turks and etruscans are TRO�AN?

No.  Lydian is closer to Hittite (perhaps Hittite-derived) then to Luwian.  For instance, the Hittite prince Madduwattash bears a name similar to that of Lydian kings such as Sadyattes and Alyattes.  The Lydian Heraclid king (Hellenized form) Myrsilus bears a name like that of the Hittite king Murshilish.  The irony is that classical Lydia seems to have been where Hittite-era Arzawa was, considering the equivalence of Arzawan Apasas with classical Ephesus. 

Of those peoples identified as "Sea Peoples" two names stand out as probably being Greek peoples, the Akawasha and the Daniuna.  What the Egyptians called the Akawasha is probably the same as what the Hittites called the Ahhiyawa.  In Hittite records they were at times a thorn in their side in western Anatolia as well as on friendly and intimate terms.  They have been identified with the Akhaiwoi as Homer would call the Greeks in their war with Troy.  One of the Ahhiyawan kings, by the name of Attarshiyash bears a name resembling that of king Atreus of Mycenae, and a "brother" of the king of Ahhiyawa by the name of Tawagalawas bears a name similar to that of a name in Mycenaean Greek known as Etewoklewes, the classical name, Eteocles.  It is generally agreed on now that this name is probably that of the Mycenaean Greeks.  The other name, Daniuna, resembles that of the name Danaioi, a name of the Argives, as well as another name of the Greeks in the Illiad.  The Egyptians were aware of the Greeks at least since the 16th century BC having referred to their land as either Haunebu or Danaya.  These two names probably referred to the same people in that in an earlier "Sea People" incursion, in the time of the Egyptian king Merneptah (c. 1232 BC), the list of the confederates mentioned the Akawasha but not the Daniuna, but in the later invasion in the time of king Rameses III (c. 1191 BC), the Daniuna are mentioned but not the Akawasha. 

Other "Sea Peoples" seem to denote either Anatolian peoples like the Lukka, "Lycians" and the Tursha (Hittite, Taruisha), "Trojans" or Aegean peoples such as the Shekelesh "Sicilians", and the Sherden, "Sardinians" at a time when they still had not as yet migrated to the islands named after them. 

Yes, as a matter of fact, the Heraclid Dynasty of Lydia is sometimes called the Sandonid Dynasty.

Heracles also served the Queen of Lydia.  Since we know that Lydian was not Greek, more than one answer can suffice.  There were either official interpreters to make Heracles and each of his listeners understand each other, or Heracles knew how to speak Luwian, or both Priam and Omphale knew how to speak Greek.  The Hittites were known to have intimate ties with the royalty of the Achaeans.  There is even a mention of members of the Hittite royal family riding chariots with the nobility of the Achaeans.  How did they understand each other?  Luwian was probably the lingua franca of western Anatolia, and we know that the Hittites kept Luwian texts.  Since the Hittites regarded the Achaeans as equal to themselves in terms of political power, but possessed most of Anatolia, any of the above situations may have occurred. 

It seems kind of weird for people to try to claim a history of a people who are no longer around. I have a Italian backround, but does that make me Roman, a Samnite, or even a Etruscan? Even if one of my ancestors were from one of these groups, the genetics passed on is so small I really couldn't claim the history of the people. My blood is very mixed, even Native American, which I don't claim any of their history, it's nice to know I had a ancestor that was one of these great people.

By the logic shown here, that Turks are Trojans because they occupy the land, wouldn't that also make all Americans, Native Americans?

And wasn't Troy just a city, so do we actually know the genetics of the Trojans? So many groups of people moved through that area that their lineage could be just wiped out.

It's been the dominant theory lately but if new paleogentic studies contradict it at least partly, we should reconsider, don't you think?

Rome was originally a group of three villages of Latins and Sabines (they were gathered by Etruscans, who drained the forum). Latins, whose early capital was Alba Longa, were a tiny people among several other Italic tribes of IE language. It's been assumed that the these Italic peoples, including Latins, Samnites, Umbrians, Veneti and others, came from Central Europe in the Late Bronze Age (c. 1350 BCE, according to Wikipedia) replacing or rather dominating other pre-IE native peoples.

I actually don't know and I don't think it's important. You go to Rome now and you will surely find many blondes. The most clearly Mediterranean part of Italy is the south, while the North is quite Alpinic, with plenty of fair types. The center is somehow intermediate. It was surely that way in the Roman period. If Latins came originally from the North, it's likely that the elite were somehow fairer than the average Roman but this is just an speculation.

The settlement of Italian Peninsula by Etruscans is in 900- 800 BC in this web:http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ROME/ETRUSCAN.HTM

Trojan War is in 1184 BC. So  can we say that Enets and Trojans had gone to Italy earlier than Etrucans?

Not quite. You suggested, between the lines, that the Anatolian hypothesis is emphasized by the alphabet, while the passage (and what we know generally) points out in the most resolute way that the Etruscan alphabet was adopted by Chalkidean (that is Greek) settlers/traders when they made contact with the Etruscans in late 8th, early 7th century.

I am aware of that. Meaning, that any migration should have occured rather in the 14th century BC ...not very likely, wouldn't you agree?

You are ommiting the close ties to Rhaetian (a central European tongue) and to the southern Italian tongue it also resembbles. So, certainly, it either implies a much more wide connection, or something we can't quite figure out right now. Also, the whole Lemnian thingy is kind of vague and quite puzzling. We have only one single finding of that language and that has actually not been translated anyway! By the phonetic transliteration of the text, it seems to bear some resemblance to the Etruscan language, but again one single finding can be interpreted in various other ways that presuming that a host of native people spoke that language. Lemnos though was hellenized in historical times (late 6th century BC by the Athenians) and the inscription comes from the mid 6th century (so it certainly cannot be linked to any "trojan migration" or whatever theory).

The Minoan culture - one I know extremely very well, since it's my homelands ancient history - bears no resemblance to the Etruscan culture at all. Also, if you go as far as link the Anatolians to the Etruscans, you should notice that Anatolian cultures have very, very little in common with their contemporary Minoan and Aegean cultures and that they were a notably patriarchical society. Actually, the Etruscans were a patriarchical society as well. The whole non-Aryan mitriarchy is seriously flawed generally and I think it's mostly wishful thinking on behalf of some archeologists and ethnologists, than anything close to reality. The position of the woman in Minoan Crete is no different than any Doric society - from what we know, of course. The Ionian Greeks, yes, those had not much high esteem for their women. Not the Dorians though. What does that prove? That Dorians are in reality pre-Greeks? I'd say the Minoan culture bears more resemblance than anything to the two cultures it had strong ties with: Egyptian and Myceanean.

There is no actual proof of a mass migration from the North in the Greek world, period. No proof at all. Not even linguistic proof. The whole IE invasion theory is based on vague premises and flawed hypothesis and a linguistic link that can be explained in many other ways than the "invasion theories". The modern archeology speaks about cultural continuity in the Aegean basin and surrounding areas from the 6th millenia BC and on, right up to the classical times. Small-scale migration surely has occured, but nothing as massive or as devastating as the IE thing.

As I said before the title of the topic is misleading: Turks, understood as Turkic-speaking people, only exist in Anatolia since about 1000 years back in time. Yet they are gentically descendants mostly of the native peoples of Anatolia, including Trojans.

A much better title for this topic would be ETRUSCANS WERE TROJANS, or something in this line.

There are a lot of Italians with blonde or fair hair, specially in the North. Notice that Latins (at least their elites: the Patricians) had arrived to the region rather recently (c. 1300 BCE), probably from Bavaria and Austria.

Anyhow, there are many Greek and Turks with fair features. Black hair and Mediterranean type is dominant but by no means exclussive. Anatolia is also a mixed region.

Anyhow, how do you know that Augustus had blonde hair? Most Roman mosaics (which, unlike statues, have color) depict rather dark haired peoples, the same happens with Etruscans.

It could well be if you mean Roman Patrician blood. Yet, you should find and post the relevant study, as Alkiviades did. Else, I will keep thinking it's a Hollywod myth.

I'm not starting a flame war here, but it seems everytime I go on these forums another nationalitity seems to become Turk. How wide is the genetics considered for Turks, because it seems like it's becoming half of the world...

As for Romans to be Italian, one of the most famous Romans Augustus has blonde hair. Are there alot of Turks with blonde hair? I'm serous about this question, not asking this in a offensive way to start a flame war. I mean Romans were a lighter skin tone from what I understand, and from what people tell me Roman blood is pretty much non-existant in Italy now from all the genetics that came in.