Naming of nuclear weapons after Afghan historical figures.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

yeah even if we suppose that's true, he doesn't reward people who coddle , motivate or enable rapes either

Reference that he coddled, enabled, or motivated rapists please? Thats hefty.

Scimitar, come back... concede and just admit that Ahmad Shah Baba is rightfully the father of the Pashtun Nation.

You used to say you admired the man.

There is no harm in admitting you were wrong.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

x

how clever , responding within the quote than outside of it to discourage me from replying.


I've established my points anyways, so this is bogging down to a "no he didn't ...yes he did" level argument.

[Shahidulla]

then why are all the educated members agreeing with many of my points and only uneducated members like you and Khushal getting upset?

how many members agree with you 2 , 3 or lets take a 10? youre verry short minded bro.lets not argue about how many people would agree with u.
and that is a verry stupid statement ur making, but an educated half afghan member like you should know that of all the afghans/pashtuns worldwide even not a 0.01% agrees with ur stupid statements u make about our leaders, i am not talking about historical things our leaders did, but that you make such statements like: pashtuns are useless, khushal ,ahamd shah is not a real hero. And the statement u just made is as stupid as it can be :D, but youre educated i guess most of the guys here on this forum, so you should know that. I am not ignoring the facts u say, infact its debateable ur statements , but above that ur just a stupid emo pig who insults afghans/pashtuns, so you can forget about it that someone would agree with you.

lets keep it on realistic, i hope u realize this is a forum.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Wrong. He used Nadir Shah as a pretext. Same way Bush used "nuklear" weapons as a pretext. Gommels makes sure to seal off your argument by declaring that the pretext worked well and yet the written letters confirms actual contempt. Check mate.

That's just your spin doctoring of it; he cited his motives as claim of Nadir Shah's kingdom ...all other explanations are merely ad-hoc interpretations after the fact. Unless you can show where he claims that it was his pretext than his genuine motive then your statement is moot.

Says only you and no other valid source. Check mate.

That's still better than your ad-hoc, revisionist explanation, you're interpolating what you want to see in it. rather than what things are.

check-mate indeed.

The language his esteemed court historian wrote in. Showing that he was a meritocrat above all else, Ahmad Shah demanded that Munshi Husseini know the Quran, the hadith, and be qualified. Whether the work was in persian, hindi, english, or Pashto matters little. Ahmad Shah's personal poetry was in Pashto. Check mate.

Yes duh I understand that, but this is born out of a Perso-centric hegemonic culture that pervaded the regiion. I am not saying he was wrong for doing so. I understand that Persian was linga franca, but it sabotages that he was some Pashtun hero and that he established a Pashtun-centered society is nonsense.

People in America demand many of their leaders be religiously learned; this means nothing. Religion sadly is more symbolic or attempts at appeasing the masses.

The Ottoman Emperors wrote sometimes in Persian too; but what counted is that their courts and people were run by Turkish; that shows you the contrast between the two. writing love letters to yourself in Pashto means jack when you're publically under foreign cultural dominance. check and mate. If Persian was a supplemental language, spoken as more for enrichement purposes that would be another story.

Still an unproven and not validated assertion relying on Zaman Khan's bio and polemic to justify his blinding of Barakzai leaders and murder of Painda Khan and replacement of these key cabinet figures that served his father and grandfather with Persians.

It's proven as This is considered a primary source; until you can show this is NOT a primary source; your attempt to side step it is moot.

check mate.

No they dont. Direct sources? The Author in question never was a court historian for Ahmad Shah, Munshi Husseini on the other hand was.

yes they do check any contemporary history on Afghanistan, the overwhelming majority of them site this work.

Doesn't negate his accomplishment. Had he not built that Pashtun kingdom including disparate tribes such as Khalil Mohmand Ghilzai Dorani Confederacy Kharoti Baloch etc we would be in worse trouble today than we even are as a divided nation.

That's like saying that just because his castle made of popscle sticks didn't stand up for more than 10 seconds, doesn't change the fact he made a castle of popsicle sticks

it's a useless and vapid point ....an incompetent empire is not much of an achievement.

you're fooling yourself here ...ethic pride blinds, and this is what we need to put an end to. It is time for Pashtuns to see themselves as they are, not as they mythologize.