History of Afghan betrayal , fraud and oppression on Pashtuns

[Cliftonite]

Every Muslim on this forum, esp ones who disagree with his views.

Nope. Not at all.

Only pan Islamic ummah dudes who put ummah before Pakistan. Get this, we will never merge with namak haram Afghanis until each and every Pakistani minority gets their full rights. When Shias stop being accused of loyalties to Iran and Ahmedis stop being treated like second class citizens. I'm not even coming to Christians and Hindus. Afghanis can suck my d till then. You can go to Mosul if you want your caliphate fix so bad.

 

[Ladyuk]

What if Talibans are there in Govt?


Me?

It depends if the Taliban recognise the Durand line, I personally have no issue what type of governance the people of Afghanistan choose be it Taliban, secular and democratically elected or monarch as long as they don't allow their territory to be used against us.

 

[Tayyab Zarar]

Keep spreading the hate, people here barely know jack about history... I've challenged some of these people in the past and they only harp like parrots of what they've heard about what they think they know. I can guarantee with 99% certainty that most of those who bash Afghans have not opened even a single history book.

bro, back your claim with providing some substance & enlighten me where I have distorted the facts.

it's very easy to refute someone's genuine research but very hard to provide a rebuttal.

What?? ?
Afghans r perhaps one of the most fighting people of South Asia(if u take Afghanistan in South Asia) . Look at there geography,, despite that they have done way better thn expected.
Just coz they declined in recent times doesn't mean they were getting asswhooped like the rest of southasia.
In comparison look at current day Pakistan n North India. What r thr achievements???
Hindukush karakoram n sea on three sides,,rivers, fertile land, large population,, plenty of skilled people,,,,,, despite all these advantages,,, what do they have to show for it,,,other thn milleniums of subjugation n humiliation at the hands of miniscule foreigners.


N for how many years???
Let's compare tht to India n Pakistan who were under occupation for millenniums,,, bar bar lagataar.

It's not even funny when Indians or Pakistanis claim afghans to be a defeated people,,,,, it's just plain pathetic.

The myth of Invincible Afghans! There was no such animal in history. Beginning with Cyrus the Great and right through that great parade of invaders running down to the Mughals, the Afghan meekly submitted or were beaten into the dirt by outsiders.

The only time the Afghans ever stood up to an invader was against the British forces in the First Afghan War. To hide their discomfiture upon their ignominious defeat, the Brits invented the myth of invincible Afghan, reinforcing the belief first created by Farishta. Ever since that time, every idiot writer pretending to be a historian has referred to Afghanistan as the Graveyard of Empires. If that were true, if the Afghans really had ever been capable of defeating an outsider, the Achaemenians, Greeks, Scythians, Parthians, Kushans, Sassanians, Turks, Mongols, Mughals, et al, having been trounced in that mythical Graveyard of Empires would never have made it to India. Not only did all those outsiders make it to India, but they also held Afghanistan under their yoke. Another common fallacious belief is that the Ghaznavids, Ghorids, and the Sultanate kings were all Pakhtuns. This is the greatest falsehood ever fed to us. They were not Pakhtuns; they were, one and all, Turks. The originator of this idiotic fallacy is one Abul Qasim Farishta who wrote his Tarikh e Farishta in the middle years of the 17th century during the Mughal reign. He repeatedly referred to, and erroneously, of course, the Turks as Afghans. Once that happened, every ignorant body began to believe that all those so-called conquerors were indeed Afghans.

@Hakikat ve Hikmet @Azadkashmir @Buddhistforlife @hamilcar of carthage @bananarepublic @Crusher @Silverblaze @WarKa DaNG @Ladyuk @halupridol @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @Cliftonite @ziaulislam @AsianLion @Pakistani Fighter @Naofumi @

 

[Naofumi]

Another common fallacious belief is that the Ghaznavids, Ghorids, and the Sultanate kings were all Pakhtuns. This is the greatest falsehood ever fed to us. They were not Pakhtuns; they were, one and all, Turks. The originator of this idiotic fallacy is one Abul Qasim Farishta who wrote his Tarikh e Farishta in the middle years of the 17th century during the Mughal reign. He repeatedly referred to, and erroneously, of course, the Turks as Afghans. Once that happened, every ignorant body began to believe that all those so-called conquerors were indeed Afghans.

But Lodhis were Pakhtuns and Khiljis were Turco-Afghans, is this false too?

 

[Cliftonite]

The Turks were more Mongoloid looking than Afghans. Sort of how Murad Saeed looks like.

 

[Buddhistforlife]

bro, back your claim with providing some substance & enlighten me where I have distorted the facts.

it's very easy to refute someone's genuine research but very hard to provide a rebuttal.



The myth of Invincible Afghans! There was no such animal in history. Beginning with Cyrus the Great and right through that great parade of invaders running down to the Mughals, the Afghan meekly submitted or were beaten into the dirt by outsiders.

The only time the Afghans ever stood up to an invader was against the British forces in the First Afghan War. To hide their discomfiture upon their ignominious defeat, the Brits invented the myth of invincible Afghan, reinforcing the belief first created by Farishta. Ever since that time, every idiot writer pretending to be a historian has referred to Afghanistan as the Graveyard of Empires. If that were true, if the Afghans really had ever been capable of defeating an outsider, the Achaemenians, Greeks, Scythians, Parthians, Kushans, Sassanians, Turks, Mongols, Mughals, et al, having been trounced in that mythical Graveyard of Empires would never have made it to India. Not only did all those outsiders make it to India, but they also held Afghanistan under their yoke. Another common fallacious belief is that the Ghaznavids, Ghorids, and the Sultanate kings were all Pakhtuns. This is the greatest falsehood ever fed to us. They were not Pakhtuns; they were, one and all, Turks. The originator of this idiotic fallacy is one Abul Qasim Farishta who wrote his Tarikh e Farishta in the middle years of the 17th century during the Mughal reign. He repeatedly referred to, and erroneously, of course, the Turks as Afghans. Once that happened, every ignorant body began to believe that all those so-called conquerors were indeed Afghans.

@Hakikat ve Hikmet @Azadkashmir @Buddhistforlife @hamilcar of carthage @bananarepublic @Crusher @Silverblaze @WarKa DaNG @Ladyuk @halupridol @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @Cliftonite @ziaulislam @AsianLion @Pakistani Fighter @Naofumi @

Indian Muslim rulers were mostly Central Asian Turks. Lodhi and Sur dynasty of India were Pathans but their rule were short lived and they were beaten black and blue by Mughals in the first battle of Panipat.

 

[Naofumi]

The Turks were more Mongoloid looking than Afghans. Sort of how Murad Saeed looks like.

They married a lot of Tajiks and even Pashtuns though.

Timurids (Mughals), I mean.

 

[jamahir]

It depends if the Taliban recognise the Durand line, I personally have no issue what type of governance the people of Afghanistan choose be it Taliban, secular and democratically elected or monarch as long as they don't allow their territory to be used against us.

Sorry but this is the attitude that the Western governments wanted in the end via their sponsored so-called Afghan Jihad in the 80s.

After all their troubles the Afghans deserve a system that doesn't involve the Taliban. Recently, the Westerners just fought a half-hearted battle against the Taliban and now are almost to the point of leaving them in power.

 

[Naofumi]

Sorry but this is the attitude that the Western governments wanted in the end via their sponsored so-called Afghan Jihad in the 80s.

After all their troubles the Afghans deserve a system that doesn't involve the Taliban. Recently, the Westerners just fought a half-hearted battle against the Taliban and now are almost to the point of leaving them in power.

It was started by Soviets, under Daud Khan Pak-Afghan relations were at their peak but Pakistan was in American camp, so Soviets launched a communist Coup.

And communist government(s) were very very hostile to Pakistan too.

 

[jamahir]

under Daud Khan Pak-Afghan relations were at their peak

Quoting the Wikipedia page for his National Revolutionary Party of Afghanistan :

The party was formed in an attempt by Daoud to garner support and grassroots backing for his republican regime. Daoud also intended the party to undermine support in Afghanistan for the communists, who had actually helped him come to power in 1973. To this end, the party sought to be an umbrella organization for all of the factions of the progressive movement in Afghanistan. In order to help the party in its attempt to garner support, all other political parties were banned.

The underlined.

but Pakistan was in American camp, so Soviets launched a communist Coup.

Pakistan didn't have to be, but in 1977 began the rule of Zia ul Haq who of course was a Western ally, or more precisely a puppet.

And communist government(s) were very very hostile to Pakistan too.

Understandable.

But not to all Pakistanis. Only to the Pakistani government.

 

[Psychic]

Sorry but this is the attitude that the Western governments wanted in the end via their sponsored so-called Afghan Jihad in the 80s.

After all their troubles the Afghans deserve a system that doesn't involve the Taliban. Recently, the Westerners just fought a half-hearted battle against the Taliban and now are almost to the point of leaving them in power.

Apparently according to commie apologists, the Soviets had the right to dethrone and brutally murder Sardar Daud. They also had the divine right to send Spetsnaz Vympel goons to execute Amin and his kin for being too soft. As if that wasn't enough, they sent their 40th army to help their puppets who had zero support among the Afghan masses.

The foundations of this commie heaven were laid over the graves of thirty thousand people murdered in Pol e Charkhi. Making three million refugees through indiscriminate bombing wasn't enough either.

But somehow, the Afghans don't have the right to resist foreign invasion according to these pseudo humanists.

Whats even more amusing is the fact that these pea brains think that the enemies of the Taliban are going to open a bikini car wash in Kabul if the Taliban are finished. The height of delusions.

 

[Naofumi]

Quoting the Wikipedia page for his National Revolutionary Party of Afghanistan :
The underlined.

You don't support coups because of that otherwise Assad, Gaddafi and other dictators have banned other parties too.

Pakistan didn't have to be, but in 1977 began the rule of Zia ul Haq who of course was a Western ally, or more precisely a puppet.

LOL, you can't dictate other nation's policies.

But not to all Pakistanis. Only to the Pakistani government.

I have heard it somewhere, yes! On Iraq, Libya and other invasions.

 

[Psychic]

. Zia ul Haq who of course was a Western ally, or more precisely a puppet.

And Tarakai and Babrak weren't USSR's puppets.......GTHO

Pakistan atleast did what it had to do unlike Afghan commies killing their own people at the behest of their Soviet overlords

 

[Naofumi]

Only 3 people conquered Pakistan and India. Ghauri Ghaznvi and Babar. No one of them was afghan.

Man, when I did say they did? But they ruled as three dynasties at least : Lodhi, Khilji and Sur.

 

[Psychic]

Commies were hostile to Pakistanis

But not to all Pakistanis. Only to the Pakistani government

Starting separatist movements in two provinces of Pakistan means they weren't against Pakistani people? Subhan Allah