Origins of the Ghilzai tribe?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

you said this

so your admitting that the khalaj were not ethnic turks. I know your trying to save face by broadening the term. It just shows how desperate you are.

Nice quote mining ...now what I said IN Context. The Term was already "broadened" as YOU claim by its DEFINITION from the source that YOU referenced.

Turks can be "Turkified" l by definition once you start speaking Turkic languages and adopt the culture; you're a Turk ....Turkified just means that they MAY have been from other ethnic origins PRIOR to that. It does not conflict with being Turk

Don't just siphon out the stuff that is inconvenient for you to deal with. That us intellectual dishonesty

you're just being intellectually dishonest now.

[Tjanaparh]

All your discussion looses sense, because if turks are turkified people of Iranic origin than if Ghilzais are Pashtunized Turks from those Turks that are turkified Iranic peoples, it is like joining the place you come from once.

Real Turkic prople, who didn't interact too much with others are of Mongoloid phenotypes( like Altayan, Kazakh, Yakut). And that concerns also their culture, as they kept by way much more originally Turkic traditions.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

All your discussion looses sense, because if turks are turkified people of Iranic origin than if Ghilzais are Pashtunized Turks from those Turks that are turkified Iranic peoples, it is like joining the place you come from once.

Real Turkic prople, who didn't interact too much with others are of Mongoloid phenotypes( like Altayan, Kazakh, Yakut). And that concerns also their culture, as they kept by way much more originally Turkic traditions.

Not really because Indo-Iranan doesn't necessarily mean Pashtun right? Indo-Iranian can mean a lot of different things.

"Real Turkic"; well then What is a "Real Pashtun" or "Real Persian" ... "Real Indo-Iranian". People have interacted and intermixed so much that there is no "Real" anything anymore.

There are some Pashtuns who have Mongolian phenotypes, are they no longer real Pashtuns?

[khushal]

Not really because Indo-Iranan doesn't necessarily mean Pashtun right? Indo-Iranian can mean a lot of different things.

"Real Turkic"; well then What is a "Real Pashtun" or "Real Persian" ... "Real Indo-Iranian". People have interacted and intermixed so much that there is no "Real" anything anymore.

There are some Pashtuns who have Mongolian phenotypes, are they no longer real Pashtuns?

He is talking about ethnic Turks. Those pashtuns that have the mongolian phenotypes who are a unique minority are the descendents of those Turks that have assimilated into pashtuns.

[khushal]

All your discussion looses sense, because if turks are turkified people of Iranic origin than if Ghilzais are Pashtunized Turks from those Turks that are turkified Iranic peoples, it is like joining the place you come from once.

Real Turkic prople, who didn't interact too much with others are of Mongoloid phenotypes( like Altayan, Kazakh, Yakut). And that concerns also their culture, as they kept by way much more originally Turkic traditions.

He is trying to broaden the term Turk because he realized he is wrong so instead of saying that the Khalaj were turks which was his original argument, he is now saying that they were Turkified Indo Iranians.

Its like saying that the South Asian Indians are slowly becoming anglo-ized so in the future we are going to call them English. He makes no sense.

[khushal]

What happened to Midnight Sun. You said I was supposed to be terrified from the guy. All he said was that the Paktya tribes are Turks and then he left. But anyways sense you admitted that the Khalaj are not ethnic Turks, it is still questionable that they were Turkified according to most scholars.

The problem with you is that you have not been to the region and you have no practical knowledge about it, that is why most of what you say is wrong.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

He is talking about ethnic Turks. Those pashtuns that have the mongolian phenotypes who are a unique minority are the descendents of those Turks that have assimilated into pashtuns.

Not necessarily; some are descendants of Hazaras. Some are descendants of Tajiks.

Not every Turk is Mongoloid.

His talk about ethnic Turk is disingenuous because there are no "real" Turks in the sense he's saying. If he means Turks who have Mongolian features, this incorrect too, since Turk is not defined by being Mongoloid.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

What happened to Midnight Sun. You said I was supposed to be terrified from the guy. All he said was that the Paktya tribes are Turks and then he left. But anyways sense you admitted that the Khalaj are not ethnic Turks, it is still questionable that they were Turkified according to most scholars.

The problem with you is that you have not been to the region and you have no practical knowledge about it, that is why most of what you say is wrong.

You keep recycling the same assertion after it was pointed out to you that you're wrong.

It seems like this is some defense mechanismyou have that whenever you get debunked you imagine that you haven't been debunked and simply ignore everything that happened and just restate something which was already explained to you as false WITH evidence.

I attribute this to a mixture of your stupidity and personal angst; you are too driven by ideological interests to have an objective conversation. Everything with you is confirmation bias.

[khushal]

Not necessarily; some are descendants of Hazaras. Some are descendants of Tajiks.

Not every Turk is Mongoloid.

His talk about ethnic Turk is disingenuous because there are no "real" Turks in the sense he's saying. If he means Turks who have Mongolian features, this incorrect too, since Turk is not defined by being Mongoloid.

Tajiks are not Mongloid. Turks are mongloid. Your an idiot.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Tajiks are not Mongloid. Turks are mongloid. Your an idiot.

Nope, Some Tajiks are Mongoloid.

[khushal]

^^Those are the Turks that have assimilated into them dumbass. What have I been telling you all along.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

No those are the Mongoloids who assimililated with Tajiks

Ghilzais are Hephtalite Turks who assimilated with Pashtuns

[khushal]

You keep recycling the same assertion after it was pointed out to you that you're wrong.

It seems like this is some defense mechanismyou have that whenever you get debunked you imagine that you haven't been debunked and simply ignore everything that happened and just restate something which was already explained to you as false WITH evidence.

I attribute this to a mixture of your stupidity and personal angst; you are too driven by ideological interests to have an objective conversation. Everything with you is confirmation bias.

Whatever makes you happy. your the one who changed your stance.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Ok but I didn't since your assumptions were straw-men arguments.

[Tjanaparh]

Not really because Indo-Iranan doesn't necessarily mean Pashtun right? Indo-Iranian can mean a lot of different things.

"Real Turkic"; well then What is a "Real Pashtun" or "Real Persian" ... "Real Indo-Iranian". People have interacted and intermixed so much that there is no "Real" anything anymore.

There are some Pashtuns who have Mongolian phenotypes, are they no longer real Pashtuns?

Well, I didn't say they were Pashtuns, neither is it sure if they were Iranic or Tokharian speakers. But when they were the first then sure of eastern Iranian branch, so in somehow closer to Pashtuns linguisticlly.

As Khushal said, I told Turkic, so closer with the origins to Turkic people, who are of Mongoloid characters.

I think You are right to say that if those people were turkified indoeuropeans, there is still not the possibility to call them Pashtuns, but still there is neither the possibility to call them Turks, because both assimilated those people. But for those who were assimilated linguistically by Turks, their origin is closer to the origin of Pashtuns, than to the origin of Turkic people.