>spent 500 years LARPing as an Arab Islamic Caliphate
This is factually wrong. The Ottomans never pretended to be Arab. The first time they proclaimed to be Caliphs was in 1326, before the Ottoman empire even had any Arab lands. Then in 1517, when Selim I captured Jerusalem, Medina and Mecca, the Ottoman claim was actually legitimised as the Sultan was turned into the custodian of the Holy Cities.
To say they were "LARP'ing" is pathetic. They held all of the Holy Cities. They might have been "LARP'ing" in 1326, but not after 1517.
>adopted latin script and started LARPing as Europeans
The European script was adopted because it fits Turkic languages better, as Arabic is inefficient when it comes to the multitude of vowels you encounter in Turkish (Arabic uses diacritics for vowels). Hell, just a few days ago the Kazakhs switched from Cyrillic to Latin for the same reason.
Besides, the Latin script is LATIN. The Romans ruled over Anatolia, and didn't over the vast majority of Europe. To call the Latin script "European" is anachronistic idiocy.
>convinced themselves they are chinks from central asia and started larping as Pan-Turanists
The Ottomans were Turkic. So were the Seljuqs before them. Turks speak a Turkic language as a result of these conquests. This make them a Turkic by definition (look up the definition of "Turkic"), that's a fact. The French speak a Romance language because of Roman occupation, before that the Gauls spoke a Celtic language. Still, the French are part of the "Romance/Latin peoples" nowadays.
>started claiming they are actually natives of Anatolia descended from Hittites
You do realise that admixture is a thing, right? People can be (and ARE) descendants of multiple different groups. You, as an Australian mongrel, should know that better than most.
Besides, you seem to get upset at the notion that Turks identify themselves with Turkic peoples, but also with native Anatolians. You seem butthurt in general.