Non-Pashtuns independance?

[Albani_Rahmat_Kabulzada]

the persain lovers kings never represnted the true pashtunyath.
They were born to iranian mums so their loyality was not with us.That was the main reason they adopted persain.
you are scared of pashtun unity.Pakistani is not a nation.It was created just 60 years ago.You and many other parsiwasn use the pakistani for pashtun cus you scared of lar aw bar unity .

All after Dost Muhammad were pure Pashtuns. That they spoke Dari than because of the language´s dominance and role in history and in the region. So easy. Just need to think a bit further. They were Dari-speaker but also tried to harm and diminish Dari. They were not succesful. One can not kill a language that has a very long history and deep roots.

[Shayesta]

The first time the word Afghan appeard was for 1000 years ago in udud-ul-alam.

Have you got sources for this claim, please? And could you also clarify which language we were speaking back then?

Before that therer were words that were in use for tribal people of India and the sulaiman mountains.

Like what? Paktians? Paktian is possibly the oldest naming for Pukhtoons, so where did that come from?

Modern Pashtuns are not similar as the anicent. Modern Pashtuns are a confederacy of many different people with different origin.

Nor is Persian a 'pure' race, even there many invaders and immigrants are included. Persia was in fact more of an empire rather than a race.

Invaders and native people. Be they Indians, Arabs, original Pashtuns or whatever.

And now one last question, to which I want an answer with sources as well, how did we land in those lands we currently reside at? And what happened to the Suleiman Mountains now?

[Michin Khel]

@shayesta
Suleiman mountains are in north-west balochistan which comprise of pashtun areas....albani is correct, pashtuns are originated from sulieman mountains.

[Shayesta]

^ How big is the area, name some known places of that area, how many Pukhtoons live there and according to which language and culture do they live there? Also, how did they land in areas like Kandahar, Pekhawer, Swat and etcetera and since when?

[Michin Khel]

zhob, loralai, dera bugti, ziarat, qila abdullah, qila saifullah etc...this whole area is adjacent to kandahar province of afghanistan, . And pashtuns there are kakars, achakzais, mandokhels, tareens, jafars etc...culture wise they are close to afghanistan than KP , their population is making half of balochistan

[ScimitarXEdge]

right ... and you base that on a CIA agent's account of how gay he was...then you try to tell others not to take guidance from imperialists.

"Which I myself don't believe actually applies..." but said it anyway...way to rationalize it Makhmood.

I said it because this Shayesta/Kabulzada debate ...reminded me of this joke because this Kabulzada guy is clearly a Tajik Nationalist trying to promote his cause and Shayesta is clearly wiping the floor with the guy.

The guy is even MAKING Up histories just to save face.

if I was somehow in favoritism of Pashtuns, I wouldn't ridicule the phony Pashtun Nationalists similarly.

[Albani_Rahmat_Kabulzada]

Shaysta, this will be my last comment on you. After this I will ignore you

You are proud deating 16 000 members of the British Empire in South-East Asia. The main things that make you proud is the figure 16 000 and British .... that you could kill (massacre). But you have not the honour and guts to inform yourself who does ''16 000 members of the British'' were really. You think you really have defeated your past masters but you are not able to see how reality looks like. All your pride is based on a fake story, on a fake myth that Pashtun nationalists propagated in the 20s and 30s of the last century. They never mention who those massacred ''16000 members of the British were'' ... let´s break here for a short some teeths. You were killing 12 000 civilians, family members of the british officiers in India, their women, daughters, sons, children, parents, their servants .... From 16 000 only ca. 4000 were among them who were poorly armed in a very very very very deep winter. The entire colone wanted just to pass Jalalabad and arrive in Islamabad. Pashtuns promised them that they will leave them in peace. What happend? They broke once again a promise as they did it against the Timurids, Mughals, Safavids, Sayyids, Tughlaqs ... Ca. 30 000 to 45 000 tribesmen from the hills killed and massacred. The same number was not able to defeat at the battle of Malakand 100 British soldiers who were good armed with their two mashine guns. That is what your pride is based on. Unfortunately, you think with the Anglo-Afghan'' term it means you defeated an empire. In no book that ever was written by a Pashtun there will you find any mentions of civilians... only ''british soldiers'' ... be proud of it.

Here the sources not that you again claim I just falsify history
Op-Ed Contributor - The Ghosts of Gandamak - NYTimes.com
Conflict in Afghanistan, p. 83
An encyclopedia of battles, p. 214
Newsvine - Pakistani jets pound militant stronghold in Waziristan!!Why Pakistan needs to bomb its own land?

I would not wonder if you are still proud or would call the some refereces of thousand as a ''ghali'', ''shia'', ''anti-Afghan'', ''Qazali'' lol propaganda. This was my last post to you. For more information on issue you can also visit encyclopedia Britannica or Encyclopedia Islamic. Have a nice day.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Shaysta, this will be my last comment on you. After this I will ignore you

You are proud deating 16 000 members of the British Empire in South-East Asia. The main things that make you proud is the figure 16 000 and British .... that you could kill (massacre). But you have not the honour and guts to inform yourself who does ''16 000 members of the British'' were really. You think you really have defeated your past masters but you are not able to see how reality looks like. All your pride is based on a fake story, on a fake myth that Pashtun nationalists propagated in the 20s and 30s of the last century. They never mention who those massacred ''16000 members of the British were'' ... let´s break here for a short some teeths. You were killing 12 000 civilians, family members of the british officiers in India, their women, daughters, sons, children, parents, their servants .... From 16 000 only ca. 4000 were among them who were poorly armed in a very very very very deep winter. The entire colone wanted just to pass Jalalabad and arrive in Islamabad. Pashtuns promised them that they will leave them in peace. What happend? They broke once again a promise as they did it against the Timurids, Mughals, Safavids, Sayyids, Tughlaqs ... Ca. 30 000 to 45 000 tribesmen from the hills killed and massacred. The same number was not able to defeat at the battle of Malakand 100 British soldiers who were good armed with their two mashine guns. That is what your pride is based on. Unfortunately, you think with the Anglo-Afghan'' term it means you defeated an empire. In no book that ever was written by a Pashtun there will you find any mentions of civilians... only ''british soldiers'' ... be proud of it.

Here the sources not that you again claim I just falsify history
Op-Ed Contributor - The Ghosts of Gandamak - NYTimes.com
Conflict in Afghanistan, p. 83
An encyclopedia of battles, p. 214
Newsvine - Pakistani jets pound militant stronghold in Waziristan!!Why Pakistan needs to bomb its own land?

I would not wonder if you are still proud. This was my last post to you. For more information on issue you can also visit encyclopedia Britannica or Encyclopedia Islamic. Have a nice day.

Actually Kabulzada; not to ruin your flow here but this is what your source says about Gandamak

On the disastrous retreat that followed, as many as 18,000 East India Company troops and maybe half again as many Indian camp followers (estimates vary), were slaughtered by Afghan marksmen waiting in ambush amid the snow drifts and high passes, shot down as they trudged through the icy depths of the Afghan winter.

It says they were troops


But even if they were not troops' they were Farangiyan who were going where they didn't belong; so they deserved to get slaughtered regardless. Farnagyan are imperialists and the more of them eliminate from the beautiful Earth of God, the more the world will be safe from their plague.


Remember your ancestors were begging Wazir AKbar Khan to raise arms against the British; because the women of Kabul were going and having affairs with the British soldiers; they were too benamous to do it themselves; It was the Ghilzai and other Pakhtuns who had to rescue their ghairat from the mud. You should thank us.

[Albani_Rahmat_Kabulzada]

For scholaric source where explicite the scene is described visit britanica and islamic. But whatever you think ...
The Greenwood Encyclopedia of International Relations: A-E, p. 15

''During the retreat, which became a panicked rout, the entire force (4,500 troops and 12,000 civilians), was massacred; only one man reached Jallalabd''

Afghanistan dar Masir e Tarikh is also a very good book. If you do not accept western sources than accept your own souces. You can turn to left and right and even deny that, but you can not change reality. The Taliban are not different. They are even the most coward people ever. Using IEDs, UXOs, civilian masses, schools and villages to attack the forces. Takhar was the best example for these people

[Shayesta]

@Kabulzada
Great, since you got no reply for the questions I asked, nor to the answers I gave, you are thinking of bringing British-Afghan issue? And when I speak of sources, I actually speak of sources, not personal blogs which you are providing me. But since you provided me something anyway, here some quotes from your own source:

A full-scale rebellion against the British broke out in Kabul, and the two most senior British envoys were murdered, making the British occupation impossible to sustain.

On the disastrous retreat that followed, as many as 18,000 East India Company troops and maybe half again as many Indian camp followers, were slaughtered by Afghan marksmen waiting in ambush amid the snow drifts and high passes.

For the Victorian British, Gandamak became a symbol of the country’s greatest ever imperial defeat.

It is again no accident that the diplomatic quarter of Kabul is named after the Afghan resistance leader who oversaw the British defeat at Gandamak, Wazir Akbar Khan.

Even the British never had control over this region. It is a region where war never wins.

The British column of more than 16,000-strong (consisting of about 4,500 military personnel, both British and Indian, along with as many as 12,000 camp followers) was massacred in the 30 miles of treacherous gorges and passes lying between Kabul and Gandomak.

Lady Butler's famous painting of Dr William Brydon, reportedly the sole survivor, gasping his way to the British outpost in Jalalabad, helped make Afghanistan's reputation as a graveyard for foreign armies and became one of the great epics of Empire.

The First Afghan War provided the clear lesson to the British authorities that while it may be relatively straightforward to invade Afghanistan it is wholly impracticable to occupy the country or attempt to impose a government not welcomed by the inhabitants. The only result will be failure and great expense in treasure and lives.

Alexander the Great was turned back, and for the last hundred of years, until December, no soldiers, not even Pakistanis since 1947, were allowed in.

Your constant efforts to bring down other people's thinking is highly pathetic and utterly disgusting. If you tend to keep on with such mockery of frustration then I am glad you decided to ignore, because you just saved yourself some more questions and more embarrassments.

[Shayesta]

@Luffy
Okay, good, we are getting somewhere. Now tell me, since when how did we arrive in Pakhtunkhwa and Southern Afghanistan? Who were original inhabitants of those areas?

[Michin Khel]

@Luffy
Okay, good, we are getting somewhere. Now tell me, since when how did we arrive in Pakhtunkhwa and Southern Afghanistan? Who were original inhabitants of those areas?

The books only mentions that pashtuns are originated from ko-sulieman. Al beruni called pashtuns as suliemans. The obvious route would be from ko-sulieman to adjacent kandahar area. From kandahar, yousafazis migrated to kabul then to present day malakand region.
The ghiljays/khiljis are half turks half pashtuns or you can say pashtunified turks.
Dates are absent from history books as nomadic people dont write down their historys.

[Shayesta]

^ So who were the original inhabitants of the areas we currently live in? Which culture and language where practised there?

[Michin Khel]

Turks and persians in afghanistan.
Hindus in KP.

[Alchemist]

@Kabulzada
Great, since you got no reply for the questions I asked, nor to the answers I gave, you are thinking of bringing British-Afghan issue? And when I speak of sources, I actually speak of sources, not personal blogs which you are providing me. But since you provided me something anyway, here some quotes from your own source:



















Your constant efforts to bring down other people's thinking is highly pathetic and utterly disgusting. If you tend to keep on with such mockery of frustration then I am glad you decided to ignore, because you just saved yourself some more questions and more embarrassments.

You missed his point ...

Maybe you should go and rewrite wikipedia ...because it's all there my dear:


Massacre of Elphinstone's Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Afghan uprising

On 2 November 1841, Akbar Khan proclaimed a general revolt and the citizens of Kabul followed suit. Elphinstone and Macnaghten were caught by surprise. The East India Company troops in and around Kabul numbered only 4,500 men, of which 690 were Europeans. The Afghans stormed the house of Sir Alexander Burnes, one of the senior British political officers, and murdered him and his staff. Elphinstone took no action in response to the incident, which encouraged further revolt. The British situation soon deteriorated when Afghans stormed the poorly defended supply fort inside Kabul on 9 November. The British forces had refrained from occupying the citadel and instead occupied cantonments 1.5 miles (2.4 km) outside Kabul, a badly chosen place.
On 23 November, Afghans occupied a hill overlooking the British camp and began bombarding the camp with two guns. A British force sallied out to drive them away, but the Afghans inflicted heavy casualties firing jezails at long range, and the British force fled, leaving 300 wounded to be killed. It was evident that morale was low in the British force.[4] Elphinstone called for reinforcements from Major General Nott in Kandahar, but they found the passes blocked by snow and turned back.
Macnaghten realised their desperate situation and tried to negotiate a free retreat for the troops and the 12,000 British and Indian civilians still at Kabul. The Afghan diplomats invited Macnaghten for tea on 23 December, but at the moment the British delegation dismounted from their horses, they were seized and slain by Akbar Khan. Macnaghten's body was dragged through the streets of Kabul. The guard which was supposed to protect him had not shown up. Elphinstone had already partly lost command of his troops and his authority was badly damaged


To the utter horror of all his officers Elphinstone again ignored the murder and instead signed a capitulation on 1 January 1842, which had some unfavourable conditions. For example, his troops had to hand over their gunpowder reserves, their newest muskets and most of their cannon. However, they were promised a safe retreat, and the troops and civilians, amongst them children, women and the elderly, began to move out on 6 January. They planned to retire to Jalalabad, 90 miles (140 km) away, through snowy mountains.
At the start of the retreat, Elphinstone's army consisted of one British infantry battalion (the 44th Regiment of Foot), three regiments of regular Bengal Native Infantry (the 5th, 37th and 54th BNI), one regiment of Shah Shujah's Levy (a British-subsidised force of Indian troops recruited for Afghan service)[5], Anderson's Irregular Horse, the 5th Bengal Light Cavalry and six guns of the Bengal Horse Artillery, with some sappers. In total, there were 700 British and 3,800 Indian troops.[6] The camp followers, including Indian and British families, numbered approximately 12,000.

So yes - families were massacred.

This was an unislamic Act. The killing of Women and Children and the Elderly is strictly forbidden according to the Way of the Prophet peace be upon him. Yet scimitar says they deserved that death.

Remember your ancestors were begging Wazir AKbar Khan to raise arms against the British; because the women of Kabul were going and having affairs with the British soldiers; they were too benamous to do it themselves; It was the Ghilzai and other Pakhtuns who had to rescue their ghairat from the mud. You should thank us.

All this bad mouthing against Kabul, when it was kabulies that mounted the revolt ...meanwhile what was happening in Kandahar?

The army, under the command of General Sir Willoughby Cotton with Macnaghten as his chief adviser, consisted of 20,000 soldiers and were accompanied by 38,000 civilian camp followers (craftsmen, stretcher bearers, cooks, servants, barbers, tailors, armourers, cameleers, etc. plus the families of both Indian and British soldiers). In March 1839 they crossed the Bolan Pass and began their march to Kabul. They advanced through rough terrain, crossing deserts and mountain passes at a height of 4,000 metres (13,000 ft) but made good progress and took Kandahar on 25 April. They also captured the until-then impregnable fortress of Ghazni on 22 July in a surprise attack, suffering 200 men killed and wounded while the Afghans lost nearly 500 men and 1,600 were taken prisoner with an unknown number wounded.[3] An Afghan had betrayed his sovereign and the British troops managed to blow one city gate and marched into the city in a euphoric mood. The fact that Ghazni was well supplied eased the further advance considerably, if not made it possible at all.

Yes, Kandahar was still occupied by the british. Dost Mohammad was still a captive of the british...

And what about Akbar Khan?

Historians still debate whether Akbar Khan ordered the massacre, sanctioned it, or was unable to prevent it. Some of the British officers and families taken hostage were later to claim that Akbar Khan had called out "Spare them!" in Persian, but "Kill them!" in Pushtu to the tribesmen.[8] Either way, the British reaction to such an atrocity must have been clear to him. He died near the end of 1847, possibly poisoned by his father Dost Mohammad, who may have feared his ambitions.

Don't waste your time here...make a wikipedia account and debate history over there.