[Poll] India or Pakistan?

[Teutone]

Who would you support in a war or in general?

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

India.

[Teutone]

Pakistan is a shithole that makes India look like a first world country.

I think the world would even improve if Pakistan is gone.

[Bandesha]

https://i.imgur.com/dDDoeeG.png

pakistan

[TheMaestro]

Ehmmmmm, could only go based on the people I met. To be honest I never met a Paki in my life. On the other hand I've met many Indians. In general they are very dirty, I hate their movies and series and their culture is foreign for me, but Imo they are not bad people at all. Pakistan has pretty bad reputation espeically because of terorism, therefore I would probably go for Indians.

[rajputprincess]

India

Sent from my ZUK Z2132 using Tapatalk

[El_Abominacion]

Absolutely India. Sure some Indians can be pretty backwards but Pakistan is Islamic and treats non Muslims like dirt

[rajputprincess]

Ehmmmmm, could only go based on the people I met. To be honest I never met a Paki in my life. On the other hand I've met many Indians. In general they are very dirty, I hate their movies and series and their culture is foreign for me, but Imo they are not bad people at all. Pakistan has pretty bad reputation espeically because of terorism, therefore I would probably go for Indians.What do you mean by dirty unhygienic ?

Sent from my ZUK Z2132 using Tapatalk

[Teutone]

vote you sexy fuckers

[Kamal900]

I'd say India regardless on the fact that I have no issues with Pakistan or Pakistanis in general..

[Thambi]

As an Indian I obviously support India but I have huge respect for Pakistan. Pakistani air force has done a good job retaliating against Indian fighter jets. They also captured one of the pilots. Even then Imran khan, pakistani pm, is quite humble about the situation and looking for peace. He will definitely push Pakistan forward. Modi honestly just used this situation to help him with the upcoming elections. Now that pakistan has the upperhand, not sure what the indian government is planning to do.

[Blondie]

India because i hate islam.

[Teutone]

S H I T H O L E


https://youtu.be/vLAXISIT29E

[War Chef]

Jamaica because dem da rasta mon

[Bandesha]

S H I T H O L E


https://youtu.be/vLAXISIT29E

stupid redneck what's up with you?

did some paki hurt you?

[Kamal900]

As an Indian I obviously support India but I have huge respect for Pakistan. Pakistani air force has done a good job retaliating against Indian fighter jets. They also captured one of the pilots. Even then Imran khan, pakistani pm, is quite humble about the situation and looking for peace. He will definitely push Pakistan forward. Modi honestly just used this situation to help him with the upcoming elections. Now that pakistan has the upperhand, not sure what the indian government is planning to do.

You don't like Modi?

[TheMaestro]

What do you mean by dirty unhygienic ?

Sent from my ZUK Z2132 using Tapatalk

Yes, even you can look at what state India is, overpopulated, too much people, everywhere rubbish around, lack of middle-class society etc, incredible differences in society.

[Blondie]

stupid redneck what's up with you?

did some paki hurt you?

But he is right. Pakistan is a human version of Hell.

[Teutone]

stupid redneck what's up with you?

did some paki hurt you?

Watch the video, Hadji.

[rajputprincess]

Yes, even you can look at what state India is, overpopulated, too much people, everywhere rubbish around, lack of middle-class society etc, incredible differences in society.I know but there are indian who are billionaire and honestly many indian don't smell so i guess it depends on individual.

Sent from my ZUK Z2132 using Tapatalk

[Bandesha]

I'd say India regardless on the fact that I have no issues with Pakistan or Pakistanis in general..

if i was in power i would have made arabs my colony first because eventually over populated pakistan have to find a good place to live , too bad paki superior man consider sand monkies as holy man and respect them


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ_79KunT4Q

[rajputprincess]

if i had power i would have made arabs my colony first because eventually over populated pakistan have find a good place to live , too bad paki superior man consider sand monkies as holy man and respect them


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ_79KunT4QLet Me honest pakistan can't make any Colony pakistani should have less kids and focus on modernization rather than on islam believe me islam don't benifit anyone best muslim countries are turkey Lebanon Tunisia least muslim not counting gulf countries because they have oil.

Sent from my ZUK Z2132 using Tapatalk

[Óttar]

India, obviously. The integrity of the Pakistani state rests on its support for terrorism. Outside of Saudi Arabia (and the US), Pakistan is the #1 supporter of terror worldwide.

[lameduck]

Pakistan obviously since I am Pakistani , but i have great respect for india , its culture civilization and military. i think both countries have lots of similar problems.

[lameduck]

As an Indian I obviously support India but I have huge respect for Pakistan. Pakistani air force has done a good job retaliating against Indian fighter jets. They also captured one of the pilots. Even then Imran khan, pakistani pm, is quite humble about the situation and looking for peace. He will definitely push Pakistan forward. Modi honestly just used this situation to help him with the upcoming elections. Now that pakistan has the upperhand, not sure what the indian government is planning to do.

Pakistan despite its bravery and professionalism can only give india a bloody nose, India's conventional strength is just too much

[Teutone]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcRLak8AXVvu-O4FobSVxigPfyTKLlD-6SsSfVdiiVBbIUUZYCs_

[Thambi]

You don't like Modi?

not that I don't like him. Quite indifferent about indian politicians. They're all the same. corrupt, non secular, uneducated, unproductive. I dont know what the need was to initially send aircrafts into pakistan and make statements like "Pakistan will pay for the pulwama attack". Pakistan offered help with the investigation in the terrorist group that caused the attack in kashmir and if India cooperated, something could have been done. But no modi had to showoff to get support for the upcoming election. India made statements like they killed 300 militants when they sent the aircrafts and they didn't kill anyone besides some random family in the forest and the trees. So neither did they get anything done, and made pakistan and the world seem like India ran off in fear. He deserved it honestly.

[Kamal900]

not that I don't like him. Quite indifferent about indian politicians. They're all the same. corrupt, non secular, uneducated, unproductive. I dont know what the need was to initially send aircrafts into pakistan and make statements like "Pakistan will pay for the pulwama attack". Pakistan offered help with the investigation in the terrorist group that caused the attack in kashmir and if India cooperated, something could have been done. But no modi had to showoff to get support for the upcoming election. India made statements like they killed 300 militants when they sent the aircrafts and they didn't kill anyone besides some random family in the forest and the trees. So neither did they get anything done, and made pakistan and the world seem like India ran off in fear. He deserved it honestly.

I wish that all Indians in India had the same kind of thinking as you. It would have been a very different country for the better in my opinion.

[lameduck]

I'd say India regardless on the fact that I have no issues with Pakistan or Pakistanis in general..

you broke my heart bro, Arabs are one of closest friend's of Pakistan

[Thambi]

Pakistan despite its bravery and professionalism can only give india a bloody nose, India's conventional strength is just too much

I dont think there will be any conventional war though. Its unlikely. There's huge debt from both sides and both countries will face severe losses.

[lameduck]

I'd say India regardless on the fact that I have no issues with Pakistan or Pakistanis in general..

you broke my heart bro, Arabs are one of closest friend of Pakistan

[Teutone]

you broke my heart bro, Arabs are one of closest friend's of Pakistan

Toppo knows no Ummah

[Papastratosels26]

India

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

I have more sympathy for India. Pakistanis are technically Indians nonetheless (who happen to be Muslim).

[Kamal900]

you broke my heart bro, Arabs are one of closest friend's of Pakistan

I never meant any disrespect, and to be frank, I don't wish to pick a side. Pakistanis are more friendly to us than most Arabs even(I'm talking in a Palestinian perpective). You should know my real family by now.

[Tigranes]

India for sure.

[Kamal900]

I have more sympathy for India. Pakistanis are technically Indians nonetheless (who happen to be Muslim).

Well, being Indian is simply an ethno-national identity. Pakistanis are their own thing.

[Westbrook]

There's a good bit of both Pakis and Indians in my neighborhood, and I've only ever gotten on with the Pakistanis. My neighbor across the street is Paki and we do each other favors from time to time, they've always been friendly. The Indians I come in contact with tend to be uppity and standoffish (many upper middle class and second generation families with money)
Ehmmmmm, could only go based on the people I met. To be honest I never met a Paki in my life. On the other hand I've met many Indians. In general they are very dirty, I hate their movies and series and their culture is foreign for me, but Imo they are not bad people at all. Pakistan has pretty bad reputation espeically because of terorism, therefore I would probably go for Indians.

[lameduck]

I never meant any disrespect, and to be frank, I don't wish to pick a side. Pakistanis are more friendly to us than most Arabs even(I'm talking in a Palestinian perpective). You should know my real family by now.

yeah bro i just hope situation de-escalates and whole region come out of this war frenzy

[Kamal900]

yeah bro i just hope situation de-escalates and whole region come out of this war frenzy

Again, I hope I didn't offend you or anything. I have nothing against Pakistanis. They're my favorite people in South Asia.

[Mingle]

Plague or cholera? I don't like either but I chose India since I view it as the lesser of the two evils and I want to see Pakistan get balkanized. I also have a more neutral/positive opinion on South Indians specifically.

[Vožd]

So, no more this? :D


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nghMRXF38_w

[Marmara]

Not my war, not my problem.

[Ayetooey]

I voted India but honestly I don't care either way, would be neutral.

[JMack]

India.

I really like India and really dislike Pakistani culture (not the people though) with exception of the Kalasha. So I hope Pakistan to be destroyed in the next years and assimilated by India becoming Hindu/Pagan again.

It's about time for Islam to be vanished from this region. They are even trying to proselityze the Kalasha peoples. I visited the area and would be a shame if the Kalasha end like the Nuristanis, converted by force by ignorant/barbaric Afghan/Pashtun Muslims.

[lameduck]

Not my war, not my problem.


I voted India but honestly I don't care either way, would be neutral.

best responses , we all should be neutral.

[Thambi]

Plague or cholera? I don't like either but I chose India since I view it as the lesser of the two evils and I want to see Pakistan get balkanized. I also have a more neutral/positive opinion on South Indians specifically.

Other than some north indians claiming pashtun heritage, I dont think they've done anything bad towards pashtuns or afghans. India even supports afghanistan and helps with many projects and many afghans study in India. I know you're technically not an afghan but kpk is usually associated with afghanistan hence i brought it up.

[Kamal900]

Toppo knows no Ummah

I don't need it to like or have affinity with other people. I've been to Pakistan, and it isn't like what you describe it to me. Granted I've been to Lahore, not Karachi.

[Incal]

India because I love BUTTER CHICKEN!

[JMack]

Other than some north indians claiming pashtun heritage, I dont think they've done anything bad towards pashtuns or afghans. India even supports afghanistan and helps with many projects and many afghans study in India. I know you're technically not an afghan but kpk is usually associated with afghanistan hence i brought it up.

Muslims will soon be totally defeated when the descendants of Charles Martel and Julian, The Apostate join the descendants of Shivaji-Ji Maharaj in the fight against this Semitic/Arabic/desertic barbarism. Push the Pashtuns/Muslims out of the sacred lands of the Hindus, these camel fuckers/arab cock suckers need to be expelled. Of course non-Muslim Pashtuns should be allowed to stay where they live.

They would have the option to become Pagans, Hindus or Buddhists again.

[Westbrook]

Yea I'm sure it's the culture of the Kalash that you like
India.

I really like India and really dislike Pakistani culture (not the people though) with exception of the Kalasha. So I hope Pakistan to be destroyed in the next years and assimilated by India becoming Hindu/Pagan again.

It's about time for Islam to be vanished from this region. They are even trying to proselityze the Kalasha peoples. I visited the area and would be a shame if the Kalasha end like the Nuristanis, converted by force by ignorant/barbaric Afghan/Pashtun Muslims.

[Mingle]

Other than some north indians claiming pashtun heritage, I dont think they've done anything bad towards pashtuns or afghans. India even supports afghanistan and helps with many projects and many afghans study in India. I know you're technically not an afghan but kpk is usually associated with afghanistan hence i brought it up.

I like the government of India but many North Indians I meet online seem complexed and have their own interpretation of history. Many are nice too, perhaps I may have been unfair to them but whatever. The main reason I specified South Indians though is cause I had some good friends from there (one Telugu Hindu & multiple Malayali Christians).

[Purohit ji]

India. But i dont want any war. Pakistan waalo ko bhi kashmir ka sapna chhod dena chahiye kyonki kashmir bharat ki naak ka sawal hai.

[Kamal900]

India.

I really like India and really dislike Pakistani culture (not the people though) with exception of the Kalasha. So I hope Pakistan to be destroyed in the next years and assimilated by India becoming Hindu/Pagan again.

It's about time for Islam to be vanished from this region. They are even trying to proselityze the Kalasha peoples. I visited the area and would be a shame if the Kalasha end like the Nuristanis, converted by force by ignorant/barbaric Afghan/Pashtun Muslims.

Pakistan should never seize to exist. Don't know why you think that if they had become atheists or whatever they seize to become Pakistanis? It's a national identity, not a religious one.

[Óttar]

India.

I really like India and really dislike Pakistani culture (not the people though) with exception of the Kalasha. So I hope Pakistan to be destroyed in the next years and assimilated by India becoming Hindu/Pagan again.

It's about time for Islam to be vanished from this region. They are even trying to proselityze the Kalasha peoples. I visited the area and would be a shame if the Kalasha end like the Nuristanis, converted by force by ignorant/barbaric Afghan/Pashtun Muslims.

Pakistani historians want to portray the region as Muslim historically, but up until relatively recently in the scheme of things, the region was Hindu/Buddhist/"pagan"/Zoroastrian. A shame they converted. When the Sufis came around, the common people thought the religion was just singing, dancing, and chanting. Too bad it is anything but.

[Thambi]

Muslims will soon be totally defeated when the descendants of Charles Martel and Julian, The Apostate join the descendants of Shivaji-Ji Maharaj in the fight against this Semitic/Arabic/desertic barbarism. Push the Pashtuns/Muslims out of the sacred lands of the Hindus, these camel fuckers/arab cock suckers need to be expelled. Of course non-Muslim Pashtuns should be allowed to stay where they live.

They would have the option to become Pagans, Hindus or Buddhists again.

india is aiming to be secular. there is no point in this division since thats one of the main reasons india and entire south asia is backwards. dividing in the name of ethnicity, caste, religion, color, etc. I hope modi doesnt get re-elected. he's quite anti muslim.

[lameduck]

India. But i dont want any war. Pakistan waalo ko bhi kashmir ka sapna chhod dena chahiye kyonki kashmir bharat ki naak ka sawal hai.

india should also try to integrate Kashmiris as much as possible in Indian mainstream. Give them more development funds, scholarships to students etc

[NPKTO]

Neutral. I don’t like any kind of war.

[JMack]

india is aiming to be secular. there is no point in this division since thats one of the main reasons india and entire south asia is backwards. dividing in the name of ethnicity, caste, religion, color, etc. I hope modi doesnt get re-elected. he's quite anti muslim.

''Secularism'' in India is a western backed bullshit pushed to weaken India in the soft-power reign. Secularism is quite foreign to non-Abrahamic cultures for the simple reason these cultures lack the Abrahamic exclusivism.


Pakistan should never seize to exist. Don't know why you think that if they had become atheists or whatever they seize to become Pakistanis? It's a national identity, not a religious one.

''Pakistanis'' are Hindus, Pagans or Buddhists who converted to Islam. It's a non-existent ethno-cultural identity.


Pakistani historians want to portray the region as Muslim historically, but up until relatively recently in the scheme of things, the region was Hindu/Buddhist/"pagan"/Zoroastrian. A shame they converted. When the Sufis came around, the common people thought the religion was just singing, dancing, and chanting. Too bad it is anything but.

True. Sufism is what remains from previous traditions like neoplatonism and mystery religions inside Islam, it has nothing to do with mainstream Islam, it's basically hated by most Sunis. And even Sufism was used as tactic to convert more spiritually advanced populations.

Islam is cancer.

[lameduck]

I think there should be a neutral option as well, since Pakistan is persona non grata of the world , even many neutrals will be voting for India.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Well, being Indian is simply an ethno-national identity. Pakistanis are their own thing.

Both Pakistan and India are multi-nation-single-states.

[Óttar]

True. Sufism is what remains from previous traditions like neoplatonism and mystery religions inside Islam, it has nothing to do with mainstream Islam, it's basically hated by most Sunis. And even Sufism was used as tactic to convert more spiritually advanced populations.

Islam is cancer.
Notice how Abrahamism is so bankrupt, it couldn't survive without appropriating "pagan" traditions. It's a shame that the people fell for it. Now the human race is about to start WW3 over a land the size of a swimming pool in the Middle East. Sickening.

[Kamal900]

Muslims will soon be totally defeated when the descendants of Charles Martel and Julian, The Apostate join the descendants of Shivaji-Ji Maharaj in the fight against this Semitic/Arabic/desertic barbarism. Push the Pashtuns/Muslims out of the sacred lands of the Hindus, these camel fuckers/arab cock suckers need to be expelled. Of course non-Muslim Pashtuns should be allowed to stay where they live.

They would have the option to become Pagans, Hindus or Buddhists again.

Not sure why you're trying to link Islam with the Arabs considering that there are plenty of Arab christians and druze in Latin America. Here's an Arab Hindu Yogi to prove my point exactly:
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?279347-Arab-Yogi-Ayman-Al-Khatib

[lameduck]

''Secularism'' in India is a western backed bullshit pushed to weaken India in the soft-power reign. Secularism is quite foreign to non-Abrahamic cultures for the simple reason these cultures lack the Abrahamic exclusivism.



''Pakistanis'' are Hindus, Pagans or Buddhists who converted to Islam. It's a non-existent ethno-cultural identity.



True. Sufism is what remains from previous traditions like neoplatonism and mystery religions inside Islam, it has nothing to do with mainstream Islam, it's basically hated by most Sunis. And even Sufism was used as tactic to convert more spiritually advanced populations.

Islam is cancer.

Pakistanis are definitely converts , but over the time it has become a strong national identity as well, uniting people living around indus river.Most Pakistanis regardless of ethnicity strongly associate with Pakistan as well. I think even if you look at geopolitically Pakistan is buffering lots of mess between central Asia, west Asia and South Asia

[JMack]

Not sure why you're trying to link Islam with the Arabs considering that there are plenty of Arab christians and druze in Latin America. Here's an Arab Hindu Yogi to prove my point exactly:
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?279347-Arab-Yogi-Ayman-Al-Khatib

Christian ''Arabs'' are just arabized natives anyway. Druze probably only adopted a monotheistic and ''Arab'' identity to avoid persecution.

They are inheritors of late platonists from the Levant like Porphyry and Iamblichus.

[Arsen_]

India for sure! India is a friendly country.

Pakistan on the other hand for the sake of Azerbaijan does not recognize Armenia! Disgusting.

[Kamal900]

Christian ''Arabs'' are just arabized natives anyway. Druze probably only adopted a monotheistic and ''Arab'' identity to avoid persecution.

They are inheritors of late platonists from the Levant like Porphyry and Iamblichus.

Well, um, I kinda agree considering that Arabization started in the 7th century AD..but Muslims or Muslim origins like myself are also Arabized. Christians and the Druze are genetically more homogeneous while the Muslims tend to have European, SSA, Arabian and other admixtures. The differences between them is not that great though.

[Roy]

Pakistan is a shithole that makes India look like a first world country.

I think the world would even improve if Pakistan is gone.


50% of Indians don't even know what a shithole is as they practice open defecation :eek: Pakistan has a better hygiene / toilet access than India.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

India for sure! India is a friendly country.

Pakistan on the other hand for the sake of Azerbaijan does not recognize Armenia! Disgusting.

Lmao why would you care if Pakis don't recognize you though ? Pretend like they don't exist.

[JMack]

Well, um, I kinda agree considering that Arabization started in the 7th century AD..but Muslims or Muslim origins like myself are also Arabized. Christians and the Druze are genetically more homogeneous while the Muslims tend to have European, SSA, Arabian and other admixtures. The differences between them is not that great though.

I'm not talking about race, but culture. For me a Nordic looking Muslim is 1000x more despicable than a Tamil looking Hindu.

[Kamal900]

I'm not talking about race, but culture. For me a Nordic looking Muslim is 1000x more despicable than a Tamil looking Hindu.

Hmm, what do you think of ex-Muslim atheists such as myself? Atheism is growing in the middle east.

[JMack]

Hmm, what do you think of ex-Muslim atheists such as myself? Atheism is growing in the middle east.

I'm not Atheist, but at least atheists are not persecuting other creeds as Abrahamic religions did. But there are exceptions, like the previously communist states.

The world would be far better without sand religions like Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

[Borealis]

Pakistan is a shithole that makes India look like a first world country.

I think the world would even improve if Pakistan is gone.

Tbh this is not true. Both countries have different problems

[TheMaestro]

There's a good bit of both Pakis and Indians in my neighborhood, and I've only ever gotten on with the Pakistanis. My neighbor across the street is Paki and we do each other favors from time to time, they've always been friendly. The Indians I come in contact with tend to be uppity and standoffish (many upper middle class and second generation families with money)

Yeah well could be, those nations are for me really like aliens, cause I've spoken to Indians once in my life who were tourist and I helped them in hospital. So all my observations come only from news/ movies etc.

[Arsen_]

Lmao why would you care if Pakis don't recognize you though ? Pretend like they don't exist.

Maybe you are right! After all their recognition is not that important. It is just outrageous when a country with which your people have never had conflicts behave so hostile.

[lameduck]

Maybe you are right! After all their recognition is not that important. It is just outrageous when a country with which your people have never had conflicts behave so hostile.

Armenians are great people imo , I hope one day Pakistan accepts Armenia and we had some Armenian community in a secular Pakistan.

[Thambi]

Hope no war escalates. It seems unlikely so thats the bright side. I just hope the kashmir issue gets resolved with proper international borders sometime soon. This way, both sides of kashmir can focus on the development. Kashmir independence is pretty much not practical at all. Its just as unrealistic as tibetan independence.

[Thracian]

Pakistan helped us too much. I like them and support a secular government in Pakistan.

All Indians that I met were quite good people.

I think that a peaceful solution for Kashmir is better for both India and Pakistan.

[lameduck]

Hope no war escalates. It seems unlikely so thats the bright side. I just hope the kashmir issue gets resolved with proper international borders sometime soon. This way, both sides of kashmir can focus on the development. Kashmir independence is pretty much not practical at all. Its just as unrealistic as tibetan independence.

reports are coming something is big going to happen, tonight from Indian side , all Pakistani bases are on high alert. Modi needs a face saving adventure it looks like.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

I must say South Asian Punjabi women can be really attractive. North South Asian females are very underrated tbh, I rate them much above East Asians.

[Mingle]

Muslims will soon be totally defeated when the descendants of Charles Martel and Julian, The Apostate join the descendants of Shivaji-Ji Maharaj in the fight against this Semitic/Arabic/desertic barbarism. Push the Pashtuns/Muslims out of the sacred lands of the Hindus, these camel fuckers/arab cock suckers need to be expelled. Of course non-Muslim Pashtuns should be allowed to stay where they live.

They would have the option to become Pagans, Hindus or Buddhists again.

Northern Pashtunistan (East Afg, NW Pak) was Gandharan Hindu in the distant past but Gandharans are extinct now and their blood is likely somewhat diluted among the population that currently lives in their former lands. Their ethnicity is extinct now though without any survivors that can claim their heritage. Also, the ancestors of Pashtuns were East Iranic polytheists rather than Hindus. Why are you specifying Pashtuns here anyways?

[rajputprincess]

I don't like islam honestly it is sexist.

Sent from my ZUK Z2132 using Tapatalk

[rajputprincess]

Honestly hope we never get into war through i dont hate pakistani for me they are like my brother and sisters.

Sent from my ZUK Z2132 using Tapatalk

[Thambi]

reports are coming something is big going to happen, tonight from Indian side , all Pakistani bases are on high alert. Modi needs a face saving adventure it looks like.

Yeah he should stop. Seriously he's making everything worse.

[щрбл]

Who would you support in a war or in general?

would you rather accept paki war refugees or indian war refugees? :rolleyes:

[Antimatter]

Neither. War is creative destruction.

[JMack]

Northern Pashtunistan (East Afg, NW Pak) was Gandharan Hindu in the distant past but Gandharans are extinct now and their blood is likely somewhat diluted among the population that currently lives in their former lands. Their ethnicity is extinct now though without any survivors that can claim their heritage. Also, the ancestors of Pashtuns were East Iranic polytheists rather than Hindus. Why are you specifying Pashtuns here anyways?

I have a theory that Pashtuns are Iranized Indo-Aryans. There's some bibliographical base for defending this and I think I'm quite competent in Indo-European linguistics (I can read in Vedic and Classical Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Ancient and Middle Persian and I'm learning Tocharian).

But everything above is off-topic. I mentioned Pashtuns because they are the most distinct (i.e. more radical and backward) Muslims in the region and also were likely responsible for islamizing a lot of Iranic and Indo-Aryan populations.

[Mingle]

I have a theory that Pashtuns are Iranized Indo-Aryans. There's some bibliographical base for defending this and I think I'm quite competent in Indo-European linguistics (I can read in Vedic and Classical Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Ancient and Middle Persian and I'm learning Tocharian).

But everything above is off-topic. I mentioned Pashtuns because they are the most distinct (i.e. more radical and backward) Muslims in the region and also were likely responsible for islamizing a lot of Iranic and Indo-Aryan populations.

Being competent in that stuff is irrelevant here, especially if you don't know Pashtun history. Pashtuns have tribal lineages that record descent going back generations and there were multiple migration waves from southern Pashtunistan to northern Pashtunistan. You can't expect that not to have had a significant impact. Besides, the Pre-Iranic language and identity that existed among the Indic people that used to inhabit the land is gone. The land is Pashtun now and Pashtuns have been living here for several centuries now. Amerindians have a much greater right to Brazil than anything you mentioned.

[lameduck]

I have a theory that Pashtuns are Iranized Indo-Aryans. There's some bibliographical base for defending this and I think I'm quite competent in Indo-European linguistics (I can read in Vedic and Classical Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Ancient and Middle Persian and I'm learning Tocharian).

But everything above is off-topic. I mentioned Pashtuns because they are the most distinct (i.e. more radical and backward) Muslims in the region and also were likely responsible for islamizing a lot of Iranic and Indo-Aryan populations.

The pre iranic population of KPK(North Pakistan/East Afghanistan) , some of that might have gotten Pashtunized was of Hindukush stock imo similar to people of chitral and gilgit.

[GreentheViper]

India

[JMack]

Being competent in that stuff is irrelevant here, especially if you don't know Pashtun history. Pashtuns have tribal lineages that record descent going back generations and there were multiple migration waves from southern Pashtunistan to northern Pashtunistan. You can't expect that not to have had a significant impact. Besides, the Pre-Iranic language and identity that existed among the Indic people that used to inhabit the land is gone. The land is Pashtun now and Pashtuns have been living here for several centuries now. Amerindians have a much greater right to Brazil than anything you mentioned.

Well, Native Amerindians aren't even enough people to live in the city in which I live in, much less all of Brazil. And I don't have a problem admiting some lands were stolen from them. Other problem is that most of these groups have been completely wiped out. So there's no reason to give the lands back to them, since they don't even exist anymore.

My point is that many Iranic speakers from Afghanistan and the Nuristanis (their language is in between Iranic and Indo-Aryan) were previously Indo-Aryan groups and they started to be Iranized some 1500 years ago. They didn't came to the region out of nowhere... The border between ''Iranic'' and ''Indo-Aryan'' was much more porous in the beggining of the Common Era than it is now. There's even evidence of Iranic speakers in modern territory of India. They have been probably ''Aryanized''.

Modern Pashtuns don't share much with Indo-Aryan speakers like Rajasthanis or even Punjabis, but it doesn't mean we should super-impose relatively recent notions and identities on previous historical periods.

Also, I'd be glad if Pashthuns abandon Islam or got expelled from the area they live by Hindus, not because I dislike Pashtuns but because I dislike Islam. The OP asked for an opinion and I gave mine, backward Islamic peoples don't have my sympathy. We know quite well if (in an alternative reality) Indo-Aryans didn't had absorbed much native Australid blood Pashtuns wouldn't mind to be associated with them.

If there was a relatively big unmixed Indo-Aryan population unrelated to Jalus like the Nuristanis, Kalasha etc. Afghans and even MENAs would have no problems associating with them.

[Mingle]

Well, Native Amerindians aren't even enough people to live in the city in which I live in, much less all of Brazil.

Much of the land can be filled with Amerindians from other regions and reforested.


And I don't have a problem admiting some lands were stolen from them. Other problem is that most of these groups have been completely wiped out. So there's no reason to give the lands back to them, since they don't even exist anymore.

It's the same case here. Saying that Indians should take land from us cause the region was inhabited by an unrelated extinct Indic people over a thousand years ago is like saying that Amerindians should take land from White/African/etc. Brazilians because Brazil was inhabited by an unrelated extinct Amerindian group centuries ago. That's your logic.


My point is that many Iranic speakers from Afghanistan and the Nuristanis (their language is in between Iranic and Indo-Aryan) were previously Indo-Aryan groups and they started to be Iranized some 1500 years ago. They didn't came to the region out of nowhere... The border between ''Iranic'' and ''Indo-Aryan'' was much more porous in the beggining of the Common Era than it is now. There's even evidence of Iranic speakers in modern territory of India. They have been probably ''Aryanized''.

Prior to Indians, there were other people living there. The Pre-Iranic Indians and the pre-Indic populations are both extinct. Also, there were Iranic migrations to that region before Pashtuns became the majority in that land.


Also, I'd be glad if Pashthuns abandon Islam or got expelled from the area they live by Hindus, not because I dislike Pashtuns but because I dislike Islam.

Expelling us makes no sense if we're native. Should all Muslims be expelled from their area? Should Chechens be expelled out of the Caucasus and replaced by Russian Christians? I think its fine if you think we should leave Islam but expelling is different.


The OP asked for an opinion and I gave mine, backward Islamic peoples don't have my sympathy.

He asked whether you prefer India or Pakistan not if you think Pashtuns should be forced to convert to a foreign religion or get expelled. You yourself admitted it was off-topic in your last reply.


We know quite well if (in an alternative reality) Indo-Aryans didn't had absorbed much native Australid blood Pashtuns wouldn't mind to be associated with them. If there was a relatively big unmixed Indo-Aryan population unrelated to Jalus like the Nuristanis, Kalasha etc. Afghans and even MENAs would have no problems associating with them.

That's pretty irrelevant since we're not arguing about association. The Chitralis (including the Kalash) and Shinas sort of match that description (genetically similar to modern Pashtuns) but I wouldn't want to be replaced by them either. They aren't ancestral to us and live in different lands.

[Oghuz]

None

Madness should stop. Young men will die for no reason.

[JMack]

Much of the land can be filled with Amerindians from other regions and reforested.


Well, but ''Amerindian'' isn't an ethnic group, the Amerindians living in far away lands have nothing to do with the ones who were living here before.


It's the same case here. Saying that Indians should take land from us cause the region was inhabited by an unrelated extinct Indic people over a thousand years ago is like saying that Amerindians should take land from White/African/etc. Brazilians because Brazil was inhabited by an unrelated extinct Amerindian group centuries ago. That's your logic.

It's not very similar because there's no continuity between Amerindians who got extinct and Amerindians from Amazon living thousands of kilometers from here and with no cultural association with the previous inhabitants. It's like arguing Mexican Mestizos or Apaches have more rights in Brazil than White Brazilians, lol. There's continuity between ancient Brahmanism and modern Hinduism.


Prior to Indians, there were other people living there. The Pre-Iranic Indians and the pre-Indic populations are both extinct. Also, there were Iranic migrations to that region before Pashtuns became the majority in that land.

I'm not talking about pre-Iranic or pre-Indo-Aryan peoples. These people either got extinct or absorbed by Indo-European invaders. We could compare the situation of Pashtuns and, let's say, Punjabis, as being analogous as the one between White Colonial Brazilians and Brazilian Pardos. Both groups have similar paternal ancestry and share some IBD, but autosomally pardos absorbed more negroid/amerindian blood than Whites. In the same way, Punjabis absorbed more Australoid blood than Pashtuns.

My point is that ethnogenesis of these populations are quite complex. For example, many modern Indo-Aryans from Eastern India were once Iranic speaking peoples, the ''Dasa'' alluded in the Rg-Veda weren't the native black-skinned Veddids, but the Iranic rivals of the early Aryans. That's Asko Parpola (Finnish scholar on Indo-Europeans and Hinduism) thesis. These Iranic groups from India slowly shifted to Indo-Aryan languages and became even more mixed than upper caste Indo-Aryans with time since they had no caste system.

A similar thing but in inverse way happened with the ancestors of modern Pashtuns. Pashtuns were once Indo-Aryans (actually quite closer to early Indo-Aryans than modern Indo-Aryans, which mostly absorbed tons of native Indian blood) and probably even Hindus or followers of a kind of Aryo-Iranic type of religion. Slowly Pashtuns became iranized and shifted to an Iranic group. Pashtuns were never like Tajiks who are actual Persians/former Zoroastrians.

The same thing that happened with Pashtuns was happening with Nuristanis as well, but their language got more preserved and resemble more Indo-Aryan Dardic dialects. Look, I'm not saying you guys are or ever were related by blood with people who carry more than 30% ASI in their veins like Rajasthanis or Biharis lol, just that Pashtuns are even closer to the proto-Indo-Aryans than them and probably there wasn't a big gap between early Iranic or Indo-Aryan groups. Certainly Pashtuns carry some Gandharan blood, but Gandharans were never like most modern Indo-Aryan ethnicities anyway.


Expelling us makes no sense if we're native. Should all Muslims be expelled from their area? Should Chechens be expelled out of the Caucasus and replaced by Russian Christians? I think its fine if you think we should leave Islam but expelling is different.

I would like if the Russian expelled the Chechens and settled someone else there. But that's unrealistic and will never happen. India taking back former Hindu lands in the future after balkanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan isn't impossible imo.

Anyway, as I said, my point is not against Pashtuns, I think Pashtuns are native and should remain where they are. But in some hypothetical Pakistan-India war I'd support India (as if my support was important lol) and would be happy if India could expel Muslims from the region and maybe even reconvert these populations to Hinduism or their previous Iranic - Indo-Iranic polytheisms. It's not an impossible future, some Hindu groups even plan to offer this opportunity for the local peoples who want to abandon Islam.

The problem with radical Islam isn't only that it's backward, it's also intolerant, violent and harmful to anyone who isn't a Muslim. There's no way to share borders or communities with Muslims without being hostile to them, because they are hostile against Hindus, Pagans (like the Kalasha) and Buddhists.


That's pretty irrelevant since we're not arguing about association. The Chitralis (including the Kalash) and Shinas sort of match that description (genetically similar to modern Pashtuns) but I wouldn't want to be replaced by them either. They aren't ancestral to us and live in different lands.

Agreed. They are not ancestral to Pashtuns and I never claimed they should substitute you guys, I'm actually claiming Pashtuns are equally native as them, my point is that you guys are following a foreign religion which converted your ancestors by force. Was not for Islam Pashtuns wouldn't be aggressive Jihadists but likely happy Pagans as the Kalasha.

[Óttar]

In the movie Crash, this guy does a hate crime against a Persian family. He writes, "Filthy Arabs" on the wall. The mother, crying, asks, "Since when did Persian become Arab!?" I'm thinking, 'When you converted to Islam...' The conversion of Persia to Islam, especially considering that the Arab ascendant class was a stark minority, is one of the greatest sell-outs in history.

Listen, I love the Persian language, mystical poetry, etc. but you guys really dropped the ball there...


It's not an impossible future, some Hindu groups even plan to offer this opportunity for the local peoples who want to abandon Islam.
Arvind Sharma in his Hinduism as a Missionary Religion shows that Hindu kings offered some Persianate tribes the opportunity to convert to Hinduism as long as they adopted some Vedic prayers. There have been examples of outsiders adopting/converting to Hinduism throughout all periods of Indian history.

[Hulu]

In the movie Crash, this guy does a hate crime against a Persian family. He writes, "Filthy Arabs" on the wall. The mother, crying, asks, "Since when did Persian become Arab!?" I'm thinking, 'When you converted to Islam...' The conversion of Persia to Islam, especially considering that the Arab ascendant class was a stark minority, is one of the greatest sell-outs in history.

I was expecting you to say Indian punaani

[Asheffar]

They are one people separated by religion.Culturally speaking i dont see much difference.

[Mingle]

Well, but ''Amerindian'' isn't an ethnic group, the Amerindians living in far away lands have nothing to do with the ones who were living here before.

All Amerindians (excluding Arctic ones) have ancestry from the Clovis culture. They have a relatively recent common origin distinct from Western European colonialists that came after the Middle Ages ended.


It's not very similar because there's no continuity between Amerindians who got extinct and Amerindians from Amazon living thousands of kilometers from here and with no cultural association with the previous inhabitants. It's like arguing Mexican Mestizos or Apaches have more rights in Brazil than White Brazilians, lol. There's continuity between ancient Brahmanism and modern Hinduism.

There's no genetic continuity between Biharis/Punjabis and some extinct group who only had some vague cultural ties to them.


I'm not talking about pre-Iranic or pre-Indo-Aryan peoples. These people either got extinct or absorbed by Indo-European invaders. We could compare the situation of Pashtuns and, let's say, Punjabis, as being analogous as the one between White Colonial Brazilians and Brazilian Pardos. Both groups have similar paternal ancestry and share some IBD, but autosomally pardos absorbed more negroid/amerindian blood than Whites. In the same way, Punjabis absorbed more Australoid blood than Pashtuns.

It's not a good comparison since the shared paternal ancestry between Pashtuns and Punjabis dates back to the Steppe long before either modern ethnic groups existed.


A similar thing but in inverse way happened with the ancestors of modern Pashtuns.

Except you don't have any proof that the same thing happened to Pashtuns.


Pashtuns were once Indo-Aryans (actually quite closer to early Indo-Aryans than modern Indo-Aryans, which mostly absorbed tons of native Indian blood) and probably even Hindus or followers of a kind of Aryo-Iranic type of religion. Slowly Pashtuns became iranized and shifted to an Iranic group.

Pashtuns were never like Tajiks who are actual Persians/former Zoroastrians.

Tajiks themselves aren't pure Iranics. They're basically Iranics that mixed with Turks instead of Indians. Their lower Australoid and higher Mongoloid is why they are not genetically identical to us. There are outlier Pashtun samples from Pakistan that plot with Pamiris. How would you explain that if Pashtuns were never similar to them from the beginning? Pamiris are basically Tajikistani Persians with less Central Asian Turkish blood. And Tajiks/Persians from East/South Afg plot with Pashtuns rather than with other Tajiks. I don't see how it makes sense for you to use a population with heavy Turkic admixture as a proxy for what the original Iranians were like.

BTW, all Iranic people (even Yaghnobis) have some Australoid.


The same thing that happened with Pashtuns was happening with Nuristanis as well, but their language got more preserved and resemble more Indo-Aryan Dardic dialects. Look, I'm not saying you guys are or ever were related by blood with people who carry more than 30% ASI in their veins like Rajasthanis or Biharis lol, just that Pashtuns are even closer to the proto-Indo-Aryans than them and probably there wasn't a big gap between early Iranic or Indo-Aryan groups. Certainly Pashtuns carry some Gandharan blood, but Gandharans were never like most modern Indo-Aryan ethnicities anyway.

If there wasn't a big gap between early Iranics and Indo-Aryans, then what makes you say we aren't genetically close to early Iranics but to early IAs?

Most Pashtuns belong to the R1a-Z93 clade of M12280 whereas most Indo-Aryans are Y6 (this also exists among Pashtuns and some lands that had no historic Indic presence) but in less amounts). If we were Indo-Aryans that underwent a language shift, then we should be predominantly Y6.

Also, you don't know what the Gandharis were like genetically. There are some western Dards who plot with Khatris and Sindhis when you average them. Not to mention Kashmiris who are get least 30%+ South Indian on calcs. It's not possible for them to northern Pashtuns to not have absorbed multiple large scale migration waves from southern Pashtuns (whose land was never Indic in recorded history) and not been genetically affected.


I would like if the Russian expelled the Chechens and settled someone else there.

No comment, just quoting for others to see.


But that's unrealistic and will never happen. India taking back former Hindu lands in the future after balkanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan isn't impossible imo.

It's not less realistic than your fantasy. Russian Christians already did that in East Prigorodny where they expelled many Ingush/Chechen Muslims and populated it with Ossetian Christians. Similar thing happened in Circassia. Chechnya is tiny, Chechens have a much smaller population, Chechnya is much more likely to start a conflict with Russia, and tiny Chechnya is at Russia's mercy today. OTOH, there are 20-30 million Pashtuns living in the north and they'd have to be genocided on a completely unprecedented scale for your fantasy to come true.

I'll ask again, should this happen to all Muslims?


Anyway, as I said, my point is not against Pashtuns, I think Pashtuns are native and should remain where they are. But in some hypothetical Pakistan-India war I'd support India (as if my support was important lol) and would be happy if India could expel Muslims from the region and maybe even reconvert these populations to Hinduism or their previous Iranic - Indo-Iranic polytheisms. It's not an impossible future, some Hindu groups even plan to offer this opportunity for the local peoples who want to abandon Islam.

Says the guy who whines about how Jews are trying to destroy Europeans. If we deserve to have our language, culture, and identity destroyed; then so do Southwest Europeans.

Just a word of advice: people are not religions. Religions are ideologies and people are people. You can't define people and reduce their entire existence to following a certain religion.

Something tells me that you'd support our extinction even if we weren't Muslim since you're only applying this kind of thinking to Pashtuns and have mentioned this topic in the past.


The problem with radical Islam isn't only that it's backward, it's also intolerant, violent and harmful to anyone who isn't a Muslim. There's no way to share borders or communities with Muslims without being hostile to them, because they are hostile against Hindus, Pagans (like the Kalasha) and Buddhists.

Then simply say you want Pashtuns to leave Islam (or radical Islam) instead of going the extra mile and supporting our extinction. Expelling and population replacement is a billion times less realistic than leaving Islam. Also, if history had gone different, then it's possible Pashtuns would have been as religiously Muslim as Kazakhs/Tatars/Bosniaks/Azeris who are less religious than most Christians are. There's a world of difference between wishing for people to leave a religion and supporting their genocide.

BTW, I'd prefer if Pashtuns left Islam as well.


Agreed. They are not ancestral to Pashtuns and I never claimed they should substitute you guys

You claimed that Biharis, Punjabis, etc. should substitute us despite the fact they have zero ties to our land.

[IrisSelene]

India because I have seen many documentals on Pakistan and it's fucked up especially for women and kids. Though India is kinda shitty for women and kids too, but Pakistan wins in that context.

[Rædwald]

If they both never existed my life would not be changed in a single manner.

[FinalFlash]

India. More potential and friendlier nation imo. Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism(a label erroneously attributed to Iran). Plus Pakistan is the only nation on Earth that doesnt recognize Armenia as an independent nation. Absolutely mental

[Borealis]

The only thing India has over Pakistan is its nature and wildlife. Yes, seriously. Neither nation has much to brag about.

[Ice]

Pakistan

[JMack]

All Amerindians (excluding Arctic ones) have ancestry from the Clovis culture. They have a relatively recent common origin distinct from Western European colonialists that came after the Middle Ages ended.


Well my argument isn't racial, if you look again to my messages I wasn't saying Amerindians from the Amazon or Canada or California or anywhere aren't related racially. I said they are not culturally related. No sane person would defend groups like native Tupis and Macro-Jê (the ones who've been wiped out in most of Southeast Brazil), Aztecs, Apaches, Sioux, Mohicans, Eskimos and Mapuches have the same culture or any kind of cultural continuity. They are as distinct from one another as Belarussians from the Portuguese.


There's no genetic continuity between Biharis/Punjabis and some extinct group who only had some vague cultural ties to them.

Indeed, but I never claimed there is any kind of genetic/racial continuity. I said there is continuity between Brahmanism and modern ''Hinduism'' (which is a very innacurate name for the miriad of religions who claim to follow Sanatana Dharma). Many Brahmins from other regions descend from Brahmins expelled by Muslims from these northern regions. Even if there is no genetic continuity, there is cultural continuity. Hindus and Pagans have been subjected by oppression from Muslims and Christians for centuries, they're not going to forget it. In the same way, I'd certainly support the destruction of any religious community which can only thrive through destruction of others.

The biggest mistakes Hindus from modern Northern India, Pakistan and Afghanistan commited in the past was not seizing the Muslims back to their sand/desert territories in the Middle East when they won the first battles. You can't live peacefully with someone who wants your destruction.

I admit that as someone who followed and studied Kashmir Shaivism for some years, I'm biased in the subject. What Muslims did there was tremendously disgusting.

The biggest mass murder in history was the Muslim conquest of South-Central Asia and Northern South Asia.


It's not a good comparison since the shared paternal ancestry between Pashtuns and Punjabis dates back to the Steppe long before either modern ethnic groups existed.

Most modern ethnic groups have been defined quite recently. I'm not expert in modern South Asia but I'm aware that many Punjabis are Punjabized Pashtuns and vice-versa.
In the same way, the paternal ancestry between Colonial Whites and Pardos dates back to Iberia, long before there was even a place called Brazil.


Tajiks themselves aren't pure Iranics. They're basically Iranics that mixed with Turks instead of Indians. Their lower Australoid and higher Mongoloid is why they are not genetically identical to us. There are outlier Pashtun samples from Pakistan that plot with Pamiris. How would you explain that if Pashtuns were never similar to them from the beginning? Pamiris are basically Tajikistani Persians with less Central Asian Turkish blood. And Tajiks/Persians from East/South Afg plot with Pashtuns rather than with other Tajiks. I don't see how it makes sense for you to use a population with heavy Turkic admixture as a proxy for what the original Iranians were like.

BTW, all Iranic people (even Yaghnobis) have some Australoid.

Well, I'm not arguing about genetics or race, really. I don't know why you came up with this. I said Tajiks are culturally Persian and have always claimed to be Persian, I didn't said they are the same as modern Persian Iranians from an autosomal POV. The ''Tajik'' ethnicity itself is quite recent. Language, culture and religion aren't always based on autosomal resemblance.

Middle class Catholic Mestizos from Honduras are culturally and linguistically more similar to Southern Italians than Orthodox Greeks from the Islands and Peloponnese, being autosomally similar doesn't mean belonging to the same cultural or linguistic sphere.



If there wasn't a big gap between early Iranics and Indo-Aryans, then what makes you say we aren't genetically close to early Iranics but to early IAs?

Most Pashtuns belong to the R1a-Z93 clade of M12280 whereas most Indo-Aryans are Y6 (this also exists among Pashtuns and some lands that had no historic Indic presence) but in less amounts). If we were Indo-Aryans that underwent a language shift, then we should be predominantly Y6.



Also, you don't know what the Gandharis were like genetically. There are some western Dards who plot with Khatris and Sindhis when you average them. Not to mention Kashmiris who are get least 30%+ South Indian on calcs. It's not possible for them to northern Pashtuns to not have absorbed multiple large scale migration waves from southern Pashtuns (whose land was never Indic in recorded history) and not been genetically affected.

I wasn't talking about genetics though, I think it was quite clear. Look at my comments above. When I said Pashtuns could have been former Indo-Aryans who shifted language I didn't said they weren't similar to Iranics to begin with.

Modern Indo-Aryans, with exception of Nuristanis (if you consider them IA) and other isolate groups are mostly mixed-race groups when compared to early Indo-Aryans. Early Indo-Aryans likely weren't much different from Iranics, Chitralis and Kalasha from an autosomal POV.

I repeat: I never said Pashtuns are or ever been autosomally similar to Biharis, Rajasthanis or even Punjabis (even if there's overlap between some Pashthuns and some Punjabis).


I'll ask again, should this happen to all Muslims?

No. I think Muslim (and Judeo-Christian as well) influence in the world should diminish. Cultural programs like the reconversion to Hinduism proposed by some sectors of Hindu Nationalists or sponsoring of Buddhism, Zoroastrism and Pagan Iranic religions would work just fine for finishing off Muslim influence in the Pashtun area gradually.


Says the guy who whines about how Jews are trying to destroy Europeans. If we deserve to have our language, culture, and identity destroyed; then so do Southwest Europeans.

Never said that, unless you think Pashtun culture is intrinsically tied with Islam.


Something tells me that you'd support our extinction even if we weren't Muslim since you're only applying this kind of thinking to Pashtuns and have mentioned this topic in the past.

No way, I actually like Pashtun aesthetics and this region cultural achievements. One of my favourite ancient civilizations is Bactrian Greek civilization and I think Pashtuns would be much better today following a mix of Hellenism, Hinduism and Buddhism like their ancestors probably were at some point.

These regions around the Hindu Kush, Karakoram and Himalayas are probably the most beautiful in the world. Also the cultures originated there.


BTW, I'd prefer if Pashtuns left Islam as well

We agree in the basics then.


You claimed that Biharis, Punjabis, etc. should substitute us despite the fact they have zero ties to our land.

No, I just said that there is strong cultural continuity between ancient Gandharans and modern Hindus.

[Borealis]

Being competent in that stuff is irrelevant here, especially if you don't know Pashtun history. Pashtuns have tribal lineages that record descent going back generations and there were multiple migration waves from southern Pashtunistan to northern Pashtunistan. You can't expect that not to have had a significant impact. Besides, the Pre-Iranic language and identity that existed among the Indic people that used to inhabit the land is gone. The land is Pashtun now and Pashtuns have been living here for several centuries now. Amerindians have a much greater right to Brazil than anything you mentioned.

If so, why are many northern Pashtuns very similar to "punjabis" or whatever?

[Ice]

China will support pakistan..

[The Lawspeaker]

https://pics.me.me/i-just-want-to-wish-you-both-goodluck-were-all-16198634.png

[Nazarene]

India, irrespective of my personal experiences with the diaspora.

[Mingle]

If so, why are many northern Pashtuns very similar to "punjabis" or whatever?

There's some similarity only to a few specific groups since those Punjabis are less mixed with Australoids than most other Indians are. It doesn't mean they're descended from one another.

[Stefanos.tasidis]

https://pics.me.me/i-just-want-to-wish-you-both-goodluck-were-all-16198634.png

lol This.
Neither side.

[Borealis]

There's some similarity only to a few specific groups since those Punjabis are less mixed with Australoids than most other Indians are. It doesn't mean they're descended from one another.

They are descended from similar ancestors.

[Mingle]

Well my argument isn't racial, if you look again to my messages I wasn't saying Amerindians from the Amazon or Canada or California or anywhere aren't related racially. I said they are not culturally related. No sane person would defend groups like native Tupis and Macro-Jê (the ones who've been wiped out in most of Southeast Brazil), Aztecs, Apaches, Sioux, Mohicans, Eskimos and Mapuches have the same culture or any kind of cultural continuity. They are as distinct from one another as Belarussians from the Portuguese.

Mapuches and Tupis are not as related as Pashtuns and Punjabis are, but they are still related. Similar to how all IE religions have a common origin, whose to say that the all Amerindian (non-Arctic) peoples don't have cultural and religious similarities with each other? They have a common origin.

Also, Amerindian Brazilians can outnumber post-colonial Brazilians if their birth rate is encouraged and vice versa for the non-Amerindians). Amerindians reclaiming Brazil is possible, but it'd take a long time and Brazil wouldn't be as densely populated anymore (which isn't necessarily a bad thing).


The biggest mass murder in history was the Muslim conquest of South-Central Asia and Northern South Asia.

The source that claims Muslims committed the greatest murdering spree merges a number of unrelated Muslim empires and over a very massive time period.


Well, I'm not arguing about genetics or race, really. I don't know why you came up with this. I said Tajiks are culturally Persian and have always claimed to be Persian, I didn't said they are the same as modern Persian Iranians from an autosomal POV. The ''Tajik'' ethnicity itself is quite recent. Language, culture and religion aren't always based on autosomal resemblance.

I don't think the ancestors of most Pashtuns were Zoroastrian but they would likely have followed a religion closer related to Zoroastrianism than Hinduism. There was a decent amount of conflict between the early Indo-Aryans and the early Iranians. They both then decided to demonize each other's deities. The Iranic devil called dew was mentioned among Pashtuns. The modern insult dawus among Pashtuns is likely derived from that word.

Equivalents for Avestan daeva in Iranian languages include Pashto, Balochi, Kurdish dêw, Persian dīv/deev, all of which apply to demons, monsters, and other villainous creatures. The Iranian word was borrowed into Old Armenian as dew, Georgian as devi, and Urdu as deo, with the same negative associations in those languages. In English, the word appears as daeva, div, deev, and in the 18th century fantasy novels of William Thomas Beckford as dive.

And you are arguing genetics/race since you are specifying that you want us to become Hindu rather than generic non-Muslims. You don't only want to region to leave Islam, but you want to have it Indianized as well. If you weren't arguing race/genetics, then you wouldn't keep mentioned that Pashtuns are Iranized. Your ancestral Southwest Europe likely has more Hindus than modern Pashtunistan does and it will always stay that way regardless of the situation over a thousand years ago. And Southwest Europe is much more likely to become Hindu than Pashtunistan is (although them becoming Muslim is more likely).


Modern Indo-Aryans, with exception of Nuristanis (if you consider them IA) and other isolate groups are mostly mixed-race groups when compared to early Indo-Aryans. Early Indo-Aryans likely weren't much different from Iranics, Chitralis and Kalasha from an autosomal POV.

Only the Yaghnobis and maybe Pamiris could come close. Chitralis and Kalashas are too mixed.


No. I think Muslim (and Judeo-Christian as well) influence in the world should diminish. Cultural programs like the reconversion to Hinduism proposed by some sectors of Hindu Nationalists or sponsoring of Buddhism, Zoroastrism and Pagan Iranic religions would work just fine for finishing off Muslim influence in the Pashtun area gradually.

And if they don't want to convert, they should be expelled? What should happen to Christians?


Never said that, unless you think Pashtun culture is intrinsically tied with Islam.

You said they should be expelled if they refuse to convert to an alien religion (Hinduism). If you said Pashtuns should leave Islam and left it at that, I wouldn't have cared. But you said that the land should be expunged of its current inhabitants if they refuse to convert. You basically want the region to be Indianized how you believed it "originally was" and are using Islam as an excuse so you sound less bigoted. You want Pashtunistan to either become Indian by converting to the ethnoreligion of Indians (Hinduism) or having it repopulated with Indians. You could have just said you want it to become non-Muslim but you're specifically pushing for it's Hinduization.


No, I just said that there is strong cultural continuity between ancient Gandharans and modern Hindus.

The Gandharans have no successors. Them being culturally similar to modern Hindus is thus irrelevant. If their descendants were still around and were following Hinduism then you could say that their descendants should return to their ancestral religion. But this doesn't apply to Pashtuns.

[dark-mysterio]

Christian ''Arabs'' are just arabized natives anyway. Druze probably only adopted a monotheistic and ''Arab'' identity to avoid persecution.

They are inheritors of late platonists from the Levant like Porphyry and Iamblichus.

Christians Arabs are not "arabized natives" but pre-islamic Arabs/tribes who lived outside of the Arabian peninsula and adopted/Converted to Christianity such as the Ghassanids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassanids) vassal of the byzantine empire

[JMack]

Mapuches and Tupis are not as related as Pashtuns and Punjabis are, but they are still related. Similar to how all IE religions have a common origin, whose to say that the all Amerindian (non-Arctic) peoples don't have cultural and religious similarities with each other? They have a common origin.

Also, Amerindian Brazilians can outnumber post-colonial Brazilians if their birth rate is encouraged and vice versa for the non-Amerindians). Amerindians reclaiming Brazil is possible, but it'd take a long time and Brazil wouldn't be as densely populated anymore (which isn't necessarily a bad thing).


Well, Amerindians from Amazon are much less related to the ones who got wiped out than Punjabis are related to Pashtuns. I'm saying there is cultural continuity between two Hindu groups (Gandharans and modern Hindus) who worship the same gods and have the same system of social organization. It's like knowing you have a neighbour who is your cousin and he got killed by some bandit. Wouldn't you want revenge?
I think they (hindus) are being very reasonable wanting to reclaim these lands. Something is certain: Pakistan is probably a state with no future. I don't really care that much about Pashtuns tbh, but I'd like to see Kashmir to become Hindu again.

If Pashtuns turn to Hinduism or to Iranic religions doesn't make much difference. Leaving Islam would be the best option.


And you are arguing genetics/race since you are specifying that you want us to become Hindu rather than generic non-Muslims. You don't only want to region to leave Islam, but you want to have it Indianized as well. Your ancestral Southwest Europe likely has more Hindus than modern Pashtunistan does and it will always stay that way regardless of the situation over a thousand years ago. If you weren't arguing race/genetics, then you wouldn't keep mentioned that Pashtuns are Iranized.

I didn't said Pashtuns should become exclusively Hindu, other options like being Buddhist (part of this region was Buddhist at some point as well) or turning to Zoroastrianism or even Hellenism would also be a big improvement. Zoroastrians are living in India for millenia and were always integrated there. Actually they had to flee Iran for their lives due to barbaric Muslim persecution. Also, I was talking about language shift, not racial change. So it's technically not genetics but linguistics.

I'm pretty sure future Zoroastrian or Buddhist Pashtuns and Hindu Punjabis would interact quite well; simply removing Islam would be a big improvement in this region geopolitics.


And if they don't want to convert, they should be expelled?

No. Expelling people in an arbitrary way is a Muslim/Christian practice, they should have the option to stay but be prohibited to proselityze or impose Islam upon others. In case of wanting to force other people to their practices then Muslims should be expelled.


You said they should be expelled if they refuse to convert to an alien religion (Hinduism). If you said Pashtuns should leave Islam and left it at that, I wouldn't have cared. But you said that the land should be expunged of its current inhabitants if they refuse to convert. You basically want the region to be Indianized how you believed it "originally was" and are using Islam as an excuse so you sound less bigoted. You want Pashtunistan to either become Indian by converting to the ethnoreligion of Indians (Hinduism) or having it repopulated with Indians. You could have just said you want it to become non-Muslim but you're specifically pushing for it's Hinduization.

I do think Hinduism is a superior religion when compared to barbaric desert cults. But I stated explicitly since the beggining my point was to diminish Islamic influence.

I think Pashtuns becoming Buddhists would be equally fine.


The Gandharans have no successors. Them being culturally similar to modern Hindus is thus irrelevant. If their descendants were still around and were following Hinduism then you could say that their descendants should return to their ancestral religion.

They have cultural descendants, modern ''Hinduism'' from North India descends mostly from currents elaborated in places like Gandhara and Kashmir.
Kashmiris, for example, are mostly Muslims, but the threads they opened in Hindu thought are still shining today. It's a shame they have been forced to become Muslims.

[JMack]

Christians Arabs are not "arabized natives" but pre-islamic Arabs/tribes who lived outside of the Arabian peninsula and adopted/Converted to Christianity such as the Ghassanids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassanids) vassal of the byzantine empire

Modern Lebanese Christians are 90%+ similar to ancient Phoenicians from a genetic POV. They certainly descend from Phoenicians.

[Mingle]

...

You seem to be backtracking on some of your previous statements now, but whatever, I don't care that much about what you said in this post and replying to your points will just end up in us arguing in circles, so I'm just gonna leave it at that.

[JMack]

You seem to be backtracking on some of your previous statements now, but whatever, I don't care that much about what you said in this post and replying to your points will just end up in us arguing in circles, so I'm just gonna leave it at that.

I'm not, I never said in any single post Pashtuns should become exclusively Hindus if that's what you're talking about. It was you who understood that. I said becoming Hindu would be an improvement compared to being Muslim.

I think any non-Muslim would agree with this point tbh.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

I'm not, I never said in any single post Pashtuns should become exclusively Hindus if that's what you're talking about. It was you who understood that. I said becoming Hindu would be an improvement compared to being Muslim.

I think any non-Muslim would agree with this point tbh.

Hinduism is digusting, muslims are at least clean. And I consider Islam main enemy of Europe togheder with liberalism and atheism.

Pashtuns should chose Christianity or Buddism. Or Zoroastrianism.

[dark-mysterio]

Modern Lebanese Christians are 90%+ similar to ancient Phoenicians from a genetic POV. They certainly descend from Phoenicians.

could i have a source thank you please ?

[JMack]

Hinduism is digusting, muslims are at least clean. And I consider Islam main enemy of Europe togheder with liberalism and atheism.

They should chose Christianity or Buddism.

Christianity is a backward sandnigger belief in the same vein as Islam. Actually before secularism and enlightenment Christians were even more aggressive than Muslims. Hinduism and yogic philosophies are way more developed and complex than these desert-like theological monotheisms.

But I'm not going to off-topic bullshit here.

My point is just that Pakistan should disappear anyway.

[Borealis]

Christianity is a backward sandnigger belief in the same vein as Islam. Actually before secularism and enlightenment Christians were even more aggressive than Muslims. Hinduism and yogic philosophies are way more developed and complex than these desert-like theological monotheisms.

But I'm not going to off-topic bullshit here.

My point is just that Pakistan should disappear anyway.

Why?

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

Christianity is a backward sandnigger belief in the same vein as Islam. Actually before secularism and enlightenment Christians were even more aggressive than Muslims. Hinduism and yogic philosophies are way more developed and complex than these desert-like theological monotheisms.

But I'm not going to off-topic bullshit here.

My point is just that Pakistan should disappear anyway.

Lmao what a bullshit. But I am Christian Taliban, not going to debate with you I just wouldn't let your kind set foot on European soil :D

[JMack]

Why?

The world would be better with less Muslim states; Pakistan should either be divided between India and Afghanistan or be absorbed by India. Pakistan will likely disappear in our century anyway.

[Borealis]

The world would be better with less Muslim states; Pakistan should either be divided between India and Afghanistan or be absorbed by India. Pakistan will likely disappear in our century anyway.

I say let them be. They are an irrelevant nation.

[JMack]

Lmao what a bullshit. But I am Christian Taliban, not going to debate with you I just wouldn't let your kind set foot on European soil :D

You have no right to decide over who can and cannot set foot on Europe, you're just a confuse Eastern European peasant.

[lameduck]

1/4 of humanity is on verge of war and you guys are talking nonsense.

[JMack]

I say let them be. They are an irrelevant nation.

They have nukes though. Muslims with nukes are extremely dangerous.

[Borealis]

..

[arkas]

Plague or cholera? I don't like either but I chose India since I view it as the lesser of the two evils and I want to see Pakistan get balkanized. I also have a more neutral/positive opinion on South Indians specifically.

The whole of South Asia should be balkanized tbh. The only exceptions are Sri Lanka and Bhutan, although the Bhutanese are a Tibetic people but both of those countries are the most peaceful and relatively ethnically homogenous in the region.

[Morena]

I'm not happy over the prospect of two nuclear powers having the collective IQ in 80's going to war....so much can escalate because of stupidity.

[Nazarene]

Christianity is a backward sandnigger belief in the same vein as Islam. Actually before secularism and enlightenment Christians were even more aggressive than Muslims

HAHAHAHA, Christianity is the only thing that could civilize your barbaric people and that would record your myths for you.

[Morena]

HAHAHAHA, Christianity is the only thing that could civilize your barbaric people and that would record your myths for you.

The best South Asians I've met IRL have been Christians. Funny that. We also like to record myths and see value in them, because Christians believe that God manifested his will through all peoples through their myths and that truth can be found in them (not that they are the Truth).

But let's not get into that argument now. The problem is that India has the collectiveIQ of 76 (http://www.unz.com/article/perhaps-surprisingly-indians-really-arent-that-intelligent-on-average/) and Pakistan isn't far behind. A war with such low level intelligence involving high power weapons would be a disaster.

[JMack]

HAHAHAHA, Christianity is the only thing that could civilize your barbaric people and that would record your myths for you.

Keep coping, desert boy. Christianity destroyed native European religions, that's why we struggle to reconstruct them now. At its height, Christianity was more violent than ISIS.
That's the truth. Muslims, as barbaric and savage as they are, at least had a bit more of respect.

''Her cover displays a statue of Athena deliberately damaged: its eyes have been gouged and its nose smashed, and a cross has been etched into its forehead. The story of this defacement is told in her prologue and reprised in her final words. The events happened in Palmyra in the late fourth century, when some of the oasis city’s magnificent temples were repurposed as sites of Christian worship. Her choice to begin in Palmyra is, of course, a careful one. When she speaks of the destruction wrought on the architecture of the Syrian city by “bearded, black-robed zealots”, the reader thinks not of marauding fourth-century Christian fundamentalists but of television images from recent history. “There have been,” she writes, and “there still are … those who use monotheism and its weapons to terrible ends.” What is revealing about that last sentence is not the connection she draws between savage practices in Christian late antiquity and in the name of Islamic State but the phrase “monotheism and its weapons”. Many modern commentators like to speak of religious terrorism as a horrific distortion of religious truth; for Nixey, monotheism is always weaponised and waiting only for someone to pull the trigger.''


''The story of the destruction of Athena is the amuse-bouche for a feast of tales of murder, vandalism, wilful destruction of cultural heritage and general joylessness. We hear of the brutal end of Hypatia, the Alexandrian philosopher, mathematician and astronomer who was murdered by a Christian crowd in the early fifth century (an event dramatised in the Spanish movie Agora). Less well known, in the anglophone world at any rate, is the case of Shenoute. A contemporary of Hypatia’s, he lived further south, in rural Egypt, where he became the abbot of the complex now known as the White Monastery (which still stands in today’s town of Sohag). Shenoute is now considered a saint in the Coptic church, but his piety manifested itself in a particularly ugly guise: he was part of a gang of thugs who would break into the houses of locals whose theological views they felt to be unsound, and smash up any property they objected to on religious grounds.''

''Where did this appetite for destruction come from? Nixey’s short answer is a simple one: demons. Many ancient Christians believed that the world we inhabit is a perilous place, crowded with malevolent supernatural beings, who sometimes manifest themselves in the form of fake gods. It is the Christian’s duty to root these out. Destroying a “pagan” statue or burning a book, then, is a no more violent act than amputating a gangrenous limb: you save the healthy whole by preventing the spread of the infection. If you think that a marble statue is possessed by a demon, then it makes a kind of sense to dig out its eyes and score a cross in its forehead. If you think, along with the North-African theologian Tertullian, that “Satan and his angels have filled the whole world” and laid traps for the virtuous in the form of sensual pleasures, then avoiding the Romans’ bathhouses, dinners and spectacles is perfectly rational – as is a disdain for sexuality. The early Christian world was in a state of perpetual metaphysical war, and choosing sides inevitably meant knowing your enemies.

Portrait of Horace, Roman poet. Engraving by Desvochers, 1740.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Bluff bonhomie … portrait of the Roman poet Horace. Photograph: Dea Picture Library/De Agostini/Getty Images
But demons are only half of the story. The real blame, for Nixey, lies at the door of the church fathers, whose spine-tingling sermons ramped up the polarising rhetoric of violent difference. They wove “a rich tapestry of metaphor”, construing theological opponents of all kinds as bestial, verminous, diseased and – naturally – demonic. It was language itself – the forceful, lurid language of a handful of elite males – that stoked the fires of Christian rage against its enemies, fires that blazed for a millennium: “the intellectual foundations for a thousand years of theocratic oppression were being laid.”''

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/dec/28/the-darkening-age-the-christian-destruction-of-the-classical-world-by-catherine-nixey

This is your ''civilization''.

Pure sandnigger barbarity.

[JMack]

double

[Nazarene]

The best South Asians I've met IRL have been Christians. Funny that. We also like to record myths and see value in them, because Christians believe that God manifested his will through all peoples through their myths and that truth can be found in them (not that they are the Truth).

But let's not get into that argument now. The problem is that India has the collectiveIQ of 76 (http://www.unz.com/article/perhaps-surprisingly-indians-really-arent-that-intelligent-on-average/) and Pakistan isn't far behind. A war with such low level intelligence involving high power weapons would be a disaster.

I haven't personally met any South Asian Christians but I know that historically Assyrians had good relations with the St Thomas Christians (who are insanely religious). I completely agree on the myth thing, pagan stories do seem to have a lot in common with Christian claims although athiests like to claim that we evolved out of these rituals/lores.

I agree with Arkas that South Asia should be balkanized, they're way too different genetically/culturally/religiously to be united. Also I think that some of the lower castes are dragging the IQ averages way down tbh, would love to see some of the northern regions gaining independence.

[Nazarene]

Keep coping, desert boy. Christianity destroyed native European religions, that's why we struggle to reconstruct them now. At its height, Christianity was more violent than ISIS.
That's the truth. Muslims, as barbaric and savage as they are, at least had a bit more of respect.

''Her cover displays a statue of Athena deliberately damaged: its eyes have been gouged and its nose smashed, and a cross has been etched into its forehead. The story of this defacement is told in her prologue and reprised in her final words. The events happened in Palmyra in the late fourth century, when some of the oasis city’s magnificent temples were repurposed as sites of Christian worship. Her choice to begin in Palmyra is, of course, a careful one. When she speaks of the destruction wrought on the architecture of the Syrian city by “bearded, black-robed zealots”, the reader thinks not of marauding fourth-century Christian fundamentalists but of television images from recent history. “There have been,” she writes, and “there still are … those who use monotheism and its weapons to terrible ends.” What is revealing about that last sentence is not the connection she draws between savage practices in Christian late antiquity and in the name of Islamic State but the phrase “monotheism and its weapons”. Many modern commentators like to speak of religious terrorism as a horrific distortion of religious truth; for Nixey, monotheism is always weaponised and waiting only for someone to pull the trigger.''


''The story of the destruction of Athena is the amuse-bouche for a feast of tales of murder, vandalism, wilful destruction of cultural heritage and general joylessness. We hear of the brutal end of Hypatia, the Alexandrian philosopher, mathematician and astronomer who was murdered by a Christian crowd in the early fifth century (an event dramatised in the Spanish movie Agora). Less well known, in the anglophone world at any rate, is the case of Shenoute. A contemporary of Hypatia’s, he lived further south, in rural Egypt, where he became the abbot of the complex now known as the White Monastery (which still stands in today’s town of Sohag). Shenoute is now considered a saint in the Coptic church, but his piety manifested itself in a particularly ugly guise: he was part of a gang of thugs who would break into the houses of locals whose theological views they felt to be unsound, and smash up any property they objected to on religious grounds.''

''Where did this appetite for destruction come from? Nixey’s short answer is a simple one: demons. Many ancient Christians believed that the world we inhabit is a perilous place, crowded with malevolent supernatural beings, who sometimes manifest themselves in the form of fake gods. It is the Christian’s duty to root these out. Destroying a “pagan” statue or burning a book, then, is a no more violent act than amputating a gangrenous limb: you save the healthy whole by preventing the spread of the infection. If you think that a marble statue is possessed by a demon, then it makes a kind of sense to dig out its eyes and score a cross in its forehead. If you think, along with the North-African theologian Tertullian, that “Satan and his angels have filled the whole world” and laid traps for the virtuous in the form of sensual pleasures, then avoiding the Romans’ bathhouses, dinners and spectacles is perfectly rational – as is a disdain for sexuality. The early Christian world was in a state of perpetual metaphysical war, and choosing sides inevitably meant knowing your enemies.

Portrait of Horace, Roman poet. Engraving by Desvochers, 1740.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Bluff bonhomie … portrait of the Roman poet Horace. Photograph: Dea Picture Library/De Agostini/Getty Images
But demons are only half of the story. The real blame, for Nixey, lies at the door of the church fathers, whose spine-tingling sermons ramped up the polarising rhetoric of violent difference. They wove “a rich tapestry of metaphor”, construing theological opponents of all kinds as bestial, verminous, diseased and – naturally – demonic. It was language itself – the forceful, lurid language of a handful of elite males – that stoked the fires of Christian rage against its enemies, fires that blazed for a millennium: “the intellectual foundations for a thousand years of theocratic oppression were being laid.”''

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/dec/28/the-darkening-age-the-christian-destruction-of-the-classical-world-by-catherine-nixey

This is your ''civilization''.

Pure sandnigger barbarity.

Fuck your native religions eurofag, at least your ancestors weren't dumbasses like you and accepted the truth when they heard it.

[Anthony PV]

The best South Asians I've met IRL have been Christians.
Something tells me you don't know a lot of South Asians. :ranger


Keep coping, desert boy. [Christianity is bad. Christianity is evil. Yada yada yada.] Pure sandnigger barbarity.
Ouch. :whistle:

[JMack]

Fuck your native religions eurofag, at least your ancestors weren't dumbasses like you and accepted the truth when they heard it.

Do you see how you're no different from Muslims? I'd say if was not for secular state and the legacy of the ancients Christians would be even more barbaric.

Native European religions are on the rise, wait to see.

[Óttar]

HAHAHAHA, Christianity is the only thing that could civilize your barbaric people and that would record your myths for you.

The Romans had writing. This is where Christian apologists fail. Hillaire Belloc says Rome = Christianity = Europe, but why the need for Christianity? Rome = Europe is more like it. The adoption of Christianity by Constantine made him divest all the "pagan" temples (and Roman military/administration) of funds and re-allocate much needed resources to the Church, which Gibbon basically blames for the fall of the Roman empire. Supposing Rome never converted, we would've still had writing and Roman civilization.

[Morena]

Something tells me you don't know a lot of South Asians. :ranger


Ouch. :whistle:

lol. I've met many Indians IRL. One of my Uncle figures from childhood was Indian, and I also traveled there. lol. Keep drinking that coffee, but remember it can stain your teeth!

At least Christians don't worship rats or swim in filthy, corpse-ridden, water and pretend its clean.

[JMack]

The Romans had writing. This is where Christian apologists fail. Hillaire Belloc says Rome = Christianity = Europe, but why the need for Christianity? Rome = Europe is more like it. The adoption of Christianity by Constantine made him divest all the "pagan" temples (and Roman military/administration) of funds and re-allocate much needed resources to the Church, which Gibbon basically blames for the fall of the Roman empire. Supposing Rome never converted, we would've still had writing and Roman civilization.

True. The whole of the Mediterranean world was evolving to a kind of ''Mediterranean Hinduism''. A complex set of many different theological perspectives united by Neoplatonic philosophy. Europe and the Near East would likely been very different places without Christianity.

No religious wars, no persecution, flourishing of science and so on.

[Nazarene]

Do you see how you're no different from Muslims? I'd say if was not for secular state and the legacy of the ancients Christians would be even more barbaric.

Native European religions are on the rise, wait to see.

Have fun with your athiest etho-nationalists larping around with wands and shit. You're no different than Muslims because you act like you have the moral high ground against Christianity, victimizing yourself all the way back to the stone age.

[Anthony PV]

lol. I've met many Indians IRL. One of my Uncle figures from childhood was Indian, and I also traveled there. lol. Keep drinking that coffee, but remember it can stain your teeth!
Do Indians produce 'pretty' babies? :confused:


At least Christians don't worship rats or swim in filthy, corpse-ridden, water and pretend its clean.
Meh, during the Middle Ages, Christian Euros weren't that different... :coffee:

[Morena]

Do you see how you're no different from Muslims? I'd say if was not for secular state and the legacy of the ancients Christians would be even more barbaric.

Native European religions are on the rise, wait to see.

There is no reason to think of 'What ifs." We know that Christians have more babies, though. And ultimately, that's what matters.

Do Indians produce 'pretty' babies? :confused:


Meh, during the Middle Ages, Christian Euros weren't that different... :coffee:

Yes. Indian babies are some of the cutest in the world. They don't age that well, unfortunately.

haha. Yes, the middle ages...one thousand years ago when we didn't know about germ theory and we were still trying to grapple with daily living...we couldn't tell dirty water sometimes...and worshiped rats????

[Nazarene]

The Romans had writing. This is where Christian apologists fail. Hillaire Belloc says Rome = Christianity = Europe, but why the need for Christianity? Rome = Europe is more like it. The adoption of Christianity by Constantine made him divest all the "pagan" temples (and Roman military/administration) of funds and re-allocate much needed resources to the Church, which Gibbon basically blames for the fall of the Roman empire. Supposing Rome never converted, we would've still had writing and Roman civilization.

I'll give it to you, the Roman Empire was one of the best things that ever happened to Europe. Great political system, but still oppressive of minorities. I don't know what you mean by "the Romans had writing", are you asserting that Christians were not learned nor were they intellectually curious? I agree with Belloc, Rome's legacy is still somewhat continued by Christendom.

[Óttar]

Fuck your native religions eurofag, at least your ancestors weren't dumbasses like you and accepted the truth when they heard it.

You can't actually defeat this with a rational argument, so you resort to name calling. How mature. :rolleyes2:


I'll give it to you, the Roman Empire was one of the best things that ever happened to Europe. Great political system, but still oppressive of minorities. I don't know what you mean by "the Romans had writing", are you asserting that Christians were not learned nor were they intellectually curious? I agree with Belloc, Rome's legacy is still somewhat continued by Christendom.

Apologists claim that Christianity brought writing to Northern Europe (like you said it took Christians to record "pagan" myths), but Christianity is unnecessary for the civilizing of the barbarians. It was Romanitas that led to the civilizing of European peoples, not Christianity per se. If Rome had remained "pagan", who is to say the Germanic and insular Celtic tribes would not have been civilized still?

[Anthony PV]

Yes. Indian babies are some of the cutest in the world. They don't age that well, unfortunately.
That obsession of yours about how babies look is somewhat odd... :confused: If a guy wrote the same comments, some FBI agent would be ringing his doorbell... :)


haha. Yes, the middle ages...one thousand years ago when we didn't know about germ theory and we were still trying to grapple with daily living...we couldn't tell dirty water sometimes...and worshiped rats????
Hindus worship rats? :confused:

[Nazarene]

You can't actually defeat this with a rational argument, so you resort to name calling. How mature. :rolleyes2:

What a hypocrite, why don't you tell your pagan friend to not call me a sandnigger and a desert boy.

[Morena]

That obsession of yours about how babies look is somewhat odd... :confused: If a guy wrote the same comments, some FBI agent would be ringing his doorbell... :)


Hindus worship rats? :confused:

Only because you are used to weird, mannish women. The fact is that women naturally love babies. Women artists are generally known for drawing mothers and babies.

As for the rats...
Oh ho ho! You don't know?

https://youtu.be/2OOs1l8Fajc

[arkas]

Only because you are used to weird, mannish women. The fact is that women naturally love babies. Women artists are generally known for drawing mothers and babies.

As for the rats...
Oh ho ho! You don't know?

https://youtu.be/2OOs1l8Fajc

I don't think Hindus worship rats, they believe they have a connection to the spiritual world and give them offerings for good karma or something.

[Óttar]

Hindus worship rats? :confused:
People are retarded. Many Westerners and Abrahamites point to Hindus' veneration of animals as proof of their barbarism, but thinking more deeply, it is a reflection of Hindu theology which does not make a strict demarcation between Creator and Creation. Everything is holy; permeated with the Divine. In Abrahamism, we see what this strict distinction between Creator and creation has wrought. Our disrespect for the Earth has led to the endangerment of Earth's ecosystems and the very survival of organized human life as we know it.

[Anthony PV]

Only because you are used to weird, mannish women. The fact is that women naturally love babies. Women artists are generally known for drawing mothers and babies.
Women loving babies is one thing. Women making an obsession about how babies look is another. :ranger


As for the rats...
Oh ho ho! You don't know?
https://youtu.be/2OOs1l8Fajc
Hmm... That seems an interesting way to test your immune system...

[JMack]

There is no reason to think of 'What ifs." We know that Christians have more babies, though. And ultimately, that's what matters.

LOL


What a hypocrite, why don't you tell your pagan friend to not call me a sandnigger and a desert boy.

I didn't called you sandnigger, don't lie. I said desert religions were pure sandnigger barbarity.

I did called you ''desert boy'' because you follow a desert cult. You started with aggressive rethoric anyway.

[Nazarene]

You can't actually defeat this with a rational argument, so you resort to name calling. How mature. :rolleyes2:



Apologists claim that Christianity brought writing to Northern Europe (like you said it took Christians to record "pagan" myths), but Christianity is unnecessary for the civilizing of the barbarians. It was Romanitas that led to the civilizing of European peoples, not Christianity per se. If Rome had remained "pagan", who is to say the Germanic and insular Celtic tribes would not have been civilized still?

They subjugated these people through horrible and immoral amounts of force, that being said I do think that it is equally horrible if Christians did the same. Also, I don't consider pagan Rome to be more civilized or more moral than Christianity, for entertainment they threw people into an arena to fight to the death. As for the writings, they Romans were less concerned about the paganistic rituals of Europe as they were their own religion and power in the region.

[Nazarene]

LOL



I didn't called you sandnigger, don't lie. I said desert religions were pure sandnigger barbarity.

I did called you ''desert boy'' because you follow a desert cult. You started with aggressive rethoric anyway.

Is this supposed to make what you said any less ok or less aggressive? People like you need to be responded to with scorn because you think you can step on Christians with no backlash.

[Óttar]

They subjugated these people through horrible and immoral amounts of force, that being said I do think that it is equally horrible if Christians did the same. Also, I don't consider pagan Rome to be more civilized or more moral than Christianity, for entertainment they threw people into an arena to fight to the death. As for the writings, they Romans were less concerned about the paganistic rituals of Europe as they were their own religion and power in the region.

Yes, but the logic of "pagan" religions, and I'm speaking about the syncretism of classical and Hellenistic antiquity, was such that if Greeks or Romans conquered another people they would merely blend their pantheons with those of the people they conquered, not completely destroy the cult-sites and cults of the vanquished. As a matter of fact, if they conquered foreign peoples, they were more likely to introduce foreign cults to their own culture. In a Romanized fashion, but they still allowed the cults of Isis, Cybele, etc. to persist.

[Nazarene]

Yes, but the logic of "pagan" religions, and I'm speaking about the syncretism of classical and Hellenistic antiquity, was such that if Greeks or Romans conquered another people they would merely blend their pantheons with those of the people they conquered, not completely destroy the cult-sites and cults of the vanquished. As a matter of fact, if they conquered foreign peoples, they were more likely to introduce foreign cults to their own culture. In a Romanized fashion, but they still allowed the cults of Isis, Cybele, etc. to persist.

Yes, I completely agree here, the involuntary wiping of history/culture/religion is not what I am for. If the claim is true that Christians destroyed pagan temples en masse then I do condemn it. But they (Rome) wouldn't let Christians continue to exist, because our allegiance was not to Rome but to God first. That's my main problem.

[JMack]

They subjugated these people through horrible and immoral amounts of force, that being said I do think that it is equally horrible if Christians did the same. Also, I don't consider pagan Rome to be more civilized or more moral than Christianity, for entertainment they threw people into an arena to fight to the death. As for the writings, they Romans were less concerned about the paganistic rituals of Europe as they were their own religion and power in the region.

A lot of things you wrote are untrue. ''Paganism'' isn't an unified religion but a name invented by Christians after Teodosius to designate the Native European and Near Eastern religions in the countryside, that's why they were called ''paganus''.

In the book ''The Price of Monotheism'' anthropologist Jan Assmann argue that before Jewish monotheism there was a common semantic denominator in all religions of the Mediterranean basin and also in ''folk'' beliefs from Northern and Central Europe. That's why the ''interpretatio'' was possible to begin with.

And Catherine Nixey in the book I quoted some pages before argue that much of the so called ''persecution'' of Christians was an exaggeration of early Christians to consolidate their power. Romans rarely persecuted anyone due to religious reasons.


Is this supposed to make what you said any less ok or less aggressive? People like you need to be responded to with scorn because you think you can step on Christians with no backlash.

You insulted me out of nowhere and I didn't had disrespected Christianity. I recognize its presence in European culture for thousands of years and any new paganism arising should integrate Christian popular mythology and folk beliefs (many of them are based on pagan motifs anyway).

Actually Christianity carry the seeds of its own destruction due to being a historiological religion, in which the sacred is immanentized and the historical events are imbued with transcendent meaning. It's what Mircea Eliade called ''Theophany of History'' and the birth of the secular materialistic world is largely to be blamed on Christianity.

There's no need of ''secularism'' in non-Abrahamic cultures because they don't have the exclusivistic and historicistic outlook Christianity or Islam have.

[Mingle]

People are retarded. Many Westerners and Abrahamites point to Hindus' veneration of animals as proof of their barbarism, but thinking more deeply, it is a reflection of Hindu theology which does not make a strict demarcation between Creator and Creation. Everything is holy; permeated with the Divine. In Abrahamism, we see what this strict distinction between Creator and creation has wrought. Our disrespect for the Earth has led to the endangerment of Earth's ecosystems and the very survival of organized human life as we know it.

In the video, the guy explicitly states they worship rats and considers rats as a form of the goddess (see 0:44).

Not that I think that's a bad thing anyways. It's not like they're hurting anyone by worshiping/venerating rats.

[Nazarene]

You insulted me out of nowhere and I didn't had disrespected Christianity. I recognize its presence in European culture for thousands of years and any new paganism arising should integrate Christian popular mythology and folk beliefs (many of them are based on pagan motifs anyway).

This is better than calling me a desert boy and a follower of a "sandnigger" religion. I'm glad that you recognize Christianity in some way.

As for your earlier points, I am aware that pagans are not unified it's just an umbrella term. I agree that we do take a exclusivitic and historicistic view in regards to our faith.

You are clearly much more knowledgable than me in a lot of areas and I respect that. Thanks for the references, I'll try to read some of the copies myself.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

You have no right to decide over who can and cannot set foot on Europe, you're just a confuse Eastern European peasant.

If it was up to me, Europe wouldn't be a democracy of any kind.

[rajputprincess]

If it was up to me, Europe wouldn't be a democracy of any kind.Hinduism and buddhism are very similar religion it is just that hindu outside of india have bad reputation while buddhist dont thats why people think bad about hindu but religion are super similar.

Sent from my ZUK Z2132 using Tapatalk

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

Hinduism and buddhism are very similar religion it is just that hindu outside of india have bad reputation while buddhist dont thats why people think bad about hindu but religion are super similar.

Sent from my ZUK Z2132 using Tapatalk

Buddhists don't have caste system.

[rajputprincess]

Buddhists don't have caste system.Well people especially in big city don't follow caste system my ex boyfriend was low caste but his parents were super rich see these days it's common for low caste to be rich and date high caste.

Sent from my ZUK Z2132 using Tapatalk

[JMack]

If it was up to me, Europe wouldn't be a democracy of any kind.

I think the same.

Allowing everyone to vote and having the power to decide is a big mistake. The correct and natural way is having a ruling elite who will guide the destiny of the society.
But it's impractical nowadays since no one is going to accept that reality anyway. Only a civilizational collapse would allow things to return to the natural ways.

[JMack]

Well people especially in big city don't follow caste system my ex boyfriend was low caste but his parents were super rich see these days it's common for low caste to be rich and date high caste.

Sent from my ZUK Z2132 using Tapatalk

Caste isn't based on money, it's based on genetic heritage.

One doesn't become a brahmin just by being rich. You can see poor brahmins and rich shudras.

In the same way, in Greece, Rome and Medieval Europe nobility wasn't dependent on money.

[rajputprincess]

Caste isn't based on money, it's based on genetic heritage.

One doesn't become a brahmin just by being rich. You can see poor brahmins and rich shudras.

In the same way, in Greece, Rome and Medieval Europe nobility wasn't dependent on money.I know what i mean to say these day's low caste are very successful and don't face discrimination.

Sent from my ZUK Z2132 using Tapatalk

[Morena]

People are retarded. Many Westerners and Abrahamites point to Hindus' veneration of animals as proof of their barbarism, but thinking more deeply, it is a reflection of Hindu theology which does not make a strict demarcation between Creator and Creation. Everything is holy; permeated with the Divine. In Abrahamism, we see what this strict distinction between Creator and creation has wrought. Our disrespect for the Earth has led to the endangerment of Earth's ecosystems and the very survival of organized human life as we know it.

You are correct...and that distinction led to the scientific discoveries that we have now. At any rate, feel free to share your food with rats and swim in water polluted by corpses.

As for the bold items, that is clearly hysteria and has no basis in reality.

[Jehan]

I support the god of war.

Seriously we are to many on this planet.

[Bandesha]

Northern Pashtunistan (East Afg, NW Pak) was Gandharan Hindu in the distant past but Gandharans are extinct now and their blood is likely somewhat diluted among the population that currently lives in their former lands. Their ethnicity is extinct now though without any survivors that can claim their heritage. Also, the ancestors of Pashtuns were East Iranic polytheists rather than Hindus. Why are you specifying Pashtuns here anyways?

There is no choice for overpopulated pakistan in next 50 years other than to include afghanistan territories and settle our people in those lands

that's defence analysts prediction not my own

[Borealis]

There is no choice for overpopulated pakistan in next 50 years other than to include afghanistan territories and settle our people in those lands

that's defence analysts prediction not my own

How the hell will you guys resettle yourselves on barren, dry mountains.

[Teutone]

How the hell will you guys resettle yourselves on barren, dry mountains.

Not sure what you think of Pakistan outside of Islamabad.
What we saw from rural Afghans also counts for them.
They missed certain steps of evolution.

[Maintenance]

India

[Borealis]

Not sure what you think of Pakistan outside of Islamabad.
What we saw from rural Afghans also counts for them.
They missed certain steps of evolution.

I didn't imply one country's people were superior to another. I'm just saying that there is no way that a large and overpopulated country will benefit from taking over unproductive land.

[Teutone]

I didn't imply one country's people were superior to another. I'm just saying that there is no way that a large and overpopulated country will benefit from taking over unproductive land.

Well it would benefit if for instance the Japanese taking it over and use their technical superior knowledge to create a great infrastructure.

[Hindukush]

I would support pakistan. Pakistanis seem to care about religion more than race. Indians are racist and will disrespect you and think they are superior without knowing you. pakistanis are more respectful on average i would say. indians also have more of an inferiority complex than pakistanis

[Borealis]

I would support pakistan. Pakistanis seem to care about religion more than race. Indians are racist and will disrespect you and think they are superior without knowing you. pakistanis are more respectful on average i would say

its more that they are more westernized, civilized, etc.

[Hindukush]

its more that they are more westernized, civilized, etc.

even their women are respectful. i go to their stores and the women are not supposed to touch your hand but when giving back change they will respectfully put it in your hand without actually toughing you. If you go to indian stores like sikh or hindu stores they will literally throw money at you and give you a disdainful look. i've had indians throw money at me and not apologise. something is wrong with these people

[Borealis]

even their women are respectful. i go to their stores and the women are not supposed to touch your hand but when giving back change they will respectfully put it in your hand without actually toughing you. If you go to indian stores like sikh or hindu stores they will literally throw money at you and give you a disdainful look. i've had indians throw money at me and not apologise. something is wrong with these people

I haven't seen that, where do you live? From what I've seen there is not much difference between Indian Muslims and Hindus for example, both follow the exact same culture just different religion.

[Hindukush]

I haven't seen that, where do you live? From what I've seen there is not much difference between Indian Muslims and Hindus for example, both follow the exact same culture just different religion.

From Australia. I think it depends what race you are. most people i hear complaining about indians here are non white people usually, blacks, south east asians or polynesians. Also depends what type of indians you are talking about. sikh and hindu punjabis seem to think they are better than other races and have big egos

[Borealis]

From Australia. I think it depends what race you are. most people i hear complaining about indians here are non white people usually, blacks, south east asians or polynesians. Also depends what type of indians you are talking about. sikh and hindu punjabis seem to think they are better than other races and have big egos

Lol, it may be different for south indians. Theres a lot more of those in the US. Not many Punjabis where I am who mostly tend to be hindu anyway.

[Catarinense1998]

I do not understand the trouble. What country has the right to rule over Kashmiera? Tell me.

[Chaos One]

I do not understand the trouble. What country has the right to rule over Kashmiera? Tell me.

None.

[Pro.crasti.nation]

India, sadly.

I have many Pakistani friends but, their nation, culture and a large chunk of their diaspora are awful.
They are deliberately and unjustifiably committing terrorism against India and ruining South Asia for everyone.

[Roy]

Nada.

[Özgür Adam]

Punjabis and Sindhi so Pakistan. India are black

[Herr Galke]

I work with several people that are either Indian or Guyanese Hindustani (idk if this is correct nomenclature for Indians from Guyana or not). They are very nice people. My G.H coworker had invited me to her aunt's birthday party at a local Indian dance club. I had a great time time. Her family were all very welcoming and hospitable. I danced for almost 4 hours LOL. I got used to the music. They are all either Hindu or christian (IIRC, most were Hindu).

[Ülev]

I can take the land after war

[MiloshN]

India or Pakistan, SVIMA NAMA PUSI KU**C PARTIZANNNN!!!

[Swarthy_Syndicate]

I must say South Asian Punjabi women can be really attractive. North South Asian females are very underrated tbh, I rate them much above East Asians.

I honestly disagree. There's something about South Asian women that just turns me right off. They have this dark coloring around their eyes that makes them look sleep-deprived and their noses are very droopy. It's not a good look.