Nationalism and secularism

[kılıç_mehmet]

Meh, I don't see land as something that someone can really own...

I think that you still don't understand the concept. If nationalism was something based on "land", I could lay claim on each and every territory on which we have owned once upon a time... It's a concept based on the notion, as it's name implies, of the nation. The nation, unless it specifically implies on a specific relationship between the land and people(like the British, a name derived from the island, not the case in which the people have given the name to the island.), is something that goes beyond present boundaries.

The Kurds, and their ancestors, have been in the middle east longer than the Turks. The Kurds have been there since at least the 9th Century C.E, in places like Al-Mawsil, whereas Turks didn't come to the area till the early 11th Century C.E.

Oh? And how does it come that they never had a political entity that went beyond the simple tribal chiefdom throughout their so-long period in the middle east?
Besides, I didn't say that they didn't have a longer presence in the middle east, I just said that they lacked the presence in present day Turkey.
The average armenian or greek can lay more historical claim than the kurd on that accord, as there was an Armenian kingdom in present day *Kurdistan* and Alexander's empire stretched as wide as Central Asia, and his successor states, the Seleukids, than, the Romans and etc.

There also was an Achmeanid and Sassanid presence there, however the kurds seem to think that they are a different entity from the Persians(which they most certainly are, judging by the huge cultural gap between the two people, the kurds are barely qualified to lay claim on anything at all), so I will assume that their claims to the Medes and *other mesopotamian peoples* are false, and the Kurds are nothing more than what they appear to be today, as they did, the first moment we came across them. A gypsy form of armenoid persian.

The Turks originate from central Asia, or Turan as you call it, and the Kurds have a range of ancestors including Medes and various Mesopotamian peoples. They have as much of a right to this land as you do.

Their rights and claims are null and void.

There's a surprising amount of Turks living in Germany. Are you going claim that as part of Turan aswell?

Do we present an overwhelming majority there? No. Is Germany a place we historically have called "our home"?
No. So why should we? But Anatolia is indeed a part of Turan. It was our primary base of operations from which we have launched invasions towards Europe, Africa and the Middle-East, for a millenia.
It is rightfully, and legitimately ours. Both in spirit, and on paper.

Besides, I have already stated that the homelands of the Kurds are not in Anatolia, but further in the east. What good does their historical claims, which are false, do for them? What good did it do for the Greeks?
It cost them their presence in Anatolia since Antiquity, I mind you, Antiquity. The same Greeks who have built the magnificent Temple of Artemis and the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, are no more. There are none to be found, at all.
Who are the Kurds, who are not able to erect a building larger than the simplest of houses?