Syrians were not Arabs before Rashidun conquest, but now they're. Similarly, if the above scenario happens someday then after some time lapse, they will be Turks. Most of the Anatolians are Turkified themselves, so are the most of the Arabs.
That's a myth from the Arab side, I must say. Mizarahis don't like Arabs, that is simply visible in their voting patterns or maybe you can cite some credible surveys?
How supporting a future conquests in Arabia by xyz entity is not in contradiction to the strategy of opposing Saddam?
Your Indian origin shows your ignorance/cluelessness about the Arab world/Middle East, I see.
Arabs have an almost 3000 year old recorded history in Syria (853 BC). Arabs were recorded in what is modern-day Northern Syria during a battle between the Assyrian Empire and various allied Semitic city states and entities in what is modern-day Sham.
Assyrian and Babylonian Royal Inscriptions and North Arabian inscriptions from 9th to 6th century BCE, mention the king of Qedar as king of the Arabs and King of the Ishmaelites.
[90][91][92][93] Of the names of the sons of Ishmael the names "Nabat, Kedar, Abdeel, Dumah, Massa, and Teman" were mentioned in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions as tribes of the Ishmaelites. Jesur was mentioned in Greek inscriptions in the 1st century BCE.
[94]
Arab created several kingdoms in what is today Syria millennia before the Rashidun. Ever heard about the Ghassanids who ruled Syria for 4 centuries prior to the Rashidun?
About the Nabateans that ruled Southern Syria over 2000 years ago? About Philip the Arab, an Arab emperor from Southern Syria that ruled the Roman empire 400 years before the Rashidun?
Of Queen Zenobia, an Arab queen, and of the ancient city of Palmyra? Bosra?
Basically half of Sham is geographically a part of Arabia.
Not to mention that we were/are all Semitic and racially the same people.
All people adopted an identity at one point in time, what matters here is that all Arabs are native to the Arab world and of the same racial stock and mostly Semitic peoples. Even Arabia was Arabized. Your logic makes no sense. Those are several millennia old entities.
You are pathetically trying to equate millennia old identities with some recent construct that began in 1947 and trying to claim that identical people (Arab Jews) whose only difference is their passport and religion (a closely fellow Semitic and Abrahamic religion native to the Arab world) suddenly makes Jewish Yemenis, identical genetically to their Arab brethren, magically turn into different people from the Yemeni Muslims. That is not how the world works.
If they had lived in Turkey and intermarried for centuries upon centuries, that might have been the case but I want to inform you that there already exists an indigenous Arab community in Turkey that predates the Turkic migrations by millennia. Not to mention that modern day Turks have plenty of Arab/Semitic admixture as proven by DNA, in particular those in the South and East but not only.
Maybe you should substantiate your claims?
Not sure whether you are trolling (appears to be the case) but did I not write to you that the age of conquest is over and that political unification and unification as a whole can occur without conquest? Ever heard about how the UAE unified? Or Yemen in 1990? Or how Egypt and Syria joined hands to create a country? Or Jordan and Iraq? Or how Libya, Egypt and Syria joined hands in the 1970's officially?
I agree but my point is that they don't like Arabs, like Pakistanis don't like Indians, got my point?
Native Pakistanis by a whole have little to do with Indians racially expect for Punjabis and Sindhis who only have a racial affinity with Indian Punjab and immediate neighboring regions. I think that practically every Pakistani user here will attest to that.
India is one of the most diverse regions of the world for a reason home to 100's of various ethnic groups and languages. There is no such thing as an "Indian ethnicity". Never was.
@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan might elaborate more here.
