Erdogan: Syrian refugees could become Turkish citizens

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Egyptians also didn't speak Arabic 3000 years ago. Does it mean modern Egyptians are not the descendents of ancient Egyptians? We Pashtuns are the descendents of Eastern Iranian tribes as proven by our Language and our Genetics.

All Iranic tribes were nomads at one time. There is no evidence to suggest all or majority of Pashtun tribes were nomads before Mongol invasions. Care to share any proof?

You're comparing apples to cucumbers The difference is we have records of the ancient Egyptians and genetics that correlate modern Egyptians to those people.

We don't have any records of Pashtuns from ancient times. There's nothing that indicates that we're a 2000 years old group of people. If you mean our ancestors may have existed 2000 years ago ...well why just stop there? All Humans trace back to 400,0000 years, which makes this whole discussion nonsensical.

As for Pashtuns and Nomadism, youve basically affirmed this with your remark that all Iranic tribes were originally nomads. But when they stopped nomadism differed from ethnicity to ethnicity. If we go by Anthropological Theory, people transition from Pastoralism to sedentary farming, According to Pashtun historical narratives Pashtuns started settling regions they now inhabited within the last 1000 years, then we hear about Pashtun sedentary living, before that no records of sedentary living exists, which confirms your Statement, that Pashtuns were nomads and became settled gradually. the major changes that would urge that is change in the climate and ecology, and the major events that impacted that were desertification and Mongol Invasion.

Another way to look at is that, if we examinet all the candidates for the alleged ancestors pf Pashtuns, Sakas, Hepthalites, Kushans, Turks ...were nomadic peoples. hence it only serves that the original Pashtuns would had to have been nomadic too.

In short, none of this land is actually ours, until we conquered it.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Thank you; didn't know there was an article about her, but her YouTube video associations with Anti-Muslim Media voices would be enough to expose SyrianGirl

She's an Alawi, but calls herself a Sunni, this is a common Alawi tactic.

There are many pro Assad activists here in Europe. They organize pro Assad protests together with Neo Nazi groups. You can see Neo nazis waving the Syrian Assad regime flag while having swastika tattoos on their necks and arms. And then there are pro Russian nazis of Euro-Rus organization waving the Russian and Hezbollah flags. the Current leader of a Dutch anti Muslim hate group is in Hungary along with other pro Assad nazis hunting for refugees in the jungles.

For nazi ties to Assad see here: Europe's far-right activists continue to throw their weight behind Syria's Assad | Middle East Eye

In fact, many Greek Nazis are in Syria fighting alongside Assad's thugs to kill Muslims. See here: Are Greek Neo-Nazis Fighting for Assad in Syria? | VICE | Greece

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Mathew Heimbach, prominent American white supremacist and anti immigrant activists who was recently involved in a stabbing incident is also a supporter of Assad, Hezbollah and Russian dictator Putin. Guess what, neo-Nazi group attacked in Sacramento is pro-Assad and pro-Putin | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

These people don't even consider people like Bengali pussy cat and Aryana as human beings. They hate Islam and Muslims and somehow they all happen to agree on one thing: Assad is good and must stay and those are against him are evil.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Excellent piece on red-brown alliance for Assad: A red-brown alliance for Syria

[Azmal]

There wasn't even a Pashto language 2000 years ago, at least there's no historical record of Pashto being spoken in that time. No academic anthrpologist or linguist in the world accepts the antiquity of Pashto. This is just stuff made up by Afghans to mythologize ourselves.

historically Pashtuns are nomadic peoples, we didn't have a state or land just areas where we'd graze our animals. We settled in different areas due to two major events

1.) Mongol Invasion

2.) Desertification of land that is now known as modern day Afghanistan

Not true, Pashto has exited for over 2000 years as spoken language, and the written form is about 1000 years old. Even now a days more then half of 7000 languages spoke in the world have no written form--yet it does not mean these languages does not exits.

“Pashto's convergence with Indian languages Started during The domination of the Maurya dynasty in the upper Kabul River valley in the third century BC. The fall of the Maurya Empire and the emergence of Greoc-Bacterian rule in Gandhara for about a century (185-190BC) brought it again in contract with the Greek language. Around 97BC the Shakas, who came from thE same region as Parthians, defeated the Greco-Bacterian princelings and move toward Gandhara and Sind. Their Iranian dialect was closer to the dialect of the Pashtuns and had many features in common with Arik, an ancient Aryan language. Old Pashtun, on other hand, had proximity with the eastern group of Iranian languages, and, on the other, converged with northwestern Indian languages, which led to the acquisition of retroflex consonents (Sound produced with the tip of the tongue curled against the roof of the mouth.) Students' Britannica India: 2000 Encyclopedia Britannia (India) Private limited. Volumes 1-5

Notice Kabul river and Gandhara region which is present day Afghanistan+FATA/PATA. Not all of Pashtun were nomads, the nomadic lifestyle is due to Mongol invasion and there aversion of settled lifestyle.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Not true, Pashto have been spoke for over 2000 years with no written form. Even now a days more then half of 7000 languages spoke in the world have no written form--it does not mean the language does not exit.



“Pashto's convergence with Indian languages Started during The domination of the Maurya dynasty in the upper Kabul River valley in the third century BC. The fall of the Maurya Empire and the emergence of Greoc-Bacterian rule in Gandhara for about a century (185-190BC) brought it again in contract with the Greek language. Around 97BC the Shakas, who came from thE same region as Parthians, defeated the Greco-Bacterian princelings and move toward Gandhara and Sind. Their Iranian dialect was closer to the dialect of the Pashtuns and had many features in common with Arik, an ancient Aryan language. Old Pashtun, on other hand, had proximity with the eastern group of Iranian languages, and, on the other, converged with northwestern Indian languages, which led to the acquisition of retroflex consonents (Sound produced with the tip of the tongue curled against the roof of the mouth.) Students' Britannica India: 2000 Encyclopedia Britannia (India) Private limited. Volumes 1-5

Notice Kabul river and Gandhara region which is present day Afghanistan+FATA/PATA.

This has no scholarly citation or reference to any research which confirms this. Just because it's an encyclopedia doesn't make it scholarly or academic. You need citations that corroborate it from known researchers in this field.

come on brother, you're in graduate school, one of the first things we learn in doing research is making sure our citations are correctly referenced.

Also the citation is WRONG, there's no convergence with Indian Languages and Pashto. grammatically and structurally they're completely different.

[Azmal]

This has no scholarly citation or reference to any research which confirms this. Just because it's an encyclopedia doesn't make it scholarly or academic. You need citations that corroborate it from known researchers in this field.

come on brother, you're in graduate school, one of the first things we learn in doing research is making sure our citations are correctly referenced.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica has been the most prestigious general encyclopedia in the English language for centuries. The notation that Pashto or Pashtun are not native of the land they inhabit is simply ridiculous.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

The Encyclopaedia Britannica has been the most prestigious general encyclopedia in the English language for centuries. The notation that Pashto or Pashtun are not native of the land they inhabit is simply ridiculous.

But it doesn't have a citation ......doesn't matter how prestigious the encyclopedia is ....there are many different editors and without citations we don't know where the editor got this information from

Also there's a blatant error .....the claim that Indian languages and Pashto converged. This NEVER happened.

Can you produce any research material from ACADEMIC sources?

[Azmal]

But it doesn't have a citation ......doesn't matter how prestigious the encyclopedia is ....there are many different editors and without citations we don't know where the editor got this information from

Can you produce any research material from ACADEMIC sources?

“The Encyclopædia Britannica (Latin for "British Encyclopaedia"), published by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., is a general knowledge English-language encyclopaedia. It is written by about 100 full-time editors and more than 4,000 contributors, who have included 110 Nobel Prize winners and five American presidents. The 2010 version of the 15th edition, which spans 32 volumes [1] and 32,640 pages, was the last printed edition; digital content and distribution has continued since then.”


Let's for sake of argument say Pashto is not 2000 years but 1000 or even 500 years old--I'm sure you can't disprove the latter..how does it negate the union of Pashtun with their mother land Afghanistan? Pakistan was creation based on two nation theory--basing religion as core of identity---how is the division of Muslim Pashtun from Muslim Afghanistan is justified?

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

“The Encyclopædia Britannica (Latin for "British Encyclopaedia"), published by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., is a general knowledge English-language encyclopaedia. It is written by about 100 full-time editors and more than 4,000 contributors, who have included 110 Nobel Prize winners and five American presidents. The 2010 version of the 15th edition, which spans 32 volumes [1] and 32,640 pages, was the last printed edition; digital content and distribution has continued since then.”


Let's for sake of argument say Pashto is not 2000 years but 1000 or even 500 years old--I'm sure you can't disprove the latter..how does it negate the union of Pashtun with their mother land Afghanistan? Pakistan was creation based on two nation theory--basing religion as core of identity---how is the division of Muslim Pashtun from Muslim Afghanistan is justified?

Yes and in THOSE articles which have CITATIONS it's a credible reference, if you get the original citation ....but the ones WITHOUT citations are not academic ....understand the difference here?

You know if you do an academic paper (I don't mean a term paper, I mean like publishing research), you can't cite Encyclopedia Britannica without citing the original source material within Encyclopedia Britannica, because not all Britannica material is has citations.

Pashto is definitely older than 500 years old, there's evidence of Pashto past 500 years. Pashto MIGHT be A LITTLE older than a thousand years old given the references that allude to the existence of Pashtun tribes, And even some more generous estimates may make it around 1200 years ol. But no one has found any reference suggesting the existence of Pashto to 2000 years ....at ,least not yet.

Sorry you asked me a question; let me add my comment, I can understand how you may feel "justified" in this case but that was my point was there was manipulation for ultimately Afghan territorial interests. Historically Syria was apart of Turkish Khilafah and many Syrians, especially from the North have Turkish ancestry, especially if you look at their names. So the same logic could apply here too. you can argue this for more or less anything. in the end politics run by perceived interests.

To me Nationalism is much lower cause than Religion, since Religion, at least in what I believe is Islam, is divine, and nationalism man-made. Pakistan didn't divide based on religion but rather Ethno-Cultural-Religious interests, their focus was South Asian Muslims ....not Muslims in general, otherwise Pakistan would have wanted unification of ALL Muslim majority states, and not just the Indian ones.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

[MENTION=19433]Aryana[/MENTION]

Another video with PartisanGirl on Russian State News, Russia Today

Basically cheering Russia attacking Syrian rebels fighting against Assad and ISIS, Russia doesn't target ISIS positions by the way.

[Golden]

“The Encyclopædia Britannica (Latin for "British Encyclopaedia"), published by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., is a general knowledge English-language encyclopaedia. It is written by about 100 full-time editors and more than 4,000 contributors, who have included 110 Nobel Prize winners and five American presidents. The 2010 version of the 15th edition, which spans 32 volumes [1] and 32,640 pages, was the last printed edition; digital content and distribution has continued since then.”


Let's for sake of argument say Pashto is not 2000 years but 1000 or even 500 years old--I'm sure you can't disprove the latter..how does it negate the union of Pashtun with their mother land Afghanistan? Pakistan was creation based on two nation theory--basing religion as core of identity---how is the division of Muslim Pashtun from Muslim Afghanistan is justified?

Pashtun majority is doubtful even in whole KPK before 1947. Only FATA was absolute majority. If we take out fake pashto speaking pathans like Pirachas out of equation then real ones were 47% in British census. Not to forget significant ethnic minorties like hindko, chitralis etc

But now after after migration of afghan pathans in KPK after Soviet invasion demographics have changed somewhat but ethnic minorties still make significant part of it. Same thing have happened in Balochistan which will show up in next census.

See Karachi, pathans once upon a time made 0% but now 20-25% by some estimates and this will likely keep increasing with more migration and higher birth rate in general for pathans. So basically what I meant is afghanis can't claim Pakistani lands where pathans are majority. Many of these regions became pathan majority after 1947! You are out of luck here brother. Stop believing in fairytales from likes of Afghanfootballs, 2000 years lol

[Firdousi]

Majority of Afghans refugees are in land of their forefathers.

Thats my point: most of Afghan refugees in Pakistan are Pashtuns and they are in KP. Ergo they are "in their own land".

[asif86]

Thats my point: most of Afghan refugees in Pakistan are Pashtuns and they are in KP. Ergo they are "in their own land".

The afghan refugees in pakistan dont just reside in kP.Balochistan also has lots of them and even sindh,punjab and GB/AJK have smaller numbers of them.