold on logic to be dwindling these past few months.
if i follow your logic, i could simply take a few of my friends, on a boat, and land on any island, no matter how inhabitated, start pillaging and killing, and then claim righful ownership to it, because i have taken it with my blood, no matter what the indigenous people think. and considering that 'your blood' was usually that of christian slaves converted to fanatical islam and forced to spill their blood for you...
i mean mordoth, you also took algeria with your blood, why do you not claim that too?

Hittites are true - Turanic people, and fellows of Etrucans .

We did not started to kill / pillage...etc, lol . You assume as if the invadors of the Isle before Turkish period are WELCOMEd , moron They were like pixies, everybody gave their women to the Chevaliers as a gift of invasion or lets say " peace tribute ". Moron ,you are.

Your logic is like , Non-Christian publics are evil. Look how you welcomed the descends of Attila when they are Christianized, but may your dung Pope forget the tyrany , pillage , desolation of Huns throughout EUROPE. They were new-comers for barbarian Germans.
But when their descends are christianized, it is okay .

You , western christianity mentalitied men , always do DEFAMATE non-christians , because you are CLUMSY , we can rebuild something which you destructed...etc ( So chase-davit...etc are bad-christians for my stead )

I 'd better go on to my struggle with you mongolians as a non-christian, because there is nothing in it but RACIAL FANATISM .

[Hosank]

tisk tisk mordoth...

Hittites are true - Turanic people, and fellows of Etrucans .

lol, the hittites, cousins of the hellens, ponts, urartians and armens, true original european peoples are now a turkic people too? lol..keep trying.

We did not started to kill / pillage...etc, lol

really? because i remember you saying that in your last posts...that you turks are proud barbarians here to kill and pillage for asiatic glory or what ever you had in mind..
btw, i don't remember any huns being christianised (exept for the gauguz but they came much later) and if that is true, well does that not unearth an oxymoron in your argument? that we DO forgive for past crimes? something that jesus asked us to do? does that not suddenly prove the superiority of our way of thought?

the rest of your post, as usual, is not english, so there is no point in commenting on it...
don't forget that your grandparents were christians too

[Mordoth]

tisk tisk mordoth...
lol, the hittites, cousins of the hellens, ponts, urartians and armens, true original european peoples are now a turkic people too? lol..keep trying.

I'm not trying to Turkify everyone
Since HITTITES ( Etiler ) are true proto-Turks , try to keep silent instead of Indo-Europeanize ( a method of Western Christianity mentality ) our Ancestors . It is really ridiculous.

really? because i remember you saying that in your last posts...that you turks are proud barbarians here to kill and pillage for asiatic glory or what ever you had in mind..
btw, i don't remember any huns being christianised (exept for the gauguz but they came much later) and if that is true, well does that not unearth an oxymoron in your argument? that we DO forgive for past crimes? something that jesus asked us to do? does that not suddenly prove the superiority of our way of thought?

the rest of your post, as usual, is not english, so there is no point in commenting on it...
don't forget that your grandparents were christians too

Pillage ,kill ...etc could just be your comments because as i say , you contribute nothing relevant to history of humanity. Plunder ,genocide , mass destruction , booty are also traditional method of Western-Christian armies, isn't it ? ( And i proud to be called as a BARBAR by a member of a sub-race )
Nomad was a noble human , and it is what you try to defamate ,because you are the ones to be insulted, squashed .

HUNgary as you said previously , comes from the Turkish Clan " Onogur - On Uygur " which means " Ten Uighurs " that are the 10 clans out of 13 clans.
Jesus mend to tell you , non-Turks to kill Turks. ( They even do not accept our Gagauz brothers in their community , lol ) Saka-Yakut Turks are also Christians.

Past crimes ? LoL , you are reminding our crimes (!) because of covering your present crimes.

None of your vile ways would be superior than we have !
My grandparents may be Christians ,but i am A NON THEIST , my grandpas are all beneathing the earth.

[Hosank]

Since HITTITES ( Etiler ) are true proto-Turks , try to keep silent instead of Indo-Europeanize ( a method of Western Christianity mentality ) our Ancestors . It is really ridiculous.

lol, mordoth, how many times have you clamed that on this forum? and how many times have just about every people on this site come up with seperate facts proving that what you are saying is nothing more than a complete turanic farse?

for the sake of the argument, i shall find you another of these sources

he Hittites were an ancient people from Kaneš who spoke an Indo-European language, and established a kingdom centered at Hattusa (Hittite URUḪattuša) in north-central Anatolia from the 18th century BC. In the 14th century BC, the Hittite empire was at its height, encompassing Anatolia, north-western Syria about as far south as the mouth of the Litani River (a territory known as Amqu), and eastward into upper Mesopotamia. After 1180 BC, the empire disintegrated into several independent "Neo-Hittite" city-states, some surviving until as late as the 8th century BC.

Pillage ,kill ...etc could just be your comments because as i say , you contribute nothing relevant to history of humanity. Plunder ,genocide , mass destruction , booty are also traditional method of Western-Christian armies, isn't it ?

lool, mordoth, all armies pillage, but in europe it has always been on a tiny scale, because usually, nomads, as you put it, are better at burning pillaging and so on. if we but look at the people you seem to hold dear, such as genis khan, or timur the lame, and so on, wich are responsible for some of the worst barbaric massacres of human history, clearly we can see that the crimes done by europeans are dwarfed compared to those commited by the turkic ancestors of yours that you hold dear.

HUNgary as you said previously , comes from the Turkish Clan " Onogur - On Uygur " which means " Ten Uighurs " that are the 10 clans out of 13 clans.

lol, no, hungary carries the name hun, because that is where the hunnish camps were settled during their struggle with the roman armies, some 2000 years ago, and they have left since then, but the utter fear they unleashed from their passage through the region has made the locals keep the name...
modern huns infact have germanic roots..

my grandpas are all beneathing the earth.

so are mine, and i think you know why

[Mordoth]

HITTITES ARE TURANIC ;

Hittite, Turkish, Sumerian, Tamil and
Hungarian are related languages, however Turkish is not a variant of
SumeruTamil . On the contrary, it would be more correct
to say that Sumerian was a variant of Turkish - as is Tamil.
Sumerian,Hittite, Tamil and Turkish are Turanian languages, and Turanian
languages are Turkic, that is, the languages of Tur/Turk peoples. If
Sumerian does not appear exactly the same as Turkish, it is because
Sumerian, at worst, was a dialect of Turkish - just like present-day
dialects of Turkish are - as spoken throughout the present Turkish
world. Additionally, the established presentation of Sumerian is very
nebulous. This will become clearer as I go through your comments in
this dialog.

The Sumerian language, as it is known at present, has been read
through a frosted-glass. That "frosted-glass" window is the so-called
"Akkadian" language which is a manufactured language using Sumerian
and/or Turkish words and phrases as the source - as spoken at that
time. Therefore the Sumerian that is presented to us is very much
blurred and Semitized. In other words, the Sumerian language is
presented to us in a distorted form meaning that its presentation is
not truly authentic. When S. N. Kramer wrote about Sumerian, he
described it in relation to Turkish by using "double negatives" as if
he did not know how to express his thoughts in the positive sense.
S. N. Kramer said:

"Sumerian resembles no little such agglutinative languages as Turkish,
Hungarian, and some of the Caucasian languages. In vocabulary,
grammar, and syntax, however, Sumerian still stands alone and seems to
be unrelated to any other language, living or dead." [1]

This statement by S. N. Kramer, when translated into the positive
sense, becomes: "Sumerian resembles very much such agglutinative
languages as Turkish, Hungarian, and some of the Caucasian languages."

Using "double negatives" in the sentence distances Sumerian from these
Turanian languages. The Turkish speaking S. N. Kramer knew that
Sumerian was a Turanian language and that it had huge similarities
with Turkish yet somehow he did not identify this clearly. Furthermore
he added another vague sentence, that is, "In vocabulary, grammar, and
syntax, however, Sumerian still stands alone and seems to be unrelated
to any other language, living or dead".

This talk is a vague one in that it is not clear whether his phrase
"to any other language, living or dead" refers to all languages
including Turkish, Hungarian and the Caucasian languages, or, all
other languages other than those Turanian languages he just mentioned,
that is, Turkish, Hungarian and the Caucasian languages. Kramer seems
to be playing games on words and nobody is questioning it.

Surely, when Kramer read Sumerian "ME-EN" meaning "I am" he knew that
it was the Turkish word "MEN" meaning "I am", but somehow he did not
identify it as Turkish. Similarly other scholars did not do so
either. Of course there were many other words of Sumerian that were
actually Turkish but yet they were somehow regarded as the words of an
"extinct" language. Yet the Turkish language that Kramer knew and
spoke was very much alive.

The so-called Caucasian languages were originally Turkish, only they
became broken up and distorted languages after some of these peoples
were converted into new religions. They were converted not only in
beliefs in divinity, but also the one language they spoke was altered.


About the name TUR:

The Turkic name TUR or Turk does not appear in Sumerian writings. But
this appearance is rather false. The name TUR has been suppressed in
reading Sumerian texts. We have the evidence for this suppression. One
very important footnote regarding the name TUR has been preserved for
us by C. J. Gadd. He writes: [2] in footnote III. 1: "TUR is read
"mar" in
the name of this god".

Here he openly says that the term "MAR" is actually the name "TUR" of
a god, but somehow, due to some "arbitrary convention", TUR is not
read as TUR but is read as MAR. I am grateful to C. J. Gadd for
writing this footnote. I must add here that the Turkish word TUR has
been read as MAR and/or AMAR in the reading of the Sumerian texts.
This reading of course obliterates totally the name TUR from
translated texts.

The referred Sumerian text has been transliterated by Gadd as:

"DINGIR.LUGAL-MAR-DA-DINGIR-RA-NI-IR" translated by him as "To
Lugal-Marda, his god".

However, in view of his footnote cited above, the transliteration of
this Sumerian expression should have been, that is, if the word TUR
was not transformed into MAR:

"DINGIR.LUGAL-TUR-DA-DINGIR-RA-NI-IR" and the new English translation
should have been "To Lugal TUR-ADA, his god" which I will compare with
the following Turkish expression:

"TENGIR.ULU aGa-AL TUR ATA, TENGIR-ER ER-IN" meaning "God, the Great
Lord Red TUR Father, The God-Man of man" which refers to the ancient
Turanian Sky-God Sun-God TUR from which the names Tur, Turk, Turan and
Turkish come from. When we compare these two expressions side by side
we get the following picture:

Sumerian: "DINGIR.LUGAL-TUR-DA-DINGIR-RA-NI-IR"

Turkish: "TENGIR.uLU aGa-AL TUR ADA (ATA), TENGIR-ER ER-IN"

where the last suffix IN (UN) is the Turkish suffix for 3rd person
singular possessive on nouns.

Thus, in this one statement alone appearing in a Sumerian text,
finding God's name in the form of TUR and/or TUR ATA sets the required
time frame that K. Loganathan wants to establish for concurrent
presence of Turkish with Sumerian. Evidently the name TUR and its
derivatives were suppressed so badly that they and many other Turkish
words had no chance of being read and recognized as Turkish. Thus it
is quite clear that a lot of defrauding of Turkish under the guise of
"scholarliness" and "language development" have been inflicted on the
reading of Sumerian texts starting from ancient times. Semitizing the
ancient Turanian Tur/Turk/Sumer texts has been in full force without
regard for the authentic Tur/Turk identity of these writings. In
plain terms, this is called intentional obliteration or fraud.

The Turkish name TUR is also a personification of "bull". In ancient
Turkish "UT" means "cattle". [3] "UTU-ER" means "male cattle", that
is, the "bull". But it is also Turkish "UT-U ER" (OD U ER) meaning
"Fire is that Man" referring to the Sun-God. Thus because of the
nature of the Turkish language, "UTU-ER" has become "U TUR" meaning
"He is TUR" referring to the ancient Turanian Sun-God UTU and also
personifying the Sun-God as a "BULL".

Sumerian GUD means "bull". It is most likely that this word was
developed from Turkish "aGa-UD" meaning "Lord cattle" which, of
course, is the "bull". But it is also Turkish "aGa-OD" meaning "Lord
Fire" which again refers to the Sun and the Sun-God UDU or UTU.

John L. Hayes writes [4]: "The Sumerian AMAR-UTU, "young bull of UTU",
appears in Akkadian as MARDUK, presumably from amar.utu.(k). . . .It
has however, also been argued that "Marduk" is not of Sumerian or of
Akkadian origin, and has nothing to do with "Amar-Utu"."

The word "AMAR-UTU", meaning "young bull", is, without question,
linguistically related to the Turkish expression "EMER UT U" (AMAR UT
O) meaning "It is suckling cattle" or "It is young cattle" which
refers to a young bull or calf. Turkish "EMER" (AMAR) means "He who
suckles".

Evidently MARDUK is a concocted name that did not exist before, but it
was invented to replace the ancient Turanian God's name "TUR". We will
expand on this further. We have additional information from another source.

Encyclopaedia Britannica writes: [5]

"MARDUK, a late name for the god of the city of Babylon, who appears
regularly in the classical Sumerian liturgies under the titles
Asar-lu-dug and Enbilulu. The original title is Asaru, which occurs in
the old pantheon at Fara, c. 3200 B.C., and so far as known , long
before the city of Babylon was founded. ASARU , ASAR-RI, is a title
of this, originally inferior deity of the cult of ENKI at ERIDU, as
son of the water god, a deity of lustration. His connection with
Babylon, which is first mentioned as a small city by Sargon in the
28th century B. C. may be original and very old. The title MARDUK
lays special emphasis upon his solar aspect. It is certain that all
the older titles of this god , ASARU, ASAR-ALIM, ASAR-ALIM-NUN-NA,
ASARLUDUG, describe him as an inferior deity of the water cult of
ERIDU, and how he came to be transferred to Babylon is at present
inexplicable. ALIM means the mythical fish ram, symbol of his father,
the water god of ERIDU, and ASARU was the god of lustration at HABUR
in Eridu. ASARLUDUG means "Asaru who restores man to happiness," and
describes his original activity as agent of ENKI in all magical
rituals of the water cult against demons. MARDUK is pre-eminently the
god of the magicians in Babylonian and Assyrian religion, and this was
his sole sphere in the original Sumerian pantheon. "

With the rapid rise of Babylon under the 11 kings of the first dynasty
(2169-1870 B.C.), the priests of the local cult looked for some means
of increasing the respect due to the god of the great capital and a
theological reason for it. Inasmuch as the Sumerian pantheon had been
universally accepted by the Akkadians , and had now a firm hold upon
the religious beliefs of the Semites in Assyria, Cappadocia, and the
Amoritic western country, it was impossible to make ASARU one of the
three heads of the trinity; these were securely held by ANU, ENLIL and
ENKI. But the old war and sun-god NINURTA, ZAMAM, son of ENLIL, was
largely drawn upon to make ASARU also a sun god, and more especially
the god of the spring sun. This addition to his original character as
a god of lustration and magic was brought about by rewriting the
Sumerian legend of Creation in which NINURTA championed the gods
against the dragon of Chaos, the storm demon ZU, and then created the
world. The new Semitic version in six books attributed this victory
of the gods to MARDUK. The name itself was introduced at this time,
AMAR-UDU, AMAR-UTU, and means "young bull, the sun", becoming, after
the regular rule of Sumerian loanwords, MARUTUKKU, MARUDUKKU,
MA-RUTU[UK-KU], MARUDUK, MARDUKU, MARDUK. (See S. Langdon, Oxford
Editions of Cuneiform texts, vol.vi. 99,113, and Cuneiform texts . . .
. in the British Museum, and the Greek , MARADOUCHOS, MARDAKOS,
MARDOKUS, MARADACH."


What this excerpt from EB really tells us, in plain language, is that
the Akkadians and other Semites plagiarized the much earlier religious
texts of the ancient Tur/Turk Sumerians in order to come up with a
wind based belief of their own, that is, EL (YEL "The Wind") versus AL
(The Red Sun) both of which are from the Turkish language. Even
Aesop's Fable where the Sun and the Wind have a contest amongst
themselves refer to this imaginary fight.


Let us now dwell on some of these names mentioned in this selection
from Encyclopaedia Britannica.

1. 'ASAR-LU-TUG". TUG in Turkish is "flag-staff" to which an emblem is
attached. Such a flag is also the symbol of sovereignty and unity,
that is, being "ONE" (BIR). God is the absolute sovereign of the
universe. The Sun is the absolute sovereign in our solar system. TUG
is a symbol of GOD. God in the ancient Masarian ("Egyptian") writing
system is symbolized as a flagpole with a phonetic value of NTR. [6]
[7] The NTR consonants are the consonants of Turkish word TANRI
meaning GOD. Thus, "ASAR-LU-TUG" is another form of Turkish
expression "AS ER ULU TUG" (AS ER ULU TANRI) meaning "Peerless Man
Great God" describing God in Turkish.

2. The word ENBILULU from "EN-BIL-ULU" is the Turkish expression "HAN
BIL ULU" meaning "Lord Knowledge Great" (Great Knowledge is Lord)
referring to "Knowledge as being power".

3. Sumerian ENKI meaning "Lord Earth" is actually Turkish "HAN-KaYa"
meaning "Lord Rock" referring to the Earth. In the Turkish OGUZ-KAGAN
epic this is the DAG-HAN character meaning "Mountain Lord". A
mountain is a big rock sticking out of the earth.

4. Sumerian ERIDU is a form of Turkish "YERIDU" meaning "it is the
earth".

5. ASARU can be explained in many different ways in Turkish:

a) "AS ER O" meaning "he is peerless man" referring to ancient
Turanian Sky-Father-God.

b) "IShUR O" meaning "He shines" referring to the Sun, that is, the
ancient Turanian Sun-God.

c) "IShi-ER-O" meaning "He is light man" referring to the Sun that
lights up the Earth.

d) "ISi-ER-O" meaning "He is heat man" referring to the Sun that
heats the Earth.

e) "SU-ER-O" meaning "He is water man" referring to the water God of Earth.

f) "ESER-O" meaning "It blows" referring to the Wind God of Earth.

6. ASAR-ALIM can be explained with the following Turkish expressions:

a) "AS ER ALIM" meaning "I am Peerless Man-Red" referring to the red
Sun, Turkish word AL means "red", such as the color of "blood" and the
color of Turkish "flag".

b) "AS ER ALEM" meaning "Peerless Man of Universe" referring to the
ancient Turanian universal creator Sky-Father-God (Gök Tanri) TUR.

c) "AS ER ILIM" meaning in one sense "I am Peerless Man of my
Country" (i.e., I am the King of my country), and in another sense "I
am Peerless Man of Knowledge".

We must note here that there is nothing inferior about these ancient
Turanian Gods whom the writer of the above EB excerpt referred to as
inferior deity of the water cult of ERIDU. Water is a "god" without
which life, as we know of, could not emerge.

7. Sun-god name NINURTA, when rearranged letter-by-letter as "ATIN
NUR", is the Turkish expression "ADIN NUR" (ADIN NUR) meaning "your
name is light" which is again the ancient Turanian Sun-God TUR.

8. "AMAR-UDU, AMAR-UTU meaning "young bull, the sun". This was
explained above as being from Turkish expression "EMER UT U" (AMAR UT
O) meaning "It is suckling cattle" or "It is young cattle" referring
to young bull or a calf. Turkish "EMER" (AMAR) means "He who
suckles". In addition to this meaning of the expression, it is also
from Turkish expression "MA AR UD U" (MA ER OD O) meaning "it is
Magnificent Man Fire" which refers to the ancient Turanian Sun-God UTU
(UDU, OD O). Thus, this also makes the name "AMAR-UDU" or "AMAR-UTU"
associated with the "Young Bull Sun".

AMAR UTU (UDU) additionally contains the Turkish expression "MA AR
O'DU" ("MA ER IDI" or "MA ER O'DUR") meaning "He is Magnificent Man"
and/or "Magnificent Man is TUR" referring to the Sky-Father-God as the
universal Father God, and also the Tur/Turk peoples.

But The Turkish word "Ma" also has the meaning of "Moon". In Turkish
OGUZ KAGAN epic, OGUZ KAGAN says to the Moon: [8]

Line 245: "AY, sen munda beglere bolgil baslik"
Line 246: "MA m(e)nglep senge AD bolsun kagarlik"

Meaning

Line 245: "Moon", you stay here as head of lords"
Line 246; "Let MA be your kingship name."

Thus the Moon, which is AY in Turkish, is assigned a new name MA by
OGUZ Kagan. This is supported by the fact that in Turkish and
Persian, MAH means MOON. Knowing this, we can show that "AMAR-UTU"
also contains the Turkish expression "MA AR O'DU" (MA ER IDI or MA ER
O DUR) meaning "He is the Moon Man" and/or "Moon Man is TUR" referring
to the Moon-God (Turkish AY-Tanri).

These last three explanations describe AMAR-UTU (UD) as the ancient
Turanian trinity Sky-God concept. Evidently this ancient Tur/Turk
religious Sky-God concept was abducted, altered and transferred to the
false name of MARDUK, without any reference to TUR and thereafter
claimed as Semitic. This will be shown to be the case below.

9. MARDUK is also known by the following names as given in the above
EB excerpt: MARUTUKKU, MARUDUKKU, MA-RUTU[UK-KU], MARUDUK, MARDUKU.
However we will show that these names which aare similar to each other
are names that have been anagrammatized from Turkish religious
expressions.

For example the name MARUTUKKU has embedded in it the following
Turkish expressions:

a) "UTU MA AR KUK" ("UTU MA ER GÖK") meaning "He is the Magnificent
Man Sky" describing the ancient Turanian creator Sky-God, i.e., (GÖK
ATA Tanri);

b) "MA ATA AR KUK" ("MA ATA ER GÖK") meaning "Magnificent Father Man
Sky" describing the ancient Turanian creator Sky-God, i.e., (GÖK ATA Tanri)

c) "MA UTU AR KUK" ("MA UTU ER GÖK") meaning "Magnificent Sun Man Sky"
describing the ancient Turanian Sun-God, i.e., (Gün-Tanri)''

d) "UTU MA AR KUK" ("OTU MA ER GÖK") meaning "He is Moon Man Sky"
describing the ancient Turanian Moon-God, i.e., (AY TANRI)


Thus the name MARUTUKKU is the name for the personification of the
ancient Turanian trinity Sky-God concept. These Turkish renditions
are also true for other forms of the name MARDUK, that is, MARUDUKKU,
MA-RUTU[UK-KU], MARUDUK, and MARDUKU. With this kind of Turkish
appellations behind the name MARDUK, it is no wonder that they
regarded him as the chief God of Semitics. Additionally we have the
following meanings also embedded in the name.

e) MARUTUKKU, when rearranged letter-by-letter as "MAR-U-UT-KUK", is
an anagram of Turkish expression "AMAR U UT GÖK" (EMER O OKUZ GÖK)
meaning "Young is that sky bull " (That sky bull is young). This is
the name associated with MARDUK the "young bull".

f) MARUTUKKU, when rearranged letter-by-letter as "AKU-TURKUM", is
the Turkish expression "AKA TURKUM" (Aga Türküm) meaning "I am Lord
Turk" and/or "I am White Turk" (i.e., White HUNS) .

g) "U-MA-KUK-TUR" ("O MA GÖK-TUR", ("O MA GÖK-TURK")) meaning "He is
Magnificent Sky-TUR"; "He is Magnificent Sky-TURK"; "He is magnificent
Blue-Tur (Blue Turk)"; "he is magnificent Moon of Sky" and many more
which are all descriptions related to the Tur/Turk peoples and their
ancient Sky-God concept.

h) When the "MAR" in MARUTUKKU is replaced with "TUR", in accordance
with the footnote of C. J. GADD, we get the name "TURUTUKKU". This
name is related to Tur/Turk peoples in many ways. It can be shown to
be the following Turkish expressions:

"TUR UTU KUK" (TUR UTU GÖK) meaning "TUR Sun-God Sky";
or "TURTU-U-KUK" (TURDU O GÖK) meaning "That Sky-was TUR";
or "KUKTU-U-TUR"(GÖKDÜ O TUR) meaning "That Tur was Sky";
or "KUK-TURTU-U" (GÖK TURDU O) meaning "He was Blue-Tur";
or "KUT-U-TURK (KUT O TURK) meaning "Sacred is that TURK";
or "TURUKKUTU" meaning "he is TURUKKU";
or "UTU TURUKKU" meaning "SUN TURKS" or "Sun-God Turks". This is like
the name "OTOMAN TURKS"; and many more.

The name TURUKKU was the name of the ancient Tur/Turk peoples living
in Mesopotamia and along the ZAGROS mountains. Even at present the
KASHGAY Turks live on the Zagros mountains. The region called
"KUZISTAN" (OGUZISTAN) was located along those mountains since ancient times.

Note 1: Even ZAGROS has embedded in it the following Turkish
expressions: 1) "ASER OGUZ meaning "PEERLESS OGUZ", and 2) "ASER GOZ"
meaning "PEERLESS EYE", and 3) "ASER KOZ" meaning "PEERLESS FIRE".

Note 2: In ancient Turkish religious understanding, mountains were
held sacred (e.g., "Tanri Daglari" of Central Asia are named after
God, and so are the ZAGROS Mountains). Mountains are natural pyramids
and cones and that is why ancient Tur/Turk peoples built pyramids and
kurgans to honor their Sky God and their ancestors. The three
pyramids at Giza, Egypt were built to honor the Sky Father God, the
Sun God and the Moon God in addition to the Masarian ancestor kings.
The native peoples of North, Central and South Americas did the same thing.

TURUKKUS were the ancient Hurrians, Mitannians, Kasites, Urartus, and
many other Tur/Turk peoples who lived in so-called Mesopotamia,
Eastern Anatolia, Turia (so-called present Syria), Asia Minor, Iran
and Eastern Mediterranean coasts and ofcourse the ancient Masar/Misir
(Egypt).

10. The Greek names for MARDUK are also given as: MARADOUCHOS,
MARDAKOS, MARDOKUS and MARADACH. The Greek MARADOUCHOS, where H is
really an I and C is K, when rearranged letter-by-letter as
"MORDH-AA-OCUS", is the Turkish expression "MORDI AGA OKUS" ("Mor idi
Aga OGUZ") meaning "Lord OGUZ was purple" referring to the ancient
Turanian Sky-God OGUZ.

The term OKUS is another Turkish name for "cattle" or "bull". OKUZ
(i.e., BULL) was the icon of OGUZ - the Sky God. The meaning of this
is that OGUZ, TUR and UTU are all interchangeable names for the
ancient Turanian Sky God. The Turkish expression "AGA OKUS" is the
"Lord Bull". Thus this expression "MORDI AGA OKUS" also means "Purple
was the Lord Bull". Hence the false name MARDUK was a personification
of a "Purple BULL" (OKUZ or TUR). Thus even with the Greek version
of MARDUK (i.e., MARADOUCHOS), we are finding an anagram of a Turkish
expression. We have very similar meanings from the other Greek words
meaning MARDUK. Hence Akkadian and other so-called Semitic expressions
are all made up from Turkish by way of anagrammatizing Turkish (i.e.,
break up the original Turkish text, restructure and embellish it to
disguise its Turkishness, and then claim the product as Greek or
Semitic or as your own).

The time frame for all of these are put at 2800 B.C. Actually Turkish
is far far older than this date.

Even the so-called Semitic name SARGON is an anagram of the Turkish
expression "AS AR GON" (AS ER GÜN) meaning "Sun is Peerless Man".
Thus this king has also deified himself by entitling himself "Peerless
Man Sun" in Turkish.

Thus by reading certain Sumerian sign as MAR instead of the actual
TUR, not only was the word TUR suppressed, but all of its personified
concepts of the ancient Turanian Sky-GOD OGUZ, TUR, SUN, MOON and BULL
were usurped and attributed to the newly fashioned name MARDUK.
Clearly, the magnificent Sky-God religion of the ancient Turanian
Tur/Turk peoples and their mythologies, stories and characters, etc.,
associated with it were all seized and looted by the Akkadians and
other Semitics. Evidently, this is how the ancient Tur/Turk people
were, namewise, obliterated out of the picture. That is why the name
Tur/Turk does not appear in the same time frame as the Sumerians - who
are conveniently labelled as "extinct" people. Yet as I have
demonstrated before, the Sumerians are alive and well as Turks.

The name MARDUK was a Babylonian God adopted from Sumerian althouh its
name was newly invented. However if the particle "MAR" in MARDUK is
changed with TUR, we get the name TURDUK meaning "We are TUR" in
Turkish, referring to the name of the chief sky deity.

Also embedded into the name TURDUK is the Turkish expression "TURKDU"
meaning "It was Turk" which also relates itself to the name Tur/Turk.

Regarding the name MARDUK, we have the following excerpts from various sources:

"Marduk took on many of the caharacteristics of ENLIL, and became the
chief god of the Babylonian pantheon. The worship of Marduk became
the official cult during King HAMMURABI's reign. He was often called
BEL-MARDUK in this later period." [9]

Even the name HAMMURABI, when rearranged letter-by-letter as "AHAM MUR
BI" is an anagram of Turkish expression "AGAM MOR BEY" meaning "My
lord is Purple Lord" indicating that he was a Sun-God believer.
Additionally, when the name HAMMURABI is rearranged letter-by-letter
as "BIR-AHA-MUM" is an anagram of the Turkish expression "BIR AGA MUM"
meaning "One Lord Candle" (One giant candle), thus, referring to
himself as the Sun that enlightens everything. Hence, he elavates
himself to the level of Sun deity.

Calling Hammurabi by the name BEL-MARDUK also equates him as the
Wind-God or ENLIL where BEL stands for Turkish "aBa yEL" (aPa-yEL)
meaning "Father Wind" and ENLIL" stands for Turkish "HAN-YIL" meaning
"Lord Wind".

It is said that HAMMURABI was an AMORITE indicating that he was not a
"Semite" as "scholars" led us to believe. The name AMORITE, when
rearranged letter-by-letter as "O-MAR-ITE", where "MAR" is a
replacement for "TUR" is the Turkish expression "O MAR IDI" (O TUR
IDI) meaning "He was a TUR" (He was a TUR man), that is, not a Semitic
as has been claimed. Of course the name is also Turkish "OMAR IDI"
(ÖMER IDI) which is a name that other famed historical personalities
such as HOMER and Caliph OMAR also used in addition to many others.

The following excerpts from Zecharia Sitchin are important.

"The usurpation of Enlilship was accompanied by an extensive
Babylonian effort to forge the ancient texts. The most important
texts were rewritten and altered so as to make Marduk appear as the
Lord of Heavens, the Creator, the Benefactor, the Hero, instead of Anu
or Enlil or even Ninurta. Among the texts altered was the"Tale of
Zu"; and according to the Babylonian version, it was Marduk (not
Ninurta) who fought Zu." [10]

"The gods then proclaimed Marduk the supreme deity, and bestowed on
him the "fifty names" -the prerogatives and numerical rank of the
Enlilship". [11]

"There is enough evidence to show that the Babylonian version of the
epic was a masterful religious-political forgery of earlier Sumerian
versions, in which Anu, Enlil, and Ninurta were the heroes." [12]

Similarly, Joan Oates writes:

"ENLIL (ELLIL), "Lord Wind", tutelary deity of Nippur, was ANU's son.
Like his father he came to be known as "Father" or "King" of the gods
and was the first to replace ANU in the mythology. His role as
national god of Sumer and bestower of kingship has already been
discussed in earlier chapters." [13]

"In late Baylonian times the title BEL, "Lord" became snonymous with
Marduk, who like Ishtar assimilated to himself various aspects of
other Gods." [14]

John L. Hayes writes: [15]

"Proper names. In the bilingual texts from Ebla, the equivalent of
EN-Lil is given as: I-LI-LU. This seems to agree with later Akkadian
pronounciation of the name, which also show an assimilation of
"/Enlil/ > /ILLIL/; some Sumerologists, in fact, transliterate the
two signs EN-lil together as ELLIL. (It has also been speculated that
the interpretation of the name as "Lord Wind" is a Sumerian
folk-etymology, and that the word is of pre-Sumerian etymology.)"

The term "I-LI-LU" is a distorted and disguised form of the Turkish
expression "YILLU" meaning "with wind" or "it is windy". In the
anagram of "I-LI-LU" the first "I" repalces the Turkish "Y" in YILLU"
and the second "I" is misplaced after the first L. So even this Eblaic
word is made up from a pure Turkish expression. The name "EN-LIL",
that is in Turkish "HAN-YIL" (Yel-HAn) meaning "Lord Wind" is
actually a restructured word.

Readers are urged to read Polat_Kaya Library messages on "Tower of
Babel".


Thus since MARDUK replaced the name TUR or TURDUK, one does not have
much chance of finding the TUR/TURK name concurrent with Sumerian.
Instead we are finding MARDUK all over the place. If TUR or TURDUK
was not replaced by MARDUK, we would now be finding TUR all over the
place. This is why Zecharia Sitchin said so clearly: "There is enough
evidence to show that the Babylonian version of the epic was a
masterful religious-political forgery of earlier Sumerian versions, in
which Anu, Enlil, and Ninurta were the heroes."

All of these references and the footnote by C. J. Gadd point to MARDUK
as an artificially generated name designed as a replacement for the
Turkish name TUR or TURDUK. It is like replacing one person's name,
say ABC, with another name, say XYZ, and thus completely erasing ABC
from the records. Clearly this has taken place by this fraudulent
changeover. On the other hand, the one line footnote by C. J. Gadd
puts the name TUR and/or TURKDU (TÜRDÜK, TURDUK) back in the
time-frame with the Sumerians that Mr. K. Loganathan is looking for.
But this is not the only evidence. The whole Sumerian language is a
testimony that Sumerians were Tur/Turk peoples and that their language
was Turkish only. Their language as was spoken in their land in
so-called "Mesopotamia" has been so badly molested that it is not easy
to par it immediately with Turkish.


Rhoda A Hendricks writes the following:

"Marduk's consort was ZARPANIT, and he was the father of NABU. He was
often depicted holding a scimitar."[16]


This name ZARPANIT, when rearranged letter-by-letter as "TANRI-AZ-P",
is an anagram of Turkish expression "TANRI-AZ-APA" meaning "God
Peerless Father". Indeed the creator Sky-Father-God of Turanian
Tur/Turks was always a consort to the Sun-God UTU (TUR), because the
Sun was regarded as the "working right fire-eye" of the
Sky-Father-God. They were inseparable then and they still are today.

Additionally the anagram name ZARPANIT, that is, properly Turkish
"TANRI AZ APA", was of course the father of NABU which is from Turkish
word NEBI meaning "a prophet, heavenly messenger". [17]

Another word for NEBI in Turkish is the word "PEYKAMBER" meaning
"prophet". The name PEYKAMBER when separated as "PEY KAM BER" or
"BEY KAM BIR" ("BIR KAM BEY") means "One shaman Lord". Shamans and
Shamanism are from ancient Tur/Turk cultures of Central Asia (Turan).
The name also refers to the waxing and waning "Moon". Turkish-Persian
KAMER meaning "MOON" is derived from Turkish "KAM ER" meaning "Shaman
man". Indeed Moon (Turkish AY) is a celestial object regarded since
ancient times as a celestial deity (Turkish AY Tanri) which always
changed its shape like a magician as if it wants to bring some
celestial message. Hence, in the religious sense, both words NEBI and
PEYKAMBER refer to the Moon-God.

Mythologically it is said that NABU (NEBI) was often depicted holding
a scimitar." This is also most revealing.

SCIMITAR is defined as: "A saber having a curved blade with the edge
on the convex side, used chiefly by Moslems" [18] - which also
includes the Turks. Thus, the mythological expression saying that
"NABU was often shown holding a SCIMITAR" is a riddled reference to
nothing but the "CRESCENT MOON" which is always attached to the moon
and is metaphorically like a SCIMITAR (a curved blade). Thus even the
source for this riddle story is Turkish based.

It should be noted that SCIMITAR, when rearranged as "CISMITAR", is a
distortion of Turkish expression "KESMETIR" meaning "it is cutting" or
"it is a blade". Additionally, SCIMITAR, when rearranged
letter-by-letter as "ISMI-TARC", is the restructured and disguised
Turkish expression "ISMI TURK" meaning "its name is TURK". The
Crescent Moon is one of the insignia of Turks and as an icon
embellishes the flags of many Tur/Turk peoples.

It should be noted that the Arabic/Turkic name "ZULFIKAR" (Zülfikar,
Zulfakar) is the name of the famed sword (scimitar) of Calif ALI. In
popular representations, it has two blades and two points. [19] With
this knowledge, we can now revisit the name SCIMITAR. We find embedded
in SCIMITAR, when is rearranged as "MA-CISITR", the Turkish
expression "MA KESITIR" meaning "It is Magnificent Cut" referring to
the crescent moon which looks like it was cut out of the Moon. We
also know from the Oguz Kagan epic that MA is a name for the Moon,
therefore, Turkish "MA KESI TUR, that is, the cressent moon, means
"It is cut moon".

In the ancient Turanian Sky-God TUR (OGUZ) religion, the Moon was
regarded as the "left blind eye" of the creator Sky-Father-God since
it had no light of its own. Ancient Tur/Turk peoples immortalized
these concepts in Turkish forever.

In view of all this, it is clear that some people had their hands in
the Turkish/Sumerian cooky-jar without others noticing it - especially
the Turks themselves. Those who knew about it not only stayed mum but
also collaborated with the usurper in this obliteration of the ancient
Turanian civilization.

In this paper, I have provided the needed time-frame that places the
Tur/Turk peoples with the Sumerians, and even earlier.

In the following parts of this essay, we will bring in additional
information that will further identify Turks and Sumerians as one and
the same people.


REFERENCES:

[1] Samuel Noah Kramer, "The Sumerians", The University of Chicago
Press, Chicago and London, 1963, p. 306, under "The Sumerian
Language".
[2] C. J. GADD, "A Sumerian Reading-Book", an Assistant in the
Department of Egyptian and Assyrian Antquities, the British
Museum, Oxford at Clarendon Press, 1924, p. 49.
[3] Huseyin Namik ORKON, "Eski Türk Yazitlari", Türk Dil Kurumu
Yayinlari: 529, Ankara, 1987, p. 877.
[4] John L. Hayes, "A Manual Of Sumerian Grammar and Texts",
Undena Publications, Malibu, 1990, p. 229.
[5] Encyclopaedia Britanniaca, 1963, vol. 14, p. 872.
[6] Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, "An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary",
Dover Publications, Inc, New York", p. cxxxiii, item 5, 6 under
"Sacred vessels and furniture".
[7] Samuel A. B. Mercer, "The Handbook of Egyptian Hieroglyphs",
Hippocrene Books, Inc, New York, 1998, p. 191.
[8] Resit Rahmeti ARAT, "MAKALELER CILT I", Collected by Osman Fikri
Sertkaya, Türk Kültürünü Arastirma Enstitüsü Yayinlari: 65,
Seri IV - Sayi: A.20, Ankara, 1987, p. 627.
[9] Rhoda A. Hendricks, "Mythologies of the World A Concise
Encyclopedia", McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973, p. 119.
[10] Zecharia Sitchin, "The 12th Planet", Avon Books, New York, 1978,
p. 110.
[11] Zecharia Sitchin, "The 12th Planet", Avon Books, New York, 1978,
p. 211.
[12] Zecharia Sitchin, "The 12th Planet", Avon Books, New York, 1978,
p. 211.
[13] Joan Oates, "BABYLON", Thames and Hudson Ltd, London, 1979, p. 172.
[14] Joan Oates, "BABYLON", Thames and Hudson Ltd, London, 1979, p. 172.
[15] John L. Hayes, "A Manual Of Sumerian Grammar and Texts", Undena
Publications, Malibu, 1990, p. 77.
[16] Rhoda A. Hendricks, "Mythologies of the World A Concise
Encyclopedia", McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973, p. 119.
[17] Redhouse Turkish - English Dictionary, Redhouse Yayinevi,
Istanbul,1987.p. 873.
[18] Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 1947, p. 890.
[19] Redhouse Turkish - English Dictionary, Redhouse Yayinevi,
Istanbul,1987.p. 1290.

[Hosank]

lol mordoth, any lie to make your turanic dream sound real right?

you said hittites, are sumarians, and related to the Assyrians, and thus turkic..basically, ommiting all the crap that the rest of the article wrote

how childish
that is so wrong in sooo many ways, considering that the hittites are aryans, the sumerians and Assyrians are iranic and semites, and none of which are turks

[Mordoth]

LoL ,

He still denies the fact.
I may count who are Turanic people .

Basically , nations ;

Descends of Sumerians
- Magyar ( Hungarians ) ( coming from Word Mah-gar which is Sumerian ) ( Onogurel - On Uighureli - Hungary)
- Turks ( Oghuz and Qipchaqs )
- Mongolians
- People of Baltics , Lithuania-Latwia - Estonia
- Finnish people ( living outside Finland thou ,southern Sweden ,Russia...etc ) Prussians-Krivians
- Turks living in someother regions
- Beludjians ( do not know exactly , but i think they are also like Tadjiks )
- Saamis of Sweden - Finland and Norway
- Countries that dominantly own the heritage of American civilizations , Maya-Aztec-Inca

Bulgars are assimilated because of byzantinian policy "pan-christianization " in time. ( Do not say , they are sLavic, lol , their unifier leader is " Asparuh Khan " )

No need to count some other non-Turkish people

[irlandahay]

LoL ,

He still denies the fact.
I may count who are Turanic people .

Basically , nations ;

Descends of Sumerians
- Magyar ( Hungarians ) ( coming from Word Mah-gar which is Sumerian ) ( Onogurel - On Uighureli - Hungary)
- Turks ( Oghuz and Qipchaqs )
- Mongolians
- People of Baltics , Lithuania-Latwia - Estonia
- Finnish people ( living outside Finland thou ,southern Sweden ,Russia...etc ) Prussians-Krivians
- Turks living in someother regions
- Beludjians ( do not know exactly , but i think they are also like Tadjiks )
- Saamis of Sweden - Finland and Norway
- Countries that dominantly own the heritage of American civilizations , Maya-Aztec-Inca

Bulgars are assimilated because of byzantinian policy "pan-christianization " in time. ( Do not say , they are sLavic, lol , their unifier leader is " Asparuh Khan " )

No need to count some other non-Turkish people

I want you to know I'm printing this page out, not because of the sheer genius of what you wrote but only because when I am bored during french class I can read it and get a few chucles out of it

I wont even dignify it with an answer because wev already been through this too many times, right now im just trying not to laugh cuz my mother is sick and sleeping...

[arrow]

I want you to know I'm printing this page out, not because of the sheer genius of what you wrote but only because when I am bored during french class I can read it and get a few chucles out of it

I wont even dignify it with an answer because wev already been through this too many times, right now im just trying not to laugh cuz my mother is sick and sleeping...

I hope your mother gets well soon.

The nations / peoples that Mordoth gave in his last post are east asia connected. They may or may not be Turkic related but they are asian related for sure.

And since Hungary name comes from the Hun's, the first Turk empire, they also invaded almost all Northern Europe I don't see a problem with Mordoth's estimations. He didn't say Sweden is Turkic, he said some Swedish are Turkic wich may actually be true.

Mordoth, kardeşim yazarken ingilizcene biraz daha dikkat etsen bu adamlar zaten burunlarının dibini görmekte zorlanıyor, senin uzun açıklamalarını anlamaları biraz zor. Birde bu irlandalı olan çok genç, kanı kaynıyor çok takma bırak boşaltsın içini, nefretten başka duygusu yok çocuğun.

[Mordoth]

I hope your mother gets well soon.

The nations / peoples that Mordoth gave in his last post are east asia connected. They may or may not be Turkic related but they are asian related for sure.

And since Hungary name comes from the Hun's, the first Turk empire, they also invaded almost all Northern Europe I don't see a problem with Mordoth's estimations. He didn't say Sweden is Turkic, he said some Swedish are Turkic wich may actually be true.

Mordoth, kardeşim yazarken ingilizcene biraz daha dikkat etsen bu adamlar zaten burunlarının dibini görmekte zorlanıyor, senin uzun açıklamalarını anlamaları biraz zor. Birde bu irlandalı olan çok genç, kanı kaynıyor çok takma bırak boşaltsın içini, nefretten başka duygusu yok çocuğun.

They are pumped with bulks of poison of Armenian hatre . They are grown up by that ,don't worry.
Since they understand what i prescribe , no problem at all.

Central Asian tribes and dwellers are all TURANIC , i did not said TURK. ( there is no such term like Turkic bro ,do not be confused about that. it is a russian-based, invented word )

Name of Hungary comes from the name of " ON UYGUR " or " ONOGUR " that express the 10 Turkish tribe that found up unified - Hungarian nation .
There are SAMI TURKs who were sentenced to genocide by Vikings' descends. They are still alive in Lappland , we say "Laponya" .

[Urartu]

I hope your mother gets well soon.

The nations / peoples that Mordoth gave in his last post are east asia connected. They may or may not be Turkic related but they are asian related for sure.

And since Hungary name comes from the Hun's, the first Turk empire, they also invaded almost all Northern Europe I don't see a problem with Mordoth's estimations. He didn't say Sweden is Turkic, he said some Swedish are Turkic wich may actually be true.

Mordoth, kardeşim yazarken ingilizcene biraz daha dikkat etsen bu adamlar zaten burunlarının dibini görmekte zorlanıyor, senin uzun açıklamalarını anlamaları biraz zor. Birde bu irlandalı olan çok genç, kanı kaynıyor çok takma bırak boşaltsın içini, nefretten başka duygusu yok çocuğun.

Wait; here is the moment of truth. Let’s find out if arrow is an extremist or not. Arrow, do you think the Sumerians were a Turkic people?

[arrow]

Wait; here is the moment of truth. Let’s find out if arrow is an extremist or not. Arrow, do you think the Sumerians were a Turkic people?

I am no historian nor scientist but here are my 5 cnts since you asked.

They came from Asia to mesopotamia so they are asian but their language patterns are different than Turkish of that time.

They were also matriach ruled sociaty so I don't think they are Turanic, although they came from the same geoghraphy.

But as I said I am no historian and Mordoth here seems to read a lot about these stuff.

[Hosank]

lol, if you consider semites as asians, then sure, the summerians are...


meanwhile, mordoth's post is sheer lunacy.



rets revise shall we?

ok, lets start with hungary, you say they are turranic, because 2000 years ago, the huns founded a country there that lasted less than a decade,

Attila's Huns incorporated groups of unrelated tributary peoples. In Europe, Alans, Gepids, Scirii, Rugians, Sarmatians, Slavs and Gothic tribes all united under the Hun family military elite. After Attila's death, some of his Huns eventually settled in Pannonia, but the Empire dissolved after his sons were defeated by Ardaric's coalition at the Battle of Nedao in 454, at modern day Nedava.

also, attila reached the gates of lutecia (modern paris) so, mordoth, do you also consider the gauls, and francs to be turkic? if so, we can clearly see to what point you have totally lost all grasp on reason.

the modern hungarians have practically nothing to do with the huns who left europe after the death of atilla some 2000 years ago, and have more germanic blood than anything else.


next peoples..

People of Baltics , Lithuania-Latwia - Estonia

i would have you know off the bat, that the lithuanians and latvians are not of the same ethnic group that englobes the estonians, (since estonians are finnic)

now, of course there is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind, but the turk's, that the baltic peoples are NOT of turkic origin, and are infact indo-european.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:00Estonians.png
these are ethnic estonians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kyrgyz_...%2C_Karakol.jpg
these are turkic people..do they look alike to you?

next

- Finnish people ( living outside Finland thou ,southern Sweden ,Russia...etc ) Prussians-Krivians

this is a big myth within the turkist pan-ultra-nationalist community..that finnish people are part of the turannic family.

It has been suggested that this non-Uralic ethnonym is of Germanic language origin and related to such words as finthan (Old High German) 'find', 'notice'; fanthian (Old High German) 'check', 'try'; and fendo (Old High German) and vende (Old Middle German) 'pedestrian', 'wanderer'.[17]. Another etymological interpretation associates this ethnonym with fen in a more toponymical approach. Yet another theory postulates that the words finn and kven are cognates. In the Icelandic Eddas and Norse sagas (dating about from the 11th to 14th centuries), some of the oldest written sources probably originating from the closest proximity, words like finnr and finnas are not used consistently. Most of the time, however, they seem to mean northern dwellers with a mobile life style, i.e. the Sami.

we see here that the finns and sumi are not uralic but infact close relatives of the germans and the norse.

about turan, and the Ural-Altaic people, that turks consider to be their bretheren. first of all, the Ural-ALtaic group is NOT an ethnic group, but infact a hypothetical linguistic group, thus right away eliminating finns, estonians, as sami as ethnically turkish.

The Ural-Altaic language family (also known as Uralo-Altaic) is an hypothetical grouping of the Uralic and Altaic languages into one field. The word Turanian has also been used to describe the Ural-Altaic field and its people. The term is from the Transoxiana, Turān.

The Ural-Altaic grouping is speculative, as it has not been proven to the satisfaction of most linguists that there is any genetic relationship between the two language families, and even the existence of the Altaic group as one family is today questioned.

bascially, the whole ural-altaic myth was created when pan-turkist 'linguists' thought they had discovered a linguistic link between turkic peoples and northern europeans. this right away lead to the speculation that those 2 groups were ethnically related, and now, little impressionable nationalists like mordoth believe it like the bible, even though there was never any real research conducted on the matter, and that theory is now the laughing stock of the linguistic community.
here is an other article disproving that the finns, sumi and hungarians have turkic origin..

In the 19th century, the Finnish researcher Matthias Castrén prevailed with the theory that "the original home of Finns" was in west-central Siberia. Later, the theory of an ancient homeland of all Finno-Ugric speaking peoples situated in a region between the Volga and Kama rivers in the European part of Russia appeared more credible. Until the 1970s, most linguists believed Finns to have arrived in Finland as late as the first centuries AD. In the 1980s, these ideas changed drastically. The old theory was replaced by the concurrent version of a large "homeland" between the Volga river and Scandinavia. In the light of new archaeological findings, it was concluded that the ancestors of the Finns arrived in their present territory thousands of years ago, perhaps in many successive waves of immigration. During this immigration, the possible linguistic and cultural ancestors of the hunting-gathering Sami were pushed into the more remote northern regions.

here is another
According to a study conducted by four scientists, including Cavalli-Sforza LL:

“ Principal coordinate analysis shows that Lapps/Sami are almost exactly intermediate between people located geographically near the Ural mountains and speaking Uralic languages, and central and northern Europeans. Hungarians and Finns are definitely closer to Europeans. An analysis of genetic admixture between Uralic and European ancestors shows that Lapps/Sami are slightly more than 80% European, Hungarians are 87% European, and Finns are 90% European.

thus elimating the possibility of turkic peoples being larege genetic contributors to these peoples.

Sami genetic history has been of great interest because of their large genetic distance to other European populations including their closest neighbours. There is considerable genetic variation between the different Sami groups but they all share a common ancestry. The genetic data shows that the Sami have no close relatives in any population including their closest linguistic relatives but are in general more closely related to Europeans than people of other continents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sami_woman_2005-08-25.jpg
this is a sami
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Armeniangirl.jpg
these are armenian girls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kyzyl_Shaman.jpg
this is a turk..

which to people look the same in your opinion?


" Countries that dominantly own the heritage of American civilizations , Maya-Aztec-Inca "
ok, now obviously, this is a joke mordy...
the indians have left asia some 50 000 years ago. so if you want to clame that your civilization is that old...lol..
it is possible to argue that these people share the ancestors as the ancestors that became the ancestors of the turks, but then again, just about every people on the planet

lol, mordoth, you forgot to add the irish to your 'i wish these great peoples shared genes with me' list..
and, btw, there is a people in the southern african nation of namibia called turki, but they are black, maybe you should investigate your genetic relations with them..
you've got soul mordoth, my black brotha from anotha moda...
peace..
malcom X

[arrow]

lol, if you consider semites as asians, then sure, the summerians are...

What's your point, that Summers didn't come from Asia ?

[Urartu]

I am no historian nor scientist but here are my 5 cnts since you asked.

They came from Asia to mesopotamia so they are asian but their language patterns are different than Turkish of that time.

They were also matriach ruled sociaty so I don't think they are Turanic, although they came from the same geoghraphy.

But as I said I am no historian and Mordoth here seems to read a lot about these stuff.

Well said Arrow. They were not Turkic. But neither were they Semitic. They have a separate linguistic group not related to Turkic or Semitic languages.

And I’ve herd that they came from Asia from somewhere but can’t find the site I read it from. It was like a map showing the routes that all peoples in the middle east travled. If anyone can find it for me and post the link that would be great.

[Hosank]

What's your point, that Summers didn't come from Asia ?

actually, quite the opposite.
but all asian peoples arn't turkic

[arrow]

actually, quite the opposite.
but all asian peoples arn't turkic

SO you basicly repeated what I posted ?

[Mordoth]

People who had the Haplo group within their DNAs , are totally TURKIC.

Ethnic Estonians, lol . Son, do not be a moron , you can not decide who is Turkic who is not by looking at his/her skull-shape, sight...etc ( lol ,Turkish Nations are all in a wide geography )

Attila had vansquashed Francs , Goths , Barbaric Germans and Vandals and Vikings , lol . None of them are Turkic.

[Hosank]

SO you basicly repeated what I posted ?

pretty much, i am agreeing with you, why do you have to persist on this instead of commenting on the rest of my post which has much more valuable information than this one line, which was an answer to urartu???

ok, mordoth, you are making absolutely no sense here...

how does this:

People who had the Haplo group within their DNAs , are totally TURKIC.

not go against this:

Son, do not be a moron , you can not decide who is Turkic who is not by looking at his/her skull-shape, sight...etc

i mean, you just said that you deside who a turk is by his DNA, and DNA is what determines scull shape, so, if you want to dismiss one form of racial profiling, yet you are for another, which is pretty much the same thing, where does that leave us?

Attila had vansquashed Francs , Goths , Barbaric Germans and Vandals and Vikings , lol . None of them are Turkic.

EXACTLY, then why do you consider hungarians to be? even after all that proof?