Ghilzai vs. Durrani?

[ScimitarXEdge]

That's BS. Your pretty much saying, their is no such thing as Pashtun.

not in the absolute sense.

[ScimitarXEdge]

can not be confirmed

There seems to be a whole lot of evidence which support it, see Midnight Sun, he's done scholarly research on this.

It shoots holes in the "tribal puritans" theory people always hop about

[ScimitarXEdge]

the graph also does not mention that najibullah, a ghilzai fought against hekmatyar who is also a ghilzai who fought against mullah omar who is also a ghilzai. so where does this ghilzai vs durrani nonsense come from.

comes from pre-modern times when the majority rivals to the durrani rulership were Ghilzais. In fact my ancestors inhabited Qandahar and were pushed into Ghazni by Durranis.

Not that I have anything against Durranis, it is what it is.

[ScimitarXEdge]

I cant find anything about baloch doing attrocities like this to the panjabis. so what are you talking about.

I'm speaking about Pashtuns, we regularly sacked and pillaged the Indian sub continent.

[khushal]

I'm speaking about Pashtuns, we regularly sacked and pillaged the Indian sub continent.

the article talks about baloch being mutilated.

pashtuns pillaging the indian sub continent was was back and forth, it wasnt one way, but it does not make it right

[ScimitarXEdge]

I never heard of Indians pillaging Pashtuns, unless you mean the Mughals? They're central Asians and they never really pillaged Pashtuns.

Punjab was sacked by many Pashtun rulers

[sanman]

Ghilzai-Durrani divide was mainly widened by the British, in my opinion.

The British wanted to take advantage of any small crack and turn it into a big one, in order to divide their enemies and rule them.

Pakistan govt is the inheritor of the British Empire in supporting such divisions, in order to keep Pashtun territory as part of Pakistan.

Regarding ISI terrorism against Baloch, they don't want these people to have their local rights, or to challenge the govt policy of Punjabification. Central govt is shipping in more and more Punjabis to colonize the place and Punjabify it. The non-Punjabi ethnic groups are considered less trustworthy by the Punjabi-dominated army, and therefore the state must take steps to manipulate them or else eliminate them, in order to bind them to Pakistan.

Haqqanis are an example of such manipulation. Central govt keeps deals with these kind of crooks, to make sure they and their gunmen have tight control over the locals.
As long as you cut a deal with the local corrupt warlord, he will keep local people in line and under the gun, leaving them in backward darkness. Govt doesn't want to extend political rights to these areas, to avoid the risk of anyone opposing the govt.

Pak govt needs to keep Pashtuns in a permanent state of war, so that they will always be preoccupied with the "foreign enemy" and not look at the govt's oppressive agenda.

[ScimitarXEdge]

I don't think the Ghilzai-Durrani divide was widened by the British unless you mean by the British supporting Durrani rulers who were hostile towards Ghiziyan and vice versa.

[khushal]

I never heard of Indians pillaging Pashtuns, unless you mean the Mughals? They're central Asians and they never really pillaged Pashtuns.

Punjab was sacked by many Pashtun rulers

the moghuls leaders were central asians but the soldiers were indic. how could they pillage pashtun land when pashtun land is barren, there is nothing there to pillage. I am talking about interference was back and forth, but pillaging will be done on land that has resources not on land that has no resources.

Its the same with the mongols and the chinese. the pillaging was done by the mongols but interference was back and forth.
I thought you were a student of evolution.

[khushal]

I don't think the Ghilzai-Durrani divide was widened by the British unless you mean by the British supporting Durrani rulers who were hostile towards Ghiziyan and vice versa.

durranis also resisted british rule. there is no divide. its a myth.

[ScimitarXEdge]

their soldiers were Indian? Mughal armies were Turkish, afghan and Persian, that's why Persian was their Linga Franca

I AM talking about Pillaging and sacking Interference? Central Asians is not proof of Indian interference.

Perhaps now a days you can claim that, but definitely not historically.

I'm a mathematician, and what does BIOLOGICAL evolution have to with the fact that Pashtuns sacked the Indian sub continent?

I thought you had a functioning brain? Ok I didn't actually think that, but the point is clear

[ScimitarXEdge]

durranis also resisted british rule. there is no divide. its a myth.

Um my family experienced the consequence of the divide, it's no myth

and if it's a myth then your claims of tribal autonomy become falsified. Good job .

[khushal]

their soldiers were Indian? Mughal armies were Turkish, afghan and Persian, that's why Persian was their Linga Franca

I AM talking about Pillaging and sacking Interference? Central Asians is not proof of Indian interference.

Perhaps now a days you can claim that, but definitely not historically.

I'm a mathematician, and what does BIOLOGICAL evolution have to with the fact that Pashtuns sacked the Indian sub continent?

I thought you had a functioning brain? Ok I didn't actually think that, but the point is clear

only at the beginning they were central asian. as time passed, the army was indeginous indic people that served in the moghul army.

obama father is kenyan, that does not mean the kenyans are resonsible for what obama does.

biological evolution continues onto social evolution. you think you know everything so you stopped learning.

[ScimitarXEdge]

so your're saying Indians aren't responsible for what Mughals did?

Thanks because that is precisely my point

so we sacked their homes.....now they resent us...moving on

[khushal]

Um my family experienced the consequence of the divide, it's no myth

and if it's a myth then your claims of tribal autonomy become falsified. Good job .

tribal conflict yes
but not in politics. when you are trying to make a confederation, you must structure it so as there is no divide and everyone agrees to it. If it wasnt a myth, than ahmed shah durrani would not have succeeded in uniting the tribes.

the current conflict in afghanistan has nothing to do with the ghilzai vs durrani. it is from the result of the break down of the confederation that ahmed shah durrani created, abolishing the monarchy, recreating it as a republic.

forming a republic from a tribal society, what an idiot.