Who are the most beautiful & Strong peopl

   

   TURKISH GIRLS RULE....WHY???BECAUSE THEY ARE UNIQUE,AND NEVER LOOK THE SAME...FROM BLONDE TO BRUNETTE WE HAVE ALL TYPES..













GIRLS :1-DENIZ AKKAYA 2-AZRA AKIN 3-YUKSEL AK 4-NEZ
       5-CAGLA KUBAT
    
    

Edited by mermaid - 16-Sep-2006 at 18:27

Don't you guys think you can get your wank-off material from some other site on the internet? 

Originally posted by Desimir They are beautiful because they probably had bulgarian blood in their veins.Then how will you explaine the blond hair.It is not natural for you people who are dark haired.

    

Hahahah,Please do not make me laugh...What's the origin of Bulgarians?As far as I know they are slavized Turks..anyway Turks came from north,so we know that some Turkic clans had blond hair and blue eyes...

The only blond hairs and blue eyes in the north are nordic and russians.Go to kazahstan and you will notice that the only blonds there are russians.All others which are supposed to be descendants of turks tribes are dark haired and dark skinn just like modern turkish.
When i look myself in the mirror i dont seem like turkish

In my town i have and many friends who are turkish,but their appeareance is very different from bulgarian.

Originally posted by Desimir My friend,Turks in 5-6th century have nothing in common with todays turkish.I say that Turks And Turkish are different things.And it is not sure that Bulgars were turks.There are theories that bulgars had iranian(persian) origin.And today bulgarians are mostly descendants of slavs,because when bulgars came in balkans they were between 50000-100000 and slavs were more than a million.I am not counting thracians which are too part of the new nation.

Indeed, the Bulgars were, like so many other migrating peoples who conquered lands in this period, a "mere" ruling elite placed on top of a much larger populace consisting of a different ethnic group. Needless to say, this ruling elite was assimilated (sometimes ousted), although in some places their names stuck. Examples of such developments are found in place names all over Europe (France, Hungary, Burgundy, Lombardy, Russia, Normandy etc.).


Edited by Reginmund - 17-Sep-2006 at 07:19

Heroic and cruel,uncivilized and barbarian nation,which in the beginning knew only how to kill and destroy.
I will add that bulgarians tribes as turks may not have nothing in common with turkish tribes as turks.We come in europe in 3-4century AC,you come 13 century ac.During that time Turkic tribes change very much.
Dont forget that bulgarians was also glories and heroic with a great culture.We created thr slavonic culture which now exist in most parts of EAST Europe.
    

Edited by Desimir - 17-Sep-2006 at 08:35

Chinese,and I am one of them

 

I dont want to offend modern turkish just to prove my words.Dont accept this as impudence.

Ok i am guilty,but this is what i think.

Originally posted by Turk Nomad Bulgars were Turkic but slavizied.This is genetic not a theory.What if yyou are a Turk? You are a part of Heroic nation!

Nothing is proven beyond reasonable doubt here, but the Bulgar tribes who invaded Europe were probably Turkic, an elite that was assimilated into the Slavonic populace with time, but their name remained. There is an alternative theory though, instead of writing it my own words I just copy what is written on wiki; "...there is a certain frequency of Iranian words[1] and clues about the grammar[2] which point to Iranian origin for the Bulgar language. The suporters of this newer Iranian theory claim that Bulgar language was originaly Iranian and was consecquently influenced by Turkic as a result of Hunnic military domination. They also argue that Bulgars wrote from left to right unlike the Turkic people. In support to this theory is the fact that the ancient authors always made clear difference between Turks and Bulgars. They reffered to the Bulgars as Huns, Sarmatians and Scythians but never as Turks. Until more written records become available this dispute will remain open."

Not very probable IMO, but an interesting theory nonetheless.

As for Desimir, I don't see what is so controversial about what he says. I'm not sure about those numbers he gives, still it can't be denied the Ottomans slew a lot of people in the Balkans during their invasion, in addition to the rape and pillage. It kinda reminds me of what the Bulgars did when they invaded the Byzantine Empire.

Edited by Reginmund - 17-Sep-2006 at 14:20