Pashtun obsession with ARYAN

[qunduz92]

i said pakistan is a territory seceded from india not very long ago.

Afghanistan and iran actually have very strong ties, that is an undeniable fact. that the land mass known today as afghanistan was persia for the most part.

[qunduz92]

anywho, most level headed, honest, and educated people will agree with me that iranians and thei kin elsewhere are the modern-day descendants of aryans. even hitler knew of and agreed with this. its not some wild, unpopular conspiracy theory such as yours. have a good night

[roadrunner]

i said pakistan is a territory seceded from india not very long ago.

Pakistan is territory ceded from both India and Afghanistan (India is debatable since it was not really a country).

Afghanistan and iran actually have very strong ties, that is an undeniable fact. that the land mass known today as afghanistan was persia for the most part.

This is rubbish.

You've already been ridiculed on the proof you've presented. One map of the Archemid Empire. This is as strong as an Indian presenting one map of the Mauryan Empire as proof of the same.

[qunduz92]

Pakistan is territory ceded from both India and Afghanistan



This is rubbish.

You've already been ridiculed on the proof you've presented. One map of the Archemid Empire. This is as strong as an Indian presenting one map of the Mauryan Empire as proof of the same.

lol, your replies consist of trying to refute me where there is no need to.

its obvious that baluchistan and kp were afghan territory. that is not part of the discussion, but that the indus river=located in former india.

[roadrunner]

anywho, most level headed, honest, and educated people will agree with me that iranians and thei kin elsewhere are the modern-day descendants of aryans. even hitler knew of and agreed with this. its not some wild, unpopular conspiracy theory such as yours. have a good night

If Hitler is your source, then you've made yourself look even more stupid.

[کیش]

Pakistan is territory ceded from both India and Afghanistan (India is debatable since it was not really a country).



This is rubbish.

You've already been ridiculed on the proof you've presented. One map of the Archemid Empire. This is as strong as an Indian presenting one map of the Mauryan Empire as proof of the same.

I think Afghanistan was apart of the Mauryan empire longer then the Persian

[qunduz92]

the take-home lesson: pakhtuns = having nothing to do with persians/aryans. we are a distinct group.

[qunduz92]

I think Afghanistan was apart of the Mauryan empire longer then the Persian

completely bogus.

[roadrunner]

its obvious that baluchistan and kp were afghan territory. that is not part of the discussion, but that the indus river=located in former india.

The Indus River does not flow through India.

When India was formed, they knew that the Indus does not flow through India.

But it was still called India in reference to a river that does not even flow through the country.

So naming a country after some entity to prove a point means nothing.

Naming Iran after Aryan means nothing in the same way.

[qunduz92]

you are out of your mind. the indus river flows through territory that WAS india some 60 years ago.

[کیش]

completely bogus.

Your godly persian empire lasted only about 200 so years.mtgs Mauryan empire lasted around, maybe a little shorter. Then add the years of the Mughal empire.

[roadrunner]

you are out of your mind. the indus river flows through territory that WAS india some 60 years ago.

Do you have any idea of history past the last 100 years?

The country India was not a country until 1947. From 1747-1947, India was being unified. Before this India was just a collection of many countries with no reference to India.

Though there was a kind of India somewhere outside of modern India. But this will be too difficult for you to understand, so I'll not go into it.

The above is a history lesson for you, not the point

The point is that sometimes countries name themselves after places and people that are distinct from themselves. In the case of modern day India the Indus is geographically distinct. In the case of Iran, it's an ethnically distinct group of people.

[Karachi]

you are out of your mind. the indus river flows through territory that WAS india some 60 years ago.

it was british india though, before british there was nothing called india, it was different kingdoms.

Now, if you are saying that punjab/sindh are indic cultures, then yes i agree with you with that punjabies/sindhis are mostly indic cultures, similar to other north indians, but the similarity doesn't cover all of india of today, areas like bengal or south india are really different from punjab/sindh in every way, the similarity probably ends some where in Uttarpardesh/Rajahistan area of india today. Also i have to say is that most indians of today can never claim over indus valley civilization as theirs, heck eastern afghanistan probably had more to do with indus valley civilization then most indians of today

As for pakhtuns, i agree that are a seperate group, however they do have a lot of shared history with indic people of the north, they are even mentioned way back in rig veda

[qunduz92]

the word indian stems from the indus which stems from the word hindu, an ancient word which persian and greeks called sub-continental people.

with that said, india prior to the british takeover did consist of small kingdoms but they were always identified collectively as one whole; india.

you people are wild conpsiracy enthusiasts. you dont like modern, world-wide accepted recollections of hisotry but like to devise your own outrageous nonsense.

[roadrunner]

the word indian stems from the indus which stems from the word hindu, an ancient word which persian and greeks called sub-continental people.

So India does stem from Indus which is a river that does not flow through India (the country that was named after it) .. geographically distinct.

with that said, india prior to the british takeover did consist of small kingdoms but they were always identified collectively as one whole; india.

Not by the Indians themselves. By the outside world yes. But this is not the point.

you people are wild conpsiracy enthusiasts. you dont like modern, world-wide accepted recollections of hisotry but like to devise your own outrageous nonsense.

Like your Hitler based theories? They are not widely accepted.

Many people without much knowledge on the subject might be inclined to agree with you though.