|
Post by oszkarthehun on Sept 16, 2010 18:03:57 GMT -5
Hit and run may have been better option, or perhaps even fighting defensive tactic waiting for the Romanians to attack.
Hungarian troops were at a disadvantage in that they lacked experienced soldiers. Much of the troops were made up of newly recruited volunteers.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Sept 15, 2010 19:11:59 GMT -5
.
That may be one motivation, but I dont think it was the only reason. Romania wanted to take its possesion and control and secure its hold over Transylvania but more than that it wanted territory in Hungary also. It wanted whatever it could get.
Secondly as pointed out in my previous post, the troops on both sides were not equal, as Hungarian troops consisted mostly of poorly trained volunteers that had hust been conscripted at the last minute.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Sept 10, 2010 21:08:31 GMT -5
whaver, whoever she is, she is a BITCH, Velika Kurva.
Dog is the most loyal animal to human beings.
At least if an animal need to be put down, it can be shown more respect especially the dog, Europeans should not behave as Arabs.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Sept 10, 2010 11:57:30 GMT -5
If you read through the article you posted it seems the Hungarians made a preemptive strike but the Romanians were already preparing for war and had already been bugging their Entente pals for permission for the Romanians to oust Hungarian authorities which sounds like they were asking for permission to attack.
Two new infantry divisions, the 16th and the 18th, were organized from Romanian soldiers previously mobilized in the Austro-Hungarian Army. On February 28, the Allied council decided to notify Hungary of the new demarcation line to which the Romanian Army would advance. The Romanian delegation at the Peace Conference in Paris requested that the Romanian Army be allowed to oust the Hungarian communists from power. Although well aware of the communist danger, the Allied council was marked by dissension between the US president Woodrow Wilson, the British prime minister David Lloyd George, and the French prime minister Georges Clemenceau about the guarantees required by France for its borders with Germany. In particular, the American delegation was convinced that French hardliners around Marshal Foch were trying to initiate a new conflict that would eventually lead to a new war, this time against Germany and the Soviet Union. Acting on these premises, the participants at the conference tried to defuse the situation in Hungary. [/b]
Aware of the Romanian preparations, the Hungarians fortified the mountain passes in their possession and launched a preemptive attack on the night between April 15th and 16th.
As is stated in your article Romanians already had battle plan to attack Hungarians on April 16th.
.
Your article implies that comparatively many of the Hungarian troops were made up of volunteers. Also much of the Hungarian army that was put together to fight in Transylvania was just a very quickly put together unit, much of it through recruitment centres in various locations it was not except for the Szekely Unit a long standing army that had trained together for any length of time, it was mostly a ragtag army of recently volunteered recruits.
to quote your article ...
Kun managed to mobilize another 60,000 in the second line by the use of recruitment centers in Oradea, Gyula, Debrecen, and Szolnok, among others. This Hungarian Army was a mix of some elite units and officers from the former Austro-Hungarian Army, and poor-quality volunteers
The Romanian battle plan was to strike with the more powerful Northern Group and take Carei and Oradea, thus separating the elite Szekely division from the rest of the Hungarian Army, made primarily of volunteers. Then the Group should proceed with the flanking of the Hungarian Army. At the same time, the Southern Group would advance only up to Radna and Beiuº, and then serve as pivot for the flanking maneuver of the Northern Group. The overall advance was to stop only at the Tisza river. The start of the offensive was planned for April 16.
We see from the above paragraph that Romanians had already planned to attack Hungarians on April 16th.
Romanians were planning to attack Hungarian authorities in Transylvania and were pressing the Entente for excuses to invade Hungary. They obviously knew Hungary was in a weakened position with unstable Government a ragtag army not to mention they had the support of the Entetnte. The French officers comments illustrate that Hungary was in a state of internal decay and instability as he said the Soviet Republic was bound to implode with or without the Romanians defeating the Hungarians.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Sept 7, 2010 9:07:04 GMT -5
I had read the wiki article in full before you posted it but it does not negate what I have said. Which is that Hungarians of the time including soldiers were in a demoralised state of dissaray, the idiot Kun had been waging red terror campaigns with his Lenin Fiu thugs throughout Hungary. In addition, a group of 200 armed men—known as the Lenin Boys—formed a mobile detachment under the leadership of József Cserny. This detachment was deployed at various locations around the country where counter-revolutionary movements were suspected to operate. The Lenin Boys, as well as other similar groups and agitators killed and terrorised many people (eg. armed with hand grenades and using their rifles' butts they disbanded religious ceremonies)[4]. They executed victims without trial[5]. This caused a number of conflicts with the local population, some of which turned violent.After a failed anti-communist coup attempt on June 24, Kun organized a response in the form of the Red Terror via the secret police, revolutionary tribunals and semi-regular detachments like Tibor Szamuely's bodyguards, the Lenin Boys. The numbers of victims were estimated to range from 370 to about 600 persons executed[5]; most sources list 590 proven killings. It has been argued that the major limiting factor on this suppression were the former Social Democrats such as József Pogány, relative moderate supports of Kun.The situation of the Hungarian Communists began to deteriorate when, after a failed coup by the Social Democrats on 24 June, the new Communist government of Antal Dovcsák resorted to large-scale reprisals. Revolutionary tribunals ordered executions of people who were suspected of having been involved in the attempted coup. This became known as the "Red Terror", and greatly reduced domestic support for the government.[/b] The Hungarian Soviet found it increasingly difficult to fight Czechoslovakia and later Romania with the small volunteer force, and support for both the war and the Communist Party were waning at home, partly due to the most dedicated Communists having volunteered for combat.The Soviet government lasted for 133 days, falling on August 1, 1919. The Soviet Republic had been formed to resist the Vix Note, and created the Hungarian Red Army to do so. Given the disparity in power between Hungary and the Allies, Hungarian chances for victory were slim at best. To buy time, Kun tried to negotiate with the Allies, meeting the South African Prime Minister, General Jan Smuts at a summit in Budapest in April. Agreement proved impossible, and Hungary was soon at war later in April with the Kingdom of Romania and Czechoslovakia, both aided by France. The Hungarian Red Army achieved some success against the Czechoslovaks, taking much of Slovakia by June.
However, the Hungarians were repeatedly defeated by the Romanians. By the middle of July 1919, Kun decided to stake everything on an offensive against the Romanians. The Allied Commander in the Balkans, the French Marshal Louis Franchet d'Esperey wrote to Marshal Ferdinand Foch on July 21, 1919: "We are convinced that the Hungarian offensive will collapse of its own accord... When the Hungarian offensive is launched, we shall retreat to the line of demaracation, and launch the counteroffensive from that line. Two Romanian brigades will march from Romania to the front in the coming days, according to General Fertianu's promise. You, see, Marshal, we have nothing to fear from the Hungarian army. I can assure you that the Hungarian Soviets will last no more than two or three weeks. And should our offensive not bring the Kun regime down, its untenable internal situation surely will[6]. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9la_Kun
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Sept 6, 2010 21:07:07 GMT -5
Hungarians in general felt demoralised and in a state of dissaray during that time, as most people did not support a communist Government. Many people and ex officers joined the fight not in support of Bela Kun's regime but only in defense of Hungarian territories. Nevertheless Hungary was outnumbered all together as it was fighting on 3 fronts. Therefore, Romanian troops invaded Hungary on April 16. The army of the Czech-Slovak Republic joined up and launched an attack from the North. Within days the Romanians had occupied Nagyvarad, and in a week they had reached Debrecen. while Czech troops occupied Miskolc. The Allied forces were outnumbering the Hungarian troops three to one. On the south, the Yugoslav troops numbered 20-30,000 men; in the east, the Romanians had 20-30,000 men (not mentioning the 20-30,000 French back-up army); in the north the Czechs had around 20-25,000 soldiers.
During this period, when the patriotism of the Hungarian officers and soldiers produced military victories, the communist dictatorship of the proletariat created more and more dissatisfaction in the different segments of the Hungarian population./15/ In many p1aces, civilians and soldiers in the countryside and in the army began to organize an uprising to overthrow the repressive governmentwww.hungarian-history.hu/lib/thou/thou11.htmAs for Hungarians History in Warfare and Battle, we dont need to listen to AofG's hateful rants. Magyars dominated and held the Carpathian basin for several hundred years when they arrived, no one could take it from them, on top of that they simultaneously attacked western europe for 100 years. In the revolt against Hapsburgs they gave the Austrians a hard time and simultaneously defeated the Croats who waged war against them. Many Hungarian Hussar regiments were brought into the Great Prussian Army and were renowned for their abilities. Hussars and famous Hungarian Hussar Generals also fought in American War of Independance and were celebrated for their abilities. And as for our friend AofG branding Hungary a loser nation, well well well, lets see what is Romania known for prostitutes and criminals in Italy(there Roman Italian brothers hehe want to kick them out of Italy) and criminals and prostitutes all over Europe, and Britain not to mention major internal corruption, and I could go on but I wont bother.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Sept 4, 2010 17:47:29 GMT -5
Later in the 13th century, King Charles I of Hungary attempted to expand his realm and the influence of the Roman Catholic Church eastwards after the fall of Cuman rule, and ordered a campaign under the command of Phynta de Mende (1324). In 1342 and 1345, the Hungarians were victorious in a battle against Tatars; the conflict was resolved by the death of Jani Beg, in 1357. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldavia#Historical_population Your rantings here have nothing to do with the points that were made in my post, which were regarding the claim that Anittas made about Romanians being natives to Transylvaia and Pannonia. but as for your rantings the Romanians only gradually increased their population and habitats in Transylvania as they were invited to work for Hungarian landowners throughout the region. Of course this invitation would only later come back to haunt the Hungarians of Transylvania. You like to believe this. Actually few years back I read a history book about Romania and the Romanian soldiers in either 1st or 2nd WW were reffered to by their allies as women in uniform, this apparently had something to do with their performance and abilities on the battlefield. Of course Hungarians fought in Hunyadi"s army, his main elite troops were Szekely. One of his loyal generals was a Hungarian. Dezboy and Ioan are correct, your posts are coming from purely pro Romanian rantings. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_HunyadiAt his own expense, he restocked the supplies and arms of the fortress, leaving in it a strong garrison under the command of his brother-in-law Mihály Szilágyi and his own eldest son László Hunyadi. He proceeded to form a relief army, and assembled a fleet of two hundred ships. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_HunyadiAs for Bulgaria Hungary has no beef with them. Many years back Magyars and Bulgars were close allies at other times on a few occasions they also fought against each other, but at the end of the day there is no bad blood.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Sept 1, 2010 9:12:06 GMT -5
I personally had been talking about the injustice of Trianon in the sense of borders being drawn poorly and unfairly and Hungary losing certain land that still had Hungarian majoritys in certain parts of the respective newly extended Trianon countries.
The area had been under Cuman rule and Hungarians fought against Tatars there and defeated them then later Vlachs pushed back Hungarians there, but what the fack does that have to do with Trianon.
Its without certainty as to whom held authority over Transylvania when Hungarians arrived. It seems situation was not the same throughout the region, meaning probably certain regions were very sparsley populated and ready to be easily inhabited whilst various other areas had varying and possibly independant populations of differing peoples eg Slavs,Bulgarians,Vlachs,Cumans,Kabars. At least the old chronicles paint such a picture. Hence its very difficult to say whom held an ethnic majority at that exact time. Certain Hungarian tribes started inhabiting certain parts of Transylvania as the Hungarians were entering Carpathians. Transylvania similiar to Pannonia had been a revolving door, historically various peoples are listed as being there or having some authority there. Once more we have the situation of population shift and populations shifting. Vlachs were gradually changing there habitats as were the Hungarians, so I dont necessarily buy some story that says Vlachs had historically inhabited all the land throughout Transylvania and hence it historically belonged to them or they had more right to it.
This is a very old well worn argument but it is not without holes as there is no absolute evidence that todays Romanians were the natives of Transylvania, there is as much or more chance that they gradually moved north from more well known Vlach lands. Not to mention Romanians gained political power via unions with Cumans.
Michael the Brave was initially aided, supported and in league with Hapsburgs. Hungary was a Kingdom since 1000AD way before Austro-Hungaria.
Anyway if you have read my posts I have not personally demanded a complete return of Hungary's lost territory. I have highlited the unfair and injust way that Trianon borders were drawn, in this sense it can be said I take a revisionist stance on the issue. As I have said in my oppinion any territory that maintained Hungarian majority should not have been included within the borders of those newly expanded countries.
If no one cares then why have certain Romanian Politicians tried to remove Hungarian historical monuments from certain Transylvania towns.
how do we inflate it ?
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 31, 2010 20:09:22 GMT -5
You didnt really take land more like it was given . 1919 is something else Hungary was on its knees already, stories of Romanians looting half of Budapest is what you are known for in that time.
Perhaps you had some right to certain areas where you had historical majorities but the amount of land you got and also the amount of land other Trianon countries got in areas where there was still Hungarian majorities you did not have the right.
Hungary wasnt Ottomans in the Balkans , Hungarian Kingdom was granted and recognised by Christian Pope. Hungarian Royalties intermarried with and entwined with European Royalties. As Dezboy pointed out Hungary became and contributed to European culture. Hungary is one of the oldest nations in Europe. Anyway I dont see a logic in your argument, being that just because you were somewhere in Europe that hence this automatically gives you more entitlement to Pannonia, Transylvania etc. Actually there is a theory that FinnoUgric people are originally geographically from Europe and predated Indo Europeans.
After 1000 years , older than many big nations like USA,Australia etc, I think Hungarians are well and trully and have been for long time Europeans. There are in reality only a minority of Hungarians that would say otherwise, and such people are living in some state of disillusion. If anyone doesnt believe me simply look at genetic data for Hungarians and its clear they are predominantly European.
If that were true then it would be you to blame that it wasnt united and organised under any stable authority or Kingdom to protect it from invaders, that it wasnt fortified, wasnt progressing in sync with rest of Europe. Hungary achieved that and held it for thousand years and more, so who looked after the land better ?
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 31, 2010 2:59:42 GMT -5
sorry but there is no certainty of this. We can say with probability that some of the tribal elements were Turkic/Turanic, but there is no evidence Hungarians as a whole or majority were Turkic/Turanic. Linguistically Hungarians do not speak a Turkic language.
you are one person we cannot take how you speak as a representative of a language.
most languages have changed over time. in any case professional linguists from a cross section of ethnic backgrounds do not tend to accept Hungarian as being Turkic language.
Hungarians most likely did not originate from Slavs but without question they assimilated many Slavs this may have started to occur even before they entered Carpathians as it is written they had Slav slaves that they were selling somewhere near Black Sea, considering they had already encounterd Slavs and keeping them as Slaves its not strange to imagine they kept some of the beautiful Slav girls as their wives and produced children with them.
Studies show that Hungarians have 35% Slav stock in them. Its impossible to know what was the afterflow of those previous Avars and Huns. But it is written than many Avars mixed with southern Slavs most likely the Croats. Another idea is that part of the Hungarians had arrived in Carpathians earlier than Arpads Magyars , some say that these Hungarians were mistakenly reffered to as the second group of Avars.
Ottoman Turks were Muslims not Shamanists. We cannot conclude that Hungarians originated in the Altay, although it may be possible certain tribal elements such as Khazar/Kabars or their ancestors may have.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 31, 2010 2:30:05 GMT -5
really, how long did it take for Italy to become a nation let alone Romania.
For the most part it didnt try to assimilate other people, the Magyarisation ideas started around the same time national consciuosness and nationalism erupted all throughout Europe.
Actually from early on many peoples from East and West (Jasz,Cumans,Germans,Italians,Greeks,Armenians,Slavs,Luxembourgers, etc) came in droves to Hungary and many self assimilated whilst certain others remained for long times as minorities.
For example one of Hungarys most famous nationalist Poet and Freedom fighter Petofi Sandor was of Serb and Slovak extraction but willingly called himself a Magyar a Hungarian.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 30, 2010 23:12:15 GMT -5
The distance issue is no that important, you were trying to present the Hungarians as foreigners, but try to pretend that Vlachs weren't foreigners when they roamed or travelled with others into different lands. Vlachs were moving around a lot too, maybe not as far as Hungarians had moved but the idea that Romanians had some historical land claim on Hungary,Pannonia or Transylvania just because they were historically somewhere in Europe is kind of ridiculous. Actually there is no consistant proof or evidence that Hungarians originated near Mongolia. Exactly... Vlachs were not foreigners to the lands because they roamed the lands that were previously held by the Roman Empire and by their Thracian brothers. Roaming around does not make you rightous owner of any land, not necessarily even a native.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 30, 2010 20:38:02 GMT -5
In those days, to move from south of Danube to north of Danube is like moving today from Republic of Moldova to Romania. You guys, on the other hand, moved from somewhere near Mongolia. That's a long journey and it didn't benefit the local population. Besides, there were Latin-speaking population in Pannonia, along with the Slavs. The distance issue is no that important, you were trying to present the Hungarians as foreigners, but try to pretend that Vlachs weren't foreigners when they roamed or travelled with others into different lands. Vlachs were moving around a lot too, maybe not as far as Hungarians had moved but the idea that Romanians had some historical land claim on Hungary,Pannonia or Transylvania just because they were historically somewhere in Europe is kind of ridiculous. Actually there is no consistant proof or evidence that Hungarians originated near Mongolia.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 30, 2010 20:20:02 GMT -5
What rightfull owners ?
The Pannonia region had an inconsistant and unstable shifting landlords and peoples for the past near 500 years or more before the Hungarians arrived.
Do you think the Slavs and Moravians were autochenous there ?, no they came from somewhere else, before them Avars, Huns,Gepids, Romans,Celts,Scythians. You are not talking about an area like perhaps certain areas in Anatollia or middle east that had previously same well established ethnic culture for like 2 to 3 thousand years.
Anyway the Hungarian Kingdom was granted and recognised by a European Christian Pope in 1000AD it was a legitimate European recognised Kingdom. It had been already a legitimate European Kingdom foe nearly a thousand years when Trianon tore it to pieces. As for Transylvania it wasnt ethnically consistant either, Slavs-Bulgarians, Cumans, Khazars, Vlahs, Gepids, Dacians.
Nor is there any evidence that Transylvania was densly populated at the time of the Hungarian arrival it was likely sparsely populated.
This was the Romanian designed propaganda established to psychologically deal with what was obviously a very generous war booty land grant and included areas where there was not consistant or historical Romanian populations, or connection to certain historical Urban areas/towns.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 30, 2010 20:00:14 GMT -5
Hungarians are Hungarians always were if they were really so much Pan Turanist as you say they would be speaking Turkic by now but they chose to keep their Hungarian language and they dont understand Turkic language at all.
Hungarians have some Turanic history I dont even think they were originally or ever completly Turanic, it was just an element in their ethnogenesis.
Hungarians are Hungarians how can they be anything else. At the time of the Magyar Settlement most of the Indo Europeans in Pannonia at the time were Slavs. Turks refers to Ottoman Turks of Turkey who are predominantly a racially mixed bunch also. I dont regard Hungarians as Turks as they dont speak Turkish/Turkic and they are not Muslims and they fought against the Turks. Hungarians have their own specific history they are Hungarians and cannot be simply lumped in with some other group.
The very few Hungarians that may regard themselves as Turks or Turkic in my oppinion dont understand history.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 29, 2010 23:39:44 GMT -5
Hungarians are not Jihadi's.
Why should Vlachs care , those predominantly Slavs that were in Pannonia are now the ancestors of Magyars. Otherwise it was a land that was sparsely inhabited.
Anyway the settlement of the Magyars probably didnt stop transient shepherds wondering through, so what are you complaining about. Plus I havn't said it was an injustice when your people moved north from Macedonia and parts of Bulgaria and Northern Serbia.
Injustice ? when Hungary became an organised Kingdom peoples from everywhere flocked there in droves, in fact the region had probably never previously done so well.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 28, 2010 20:24:35 GMT -5
sorry but this does not excuse poor and injust drawing of borders and new countries taking in territory that still has ethnic majority of previous nation.
Hapsburgs wanted to control Hungary and eastern Europe that much is clear, hence there actions and motives can be percieved as suspect.
After the French revolution and leading up to turn of century nationalism and national consciusness erupted right across Europe into Russia and even Anatolia, of course this new wave of consciousness and mentality had an impact on minorities views and actions as well as Magyars.
Yes I would agree Hungary could in hinsight handled certain things better but considering climate of the times its no guarantee that they wouldnt have faced same or similiar problems in the end , everything did not depend on Hungary.
In the end despite your satirical comments , I believe in Trianon for sure an injustice was done to Hungary as a result of overly generous reassignments of territory to other countries , in which Hungary lost much land that still had Hungarian majority.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 26, 2010 5:06:19 GMT -5
I knew this had something to do with Azeri's issues with Karabakh as soon as I read title of thread. Hasanov could not be more incorrect, Karabakh is historically Armenian through and through. "Lowland and Highland Karabakh populated with various Caucasian tribes were conquered by Armenians in the second century B.C. and organized as the Artsakh province of the Kingdom of Armenia. However, it is possible that the region had earlier been part of Orontid Armenia from the fourth to second centuries B.C.[9] After the 387 A.D. partition of Armenia, it passed to the kingdom of Caucasian Albania. The Arab invasions later led to the rise of several Armenian princes who came to establish their dominance in the region. In the 15th century the German traveler Johann Schiltberger toured Lowland Karabakh and described it as a large and beautiful plain in Armenia.[11] Highland Karabakh (Russian: Nagorno-Karabakh) or Artsakh was from 821 until the early nineteenth century ruled by the Armenian House of Khachen and its several lines, the latter Melikdoms of Karabakh." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KarabakhAzerbaijan to support Serbia in UN, Slovakia is against recognizing Kosovo Azerbaijan will vote in favor of Serbia's Kosovo resolution during the upcoming UN General Assembly session, Ambassador to Serbia Eldar Hasanov said for Belgrade daily Danas. Slovakia's Foreign Minister Mikulas Dzurinda said that his country is against recognizing Kosovo. (KosovoCompromise Staff) Tuesday, August 24, 2010 The envoy also said that a considerable number of Islamic countries will follow suit and support the Serbian draft. As the UN General Assembly meets in New York on September 9, Azerbaijan's own resolution, concerning its secessionist region of Nagorno-Karabakh, will be first up for vote. Hasanov told the newspaper that there were similarities between Kosovo and Nagorno-Karabakh, as both Serbia and Azerbaijan have had their territorial integrity and sovereignty violated. The ambassador noted that his country supports initiatives to solve the issue peacefully, and explains that the territory is "historically Azerbaijani, occupied by Armenian forces". Hasanov noted that his country was convinced that international law, territorial integrity, inviolability of borders and sovereignty of his county would be respected, and added that Baku will "never allow for the territory to remain occupied". "We support Serbia's position within the UN and other international organizations, as we did at the International Court of Justice. We believe that Serbia's stance on Kosovo is completely right. A large number of countries will on September 9 support Azerbaijan's position. I hope the same will be true of Serbia's. Belgrade will be supported at the UN by a considerable number of Islamic countries," the ambassador concluded. The daily's sources in Belgrade also said that Serbia will work to convince a number of primarily Islamic countries that will support Azerbaijan's draft, to, for principled reasons, support the next item on the agenda: Serbia's Kosovo resolution. Slovakia's Foreign Minister Mikulas Dzurinda said that his country is against recognizing Kosovo. He also stressed that the "unilateral secessions is not in the interest of Europe". "If Serbs now feel cheated, I can understand that," Dzurinda told Austrian daily Die Presse, recalling that UN SC Resolution 1244, that ended the 1999 war over the province, envisages only a substantial autonomy for Kosovo.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 25, 2010 19:28:52 GMT -5
Generally speaking I think tatoos look a bit cheap on women. You see these days so many beautiful girls then suddenly you see they have a tatoo maybe in one way it can look a bit hot or sexy but ultimatly I think it looks cheap and its permanent not like an article of clothing she can wear for one day then change. Tatoos in my oppinion on the human body can never be high class look. I have similiar feelings about body piercings, actually I dont care that much if someone has or doesnt but these days piercings and tatoos are soooooooooo common that its practically more original to not have either. At different times I have considered to get a tatoo, but never got around to it and now I am quite happy not to bother, too expensive and too common. What do you guys think of tattoos and piercings on men and women? Is there anything particular you think looks good on people? Do you have any tattoos and piercings yourselves? I love tattoos on men, especially on their arms, chests and backs. But I HATE piercings on guys! Any kind of piercing! I think it's way too feminine, no man can carry them and look masculine, in my opinion. I think piercings look great on women, though there are some kinds I detest completely - like eyebrow and nose piercings. Tattoos...hmmm...tattoos can look good on girls, it just depends on the design and the location... Myself, I have 3 tattoos, and am getting my 4th one done in a month's time. I used to have some body piercings but I've taken them all out now, and only have my ears pierced at this point (4 in one ear, 3 in the other).
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 19, 2010 22:48:01 GMT -5
1) Hungary is not an island of Turks in Europe, actually comparitively there are not that many Turks in Hungary, much more Turks in Austria and Germany and other European countries. 2) Turanism ? situation the article describes is more to do with Islamic countries showing solidarity for other islamic countries. 3) In any case modern Turkey doesnt represent historical Turanism as Turanistic peoples were pre Islamic and had their own religion, modern Turkey/Turks bear many influences and especially Arabesque and Persian influences and Islamic influences this has little to do with historical Turanism, little to do with most of Europe and little to do with Hungary. You seem to be quite misguided. Your favor goes to the fellow Muslis eh? Not because you actually believe in what you say. You are not even an ethnic Hungarian. The Hungarians are not Turks. They are Ugro-Finnic people. Their language is related to those of Estonians and Finns. The fact that they were steppe people doesn't make them turks (same case with Bulgars). Plus the Turks brought disaster to them as well in Middle Ages. You should know this since you have been in Hungary for quite some time. Shame on you. The Indo-Europeans were dwelling in Asia also. The mummies found by the Chinese proves it. The Chinese refer to the Huns as "Red-headed devils and centaurs with scarry light eyes". The tribes of Sarmatians spread far east in the past. They were white people - tall and strong. The Turks on the other hand are Mongoloid - and I don't refer to our wannabee Turks in modern Turkey which have nothing to do genetically with the real Turkic people.
|
|