Qutuz,

That is a very noble cause, to unify the Ummah, however I disagree with you in that it will bring about any lasting peace. Due to various factors outside of Islam, such as nationalism, tribal rivalries, historical distrust, economic resources, religious interpretation etc., it is not a very plausible solution. A better solution is the one I have proposed, in which the borders are defined along linguistic, ethnic, and cultural divides.

Okay, so all the countries who are to be broken up will just sit back and let that happen? No, even if all of them were for the sake of argument, "artificial", they are tangible entities on the ground. Their existance, gives them a certain legitamacy, and any attempt to break them will be resisted.

The objective of religion is to bring peace to the soul, the community, and the nation. The world has progressed since the dawn of Islam in the Arabian Peninsula, Muslims peoples no longer wish to be unified under the banner of Islam, rather, they seek nationalistic goals. Do the Kurds wish to remain a part of the Islamic Republic (of Iran)? Do they not seek independence from Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran? That is but one example of a Muslim people who have been oppressed for centuries by their so-called Muslim brethren and have lost all desire to live under a unified Islamic banner.

You are basing this on the assumption that the majority of Muslims are religious –which they are not. The majority of Muslims are nominally Muslim and their tribal, nationalistic, cultural identification precedes Islam.

Where did you learn this? You are purposefully viewing history through a nostalgic prism. The truth of the matter is that there has always been conflict within Islam. Sunni versus Shia, Arab versus Persian, Persian versus Turk, Turk versus Arab, Turk versus Turk, Arab versus Arab, Arab versus Berber, etc.

I stated some historical conflicts earlier in this post. I will quote more recent conflicts amongst Muslim peoples for you here: Arab versus Kurd, Kurd versus Turk, Tajik versus Pashtun, Pashtun versus Pakistani, Sudanese Arab versus Black African, Somali versus Somali, distrust between Gulf Arab states, etc.

Why would it not include the Shia? Just earlier in this post, you claimed that there had never existed conflict between Muslims and that there still does not exist conflicts between true Muslims, yet, you wish to completely exclude the Shia?

No, you are wrong. Natural resources –and specifically oil, gas reserves –are only plentiful in the Gulf Arab states, Iraq, Iran, Azerbaijan, Nigeria, Brunei, Kazakhstan, Libya, and Afghanistan. What of the remaining Islamic countries? What of Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Niger, Chad, Somalia, Egypt, Morocco, Mauritania, Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and others??? What resources do they have? They have either none or at least not a significant amount to impact their respective economies.

Invalid point. Invalid point. Invalid point.

I am sorry, but the invalid point here is the illusions which the Arab Nation and Islamic Nation is privy too. The dictators, tyrants, corrupt rulers are not the puppets of the West although some have been bought since they first came to power. The Arabs and Muslims, and no one else, no external force, is responsible for corruption, tyranny, and the current plight of the Arab and Muslim World. Instead of placing the blame on the West or foreign powers, why not just accept the fact that Islamic, and especially Arab culture is responsible for producing such an environment wherein the likes of Saddam Hussein, Muammar Al Gaddafi, Bashar Al-Assad, Hosni Mubarak, are able to rise to prominence?

The definition you provided was your own as well or at least or the interpretation of your religion by someone other than you.

I can ask you the same question. Who are you to speak for Muslims when you claim that all 1.4 billion of them wish to be unified and live as citizens of a single nation-state?

The Turks are nationalists. The Iranians are nationalists. The Afghans are nationalists. The Pakistanis are nationalists. The Iraqis are nationalists. The Palestinians are nationalists. The Libyans are nationalists. All the Gulf Arabs are nationalists. If these peoples were not nationalistic or did not have a history of nationalism, then why are there 19 Arab states (I am not including the non-Arabic speaking Black African states of Somalia, Djibouti, and Comoros Islands) instead of one? Why are there 57 some odd countries in the Organization of the Islamic Conference instead of one?

Sounds like an excuse now that your theory has been disproved.

Now you are again blaming foreigners for the problems in the Middle East? How unexpected.

The British did not betray anyone. The Kurds wanted a separate state, but the Turks did not want to cede their eastern territories to them, and neither did the Arabs (in Iraq and Syria) or the Iranians. I do not see any betrayal here. The Kurds are Muslims. The Turks, Syrians, Iraqis, and Iranians are Muslims. According to your logic, the Kurds should have been happy living amongst their co-religionists.

Oh, I think I can.

And I just did.

You do not want me using the Kurdish example because it nullifies your wishful Islamist argument of a unified Islamic state spread throughout the world –even if it is carved out from non-Muslim majority lands.

There was a recent study done in Iran in which 88% of Iranian youth stated that they were non-religious and did not follow or seek to follow the tenets of Islam. The Bosnians, Albanians, Turks, Azerbaijanis, Central Asian Turkic Muslims, and Muslims of the North Caucasus all tend to be nominally Muslim if not outright atheist due to the influence of the former USSR.

The number of Muslim women who engage in pre-marital sex with non-Muslim men is countless; I think this would qualify them as being only nominally Muslim. The number of Muslim men who consume alcohol (and deny it in the company of other Muslims) is common as well, only a minority of Muslims fast during the month of Ramadan –I can give you more examples but I am sure that you have witnessed these types of things as well.

And yes, I have traveled to Islamic countries.

Afghanistan was carved out of Iran by the Durrani tribe to function as a Pashtun state independent of the Persians. That is one example.

During Ottoman rule, the Albanian Muslims sought independence from the Caliphate.

Did you want me to list any more?

No, it certainly is not nonsense. There has always existed a tribal, nationalistic, and historical rivalry between various ethnic or linguistic groups in the Middle East and even amongst various Arabs themselves.

Nonsense is the nostalgia, the wishful thinking on the part of Islamists who dream of the day when the Caliphate will be restored. Do you think once this occurs that the Turks and Kurds will embrace as brothers? Will too the Arabs and Persians? The Iraqis and Kuwaitis? The Sudanese Arabs and the Black African Muslims of Darfur?

This is Islamist propaganda. The history of Arab-Turkish, Arab-Persian, Turkish-Persian, Persian-Mughal, Afghan-Mughal, Arab-African, etc. conflict lies both prior to the advent of Islam and was very present during the time of the Caliphate.

Seems to me that you follow the Sunni school of thought to the tee and your wish to exclude the Shia comes more from your prejudices, your rivalry, towards them than this politically correct excuse you have mustered forth.

No, they do not. The Muslims are the most impoverished peoples in the world. Name one Muslim-majority country that has a viable economy independent of oil exports. Do you think the Gulf Arab states and Libya can survive once their oil fields run empty?

Yes, but I have never read an Islamist-inspired history book. Have you?

Many countries throughout the world have been colonized, had their borders drawn, and been subjected to the rule of puppet governments. What makes the Middle East so different? Except that the Arabs are so backward that they cannot help but feel sorry for themselves for 60-plus years. Was Hong Kong not colonized? Was India not colonized? Was the entire Western Hemisphere not colonized? Why is the Middle East so different?

Saddam Hussein was never a puppet of the West. He was an ally. Shall I show you pictures of Madeline Albright at a dinner with Kim Jung Il? Does this mean that he is or was a puppet of America? The United States administration has also met with various former Chechen Muslim leaders, Aslan Maskadhov was invited to Washington, DC when he was the de facto president of Chechnya, he later met with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and received money, training, and fighters from him. Are you going to tell me that Maskadhov was an American stooge as well?

What does it matter where they were educated? If you had the means, you too would send your own children to the best schools. Al-Assad and Qadhafi are both Arab nationalists and support terrorists Islamist organizations (you can call them freedom fighters or resistance fighters but when they blow up children and civilians alike –Muslim and non-Muslim – they are nothing but terrorists)! If I attend American University in Cairo and come back to the States, would that make me a puppet of the Egyptians? Roflllll You have some ridiculous reasoning my friend.

Your turn.

I never stated that the Islamic Nation or any other did not have the right to defend itself, furthermore, I also never stated that the Arabs of Palestine, the Kurds, etc., or any other Muslim or non-Muslim peoples did not have the right to self-determination.

You're one of 1.4 billion. Does that give you the right to speak on their behalf?

And although I still respect Muslims to the fullest, and hold Islam dear, I am very content not being a member of that community.

PS: I'm not amused with your rhetoric.  

Have you ever been to Albania, Turkey, or Iran? Do you really believe the majority of those populations place Islam ahead of their national or ethnic identity?

Happy reading, muchacho:

http://www.iranian.com/Jan96/Opinion/SecularNationalism.html - http://www.iranian.com/Jan96/Opinion/SecularNationalism.html

http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/2/1639 - http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/2/1639

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=6690 - http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=6690

http://www.country-studies.com/albania/the-rise-of-albanian-nationalism.html - http://www.country-studies.com/albania/the-rise-of-albanian-nationalism.html

Again, blaming others for your woes? Vay Khoda! :(

It doesn't mean that the current problems of the Middle East can be directly credited to them. The problems of the Middle East are caused by backwardness, radicalism, corruption, lack of education, and a refusal on the part of the Arab Nation to recognize the state of Israel.

If I get an arranged marriage and you play the middleman and introduce me to my bride and her family, and our marriage does not work out –who is to blame, my wife and I, or you?

I believe it was either the Cato Institute or the Center for American Progress. Both are center-left politically and advocate dialogue over conflict with Iran.

Yes, I will pretend that Muslim women in the West, in the Gulf States, and every other part of the Muslim world do not engage in such acts. I will also pretend that my Muslim girlfriend did engage in this sort of behavior with me while she was on her period during Ramadan, and then I will pretend that she did not tell me that it would be okay since she was bleeding. I will also pretend that I have never seen an Arab, Iranian, Afghan, Pakistani, or Turkish girl with a White American or Black American boyfriend. Yes, I will walk around with my head in the clouds and also pretend that the sun does not rise in the east and set in the west.

Whoaaaaa! Are you serious, dude?

After the irrational you've shown, you're asking me for proof? Have you any proof of your claims?? Or should I consider the I am one of those 1.4 billion BS, sufficient?

You and I both know what happens in the Islamic community.

Next time, conduct your own research, kid. Albanian nationalism and Albanian expressions for freedom were not the works of the Albanian Christians alone who comprise less than 17% of all Albanians (when the total Albanian populations of Albania, Kosovo, Western Macedonia, northern Greece, Italy, and others in the Diaspora are factored in), secular Albanian Muslims were also at the forefront in opposing Ottoman rule.

You failed to answer the question. I will assume that you had no counterargument and take it as an admission of defeat on your part.

I gave you examples. You refused to acknowledge them.

Whose arse did you manage to pull this BS from? Did that arse belong to one General Pervez Musharaff?

Food production is not a natural resource, and last I checked, Pakistan imported weaponry and artillery from friendly Western nations, i.e. the United States. Try again.

Turkmenistan? Yes.

Kazakhstan? Yes.

Uzbekistan? Maybe.

Tajikistan? Hell No.

Kyrgyzstan? Nope.

Only in the minds of the Islamists is this true.

Pretend that you have a commodity, say oil. In order for you to benefit from this resource, you need a buyer, correct? Because keeping it under lock and key and not selling it to anyone is not going to benefit you or feed your family. So what do you do? You will find a buyer, and you will sell him this commodity for as much as you can get. Who is the buyer that can offer you the most in return? It is the West.

Welcome to Economics 101, genius: simple DEMAND and SUPPLY structure.

Did I say that? Where did I say that?

I insinuated that the ISLAMIST viewpoints, written records were biased. I never said anything about Islamic textbooks, genius.

Maskhadov was in the Soviet military, but upon Chechnya declaring independence, he disavowed all allegiances to Moscow.

Is every head of Islamic state that you do not agree with, an agent of the West? You don't have to answer that I already know the answer.

The Baathists are Arab nationalists; Muammar al-Qadhafi is a self-proclaimed Arab nationalist. Do your own homework, genius:

http://people.africadatabase.org/en/profile/2064.html - http://people.africadatabase.org/en/profile/2064.html

http://www.workmall.com/wfb2001/syria/syria_history_world_war_i_and_arab_nationalism.html - http://www.workmall.com/wfb2001/syria/syria_history_world_war_i_and_arab_nationalism.html

Due to Communist policies which promoted atheism, the Albanians -Muslim, Catholic, and Orthodox Christian -place their ethnic and national identity ahead of their religion.

You and I both know that this is an ideal and not practiced.

Then why is Turkey the most secular state in the Islamic world?

There is a difference between having religious values and beliefs, and practicing those beliefs.

I'm sorry; I didn't realize you were an Islamic scholar. How long have you been in the practice of interpreting others' religious beliefs? I think a better question would be, how long have you been in the business of spewing nonsense?

Okay, then by utilizing your irrational use of logic, it can be inferred that since the Muslim-majority countries of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania, Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. are secular nations, that the Muslim populations of these countries are largely nominal. See how silly your logic is, genius?

Iranians are not included in your statements because like most other Salafists, you consider them heretics. Great way to practice the Muslim unity you preach, mullah.

The Salafists have taught you well, you are very adept at manipulation. Read the entire text in the context in which it was presented. The Ottomans tried to use Islam to divide the Albanian nationalist movement that sought independence; history proves that this Ottoman policy failed.

Read the other links, maybe you won't be so close-minded.

The nation-states in the Americas were not drawn up by foreign European powers? India? Pakistan? Indochina? Central Asia? Sub-Saharan Africa? Eastern Europe? What makes the Arabs so much different? Why is there predicament so special? Do tell.

Were the Spaniards and Portuguese willing participants to Arab-Berber savagery? Were the Hindus willing participants? Were the Serbs, Croats, Macedonians, Bulgarians, Georgians, Armenians, and Jews also willing participants? 

Not cute. I'm not going to stop you from living in your fantasy world in which you believe that racism, premarital sex, and alcohol consumption are non-existent, and Islam is the law of the land.

Yes, everything that doesn't go the Salafist way is a manipulation of the Christian West. Brav

te]Welcome to Economics 101, genius: simple DEMAND and SUPPLY structure[/quote]

You cannot charge whatever the Hell you want, genius. You can only charge what the market is willing to pay.

Bullsh*t. Where is your proof?

Salafist-inspired Islamism, genius –has replaced Arab nationalism, unless you're having delusions that Syria and Libya no longer, and have never supported radical Islamist movements in the Middle East and greater Islamic world, i.e. the PLO, Fatah, Hezbollah.

I don't think that all Islamists are terrorists and I do not believe terrorism and Islamism are interchangeable terms. I believe that there are legitimate resistance movements that target only opposing military factions, and I believe there are terrorist organizations that are inspired by religion, i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq, Al Qaeda international, HAMAS in the territories, Hindutva in India, Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Chetniks in the former Yugoslavia, etc., I also believe there are states which sponsor terrorist activities under the guise of military maneuvers, i.e. the Israeli Defense Forces targeting of Arabs, the Red Chinese Army's occupation of East Turkistan, Tibet, and Inner Mongolia, the terrorism inflicted by the Russian Army against the Chechens, etc., need anymore clarification, muchacho?

btw: Next time, try to counter all the arguments instead of the only ones you can irrationally think up a retort for. Thanks, genius.

As an Albanian I want to explain some things.

We cannot measure each and every person's degree of religious values or conservatism; however, we are able to draw certain conclusions by utilizing proven scientific methods for gathering data, i.e. taking sample populations, comparing systems of governance, and the influences of religion in politics and communities, etc.

For example, we can conclude from the rate of inter-religious marriages, regular attendance at prayers, secular forms of government, and the enforcement of atheist policies by past Communist regimes in the Balkans that the Bosnian and Albanian Muslims tend to abide by Islamic principles far less than their co-religionists in the Arabian Peninsula, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. The latter countries have a strong and visible history of theocratic tradition, inter-religious marriages are the exception and not the norm, the state and daily life is directly influenced by Islam, an interpretation of Islamic principles, and other visible factors.

btw: I attended university with a Turkish fellow from Istanbul, his name was "Ismet" (correct spelling?), and I've heard nothing but good things about Turkey and the wonderful Turkish people. Insh'allah, I would love to visit your country -if you're offering me an invite, that is.

Qutuz TheGR is right about Afghanistan it was one of Nader shahs generals who after his assassination went and seperated Afghanistan from Iran. 

Yes, it is definitely a perception thing and nationalists anywhere on earth will exploit all opportunities in acheiving their goals of a national boundry state. Those opportunities exploited by nationalists were best presented by the 1970 poor response of the central Pakistani government to the cyclone that hit Bangladesh and later (very soon) the block of Mujibu Al Rahman's party from office despite gaining a parliment majority.

The cyclone was one of the things that the Nationalists seized on. But this again is a matter of perception. Pakistan in 1970 was in no state to cope with the scale of the cyclone. Even today in Pakistan, an earthquake that was many times less destructive than the cyclone could not be coped with by the Pakistani government alone. This hasn't been seized upon by Kashmiri nationalists probably because they would side with Pakistan over India. But the same problem occurred in East Pakistan in 1970, Pakistan alone could not cope with the magnitude of what had happened. Dhakka radio was partly to blame for what happened because it forgot to tell anyone how strong the storm would be. This was presumably run by Bengalis from East Pakistan and not linked with the West Pakistani government.

Here's a summary of the scale of what happened

http://www.trivia-library.com/a/the-pakistan-cyclone-of-1970.htm

The medical teams from Singapore described the problems there were with getting access to the people

On arrival, they were warmly welcomed by Pakistan military and civil authorities. They established their base camp at the Airstrip and set up wireless communications for direct communication between the mission base headquarters and MINDEF. They encountered difficulties in the cyclone ravaged islands as motorised transport was quite impossible in the flood devastated areas. The main means of transport for the relief teams were bicycles, boats and helicopters.

"The mission was happy to receive good co-operation from the Pakistan military authorities which was in control of the affected areas," said CPT (Dr) Peter Chua, second-in-command of the mission.

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/about_us/history/birth_of_saf/v03n11_history.html%20

I dont really see how the Pakistani government was able to cope with the scale of it. From what I read in TIME, Yahya Khan gave funds from his own pocket to assist with the effort ($9000), which isn't something most leaders do, but why be generous from his own pocket and then not at least try and look as if he was doing everything for the people in East Pakistan?

I think the cyclone was again used to further the nationalistic interests of the Awami League.

This one I definitely dont think is a legitimate reason. Mujib Rahman wanted to have a seperate country from West Pakistan except in foreign policy and defence..seperate economies etc. It's not possible to do this. The economy and foreign policy go together, so to have a country which had two states with two independent economies but the same foreign policy would have meant a weakened country, and a weakened economy (or so it was believed at the time). If Mujib Rahman had said that he wanted to have a united West and East Pakistan, same as before, noone would have minded and he could have taken office like the three Bengali leaders of Pakistan before then.

You're confusing patriotism for nationalism. The Pashtuns and Baluch swear allegiance to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan -emphasis on "Islamic Republic" - however they still look towards Kabul as their capital, and not Islamabad. If the Iranian/Iranic population of Pakistan viewed themselves as "Pakistani" before they viewed themselves as Muslims and Pashtuns (a term that until recently was interchangeable with "Afghan"), then why did the Indic-dominated government of Pakistan create and support the Taliban? Why was the Indic-dominated government of Pakistan so in fear of a Pashtun or Baluch cessation that it chose to promote Islam in order to counterbalance the Pashtun and Baluch nationalistic desire? Why did the Pakistani government feel safer believing that religious-minded Iranic Muslims would not feel a need to secede from fellow Indic Muslims, whereas nationalistic Pashtuns and Baloch who placed their ethnicity ahead of their religion, no doubt would want reunification with Afghanistan?

If you ask a Pakistani Pashtun what is the capital of his country, 99% will say Islamabad. The same with the Baloch.

On allegiance, Pakistani Pashtuns and Baloch are pretty clear on where their loyalties lie. Last election, Balochis voted for Musharraf's party on the whole, Pashtuns usually vote for PML-N or PPP. The nationalist parties do not have any major support in either region, and consistently have to team up with other parties every election to get any say in the running of the provinces. It's quite easy for people to vote for seperation or to stage an uprising that would be supported by India, but noone really wants to join with Afghanistan or any other country with the state that they're in. The Islamic Republic is definitely not what Pakistanis vote for or Pashtuns. Last election in 2002, the Pashtuns in Pakistan voted in Islamists only because of the bombing of Afghanistan which they opposed. Next election things would be returning to normal. All these people generally vote in secular parties or moderate Islamic parties. Basically parties that allow them to practise their religion freely.

First, Pakistan does not contain any Iranian population. Everyone in Pakistan is Pakistani.

Second, Iranic is just a linguistical term. In your case, a province of China could be "Iranic" if the people spoke one of the Iranic languages. But the people are of a different origin to somebody from Pakistan, Azerbaijan, or whichever countries speak Iranic languages. I could group the whole of Pakistan together on genetics which would be a much more valid grouping than your linguistical lines of seperation.

Third, the Taliban were not created by the Pakistani government. Malizai explained this well a bit ago. The Taliban were Afghans who arose from the fighting in post soviet Afghanistan. They were supported by Pakistan though because Pakistan had its own interests to look after, and the Taliban happened to cooperate with the Pakistani government at the time.

Fourth, the Pakistan government is not Indic dominated. It is Pashtun and Punjabi dominated. It's possible to name more martial administrators of Pakistan who were Pathans than to name Punjabi or Sindhi ones.

Fifth, the question you ask makes no sense.

Promote fundamentalist Islam? You have got to be joking now. Ziaudin the ex Army Chief who Nawaz Sharif chose to replace Musharraf wanted to promote fundamentalist Islam, and when he appeared on TV to be congratulated by Sharif, the Army officers pulled the plug on him, and staged the coup to throw him out. Tariq Ali describes some of them as drinking whiskey to the tune of bagpipes in the officer's mess. Fundamentalist Islam is in no way promoted in Pakistan, and the people generally do not have that sort of philosophy. If Islam was promoted to counterbalance Pashtun and Baloch desires it didnt do much good because none of the people vote for the radical Islamic parties, and it wouldnt make much sense for Musharraf to do this, as it would mean taking away his own votes from Balochistan.

No no, you really have this all wrong. Musharraf is totally against fundamentalism in Pakistan as are most Pakistani people. The religious parties generally do not do well in elections, and have never done well in Balochistan. The Nationalist Parties do not perform well in Pashtun areas or in Baloch areas. Culturally, parts of FATA can be conservative, but majority of NWFP isn't conservative. There are no "Iranic" Muslims and "Indic" Muslims in Pakistan. There are Pashtuns, Balochis, Punjabis and Sindhis though as well as other smaller ethnic groups, many of whom are also Hindu and Christian.

I am going to make my responses short and to the point, in the future, please do the same, as I lack the time to read such overwhelming nonsense.

I should hope so. A Pashtun or Baloch who lives in the political boundaries of the nation-state of Pakistan ought to realize that the capital of that country is Islamabad and not Kabul, otherwise he'd be quite the idiot.

How is voting for a dictator an indication of loyalty? Saddam Hussein used to win 99.9% of the popular vote when he was in power, do you really think that all those Shias and Kurds voted for him?

"Quite easy"? Has the struggle for separation (btw: learn how to spell) been "quite easy"? Has the Kurdish struggle for separation from "quite easy"? How about the Baloch struggle for separation from Iran, has that been "quite easy"? Or the Uigur struggle for separation from China, has that been "quite easy"? Jesus Christ, man! At least do some research before you ramble such oblivious nonsense!

Yeah, if India even gave a rat's ass!

Oh really? Did you conduct a poll and ask every single Pashtun or Baluch this question? Has the government of Pakistan ever called for a referendum to afford the Pashtun or Baluch their God-given right to self-determination?

That is beside the point. The fact of the matter remains that Pakistan is officially an Islamic Republic.

Please, don't bother me with unimportant electoral facts about a dictatorship.

Oh, really, genius? The Pashtuns and Baloch are not linguistically, historically, and most importantly, genetically, an Iranian people? I use the term Iranic so as not to confuse the simple minded folk about who is an Iranian people and who is a citizen of the modern nation-state of Iran.

The two terms only came into being in 1947. There is no such thing as a Pakistani race or ethnic group. The country is composed of Indic or Indian peoples (Punjabi, Kashmiri, Mohajir, Sindhi) and Iranic or Iranian peoples (Pashtun and Baloch).

Um, no, it is not. It is also an ethnic, and genetic term to denote one's racial and cultural make up.

If you are a Punjabi whose family is from Pakistan, and you have moved to China – does that make you an ethnic Han Chinese person? Or do you remain Punjabi, which is an Indic person? If you move to Saudi Arabia, are you all of a sudden an Arab? No, you will remain an Indic person – someone of Indian heritage.

The Punjabis, Kashmiris, Sindhis, and Mohajirs of Pakistan do not speak and Iranian language and they are not an Iranian people, rather, these peoples speak an Indic language and are Indic or Indian by blood, ancestry, and genetic make up.

Genetically, the Punjabis, Kashmiris, Sindhis, and Mohajirs are Indian; and the Pashtuns and Baluch are Iranian.

They were created by the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency, according to every other intelligence agency in the world. The Musharaff government has even admitted as such.

Does Malizai work as an intelligence officer? Didn't think so.

Why were their numbers filled with Pakistani Pashtuns, then? And why were they rejected by the majority of the Afghan people?

Those interests were the Indic-dominated Pakistani government's desire to keep its' grip on Pakistan's western provinces and not lose them to Afghanistan.

Because they needed recognization, and Pakistan and the UAE were the only ones willing to recognize them as the rulers of Afghanistan.

The government is dominated by Mohajirs – Indian Muslims – and Punjabis, who are also an Indic people.

The overwhelmingly majority of people who have held power in Pakistan have always been of Indic origin.

I was being sarcastic. A response from you was not necessary.  

I'm not interested in Pakistan's history. No need for the history lesson. The facts remain that the Indic-dominated government of Pakistan used political Islam in order to destabilize the Pashtun independence movement in Pakistan and to undermine their desire for reunification with Afghanistan.

No, no, no, no I don't.

That's very nice. Too bad that I don't care.

Are you telling me that there are no such thing as Iranian or Iranic peoples, and no such thing as Indic or Indian peoples? Are you denying that the Kurds, Azeris, Persians, Tajiks, Pashtuns, Balochis, and Ossetians all share a common genetic make up, history, culture, and ancestry? Are you further denying that the Punjabis, Kashmiris, Sindhis, and Mohajirs are not descended from Indian peoples? Hindus who were converted to Islam? Are you denying that these Indic peoples of Pakistan are culturally, historically, genetically, and linguistically linked to their kinsmen in India, just as the Pashtuns and Baloch of Pakistan are an Iranian or Iranic peoples? HA HA HA! You're funny!

Your insinuation was that a Pashtun would say Kabul as his capital, and it's incorrect. A Pakistani Pashtun would say Islamabad. No doubts about this, no second thoughts.

You clearly havent got a clue of how politics is run in Pakistan. International Observers attend the elections in Pakistan. The vote count is not only observed by international observers, it is counted up in front of other parties. How do you equate this election process with the one by Saddam Hussein in Iraq? Only an ignorant person would do so..

It always amuses me when people pick up on spelling mistakes because their posts lack any substances as the case clearly exists here. If you want a detailed spanking grammatically correct essay, you're not going to get one without paying me..

Your comparing apples with oranges again..First the comparison with Saddam (because he happened to be a dictator) was far fetched nonsense, now the comparison of the Baloch movement in Iran is the same too. If the movement is POPULAR amongst Pashtuns there will be independence. FATA regions are Pashtun and noone could control them, not the British troops a century ago, or people before them. If the Kurds cannot take on the might of the Turks, the Iranians, the Iraqis, the Syrians, or the Balochis cannot take on the Iranians, this does not mean the Pashtuns cannot take on the might of the Pakistani Army. If someone supplies the people with sophisticated weaponry (as the Indians are willing to do, and the Afghani government tried to do beforehand), the Pashtuns could EASILY rip Pakistan in half and join with Afghanistan. But noone wants that.. And if there was any popular movement for independence, voting would be an even easier way to show the desire for independence that clearly is not there, except in the figment of your mind.

LOL!! If you dont know anything about the history of the region, it's better not to comment and make yourself look silly..India would love to see Pakistan disintegrate..Why? Because it removes an obvious potential threat to their land..A weak divided Pakistan is better for India, and will enable them to hold onto Kashmir or take it.

Yes, a poll was conducted. It's called an election in 2002, in which votes were counted in view of opposition parties and international observers.

So what?

If it's too difficult for you to understand, consider the elections in 2002 as a poll or referendum that was monitored by all the opposition parties of Pakistan. It's a very weak reply to just dismiss those elections like that and to try and compare Pakistani elections with those stage managed in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

Pashtuns and Baloch use an Iranic linguistical language. Genetically, in no way can you classify all Iranic speakers or "Iranian" people as you call them as a homogenous group of people all with the same ancestries. In fact, it's a proveable fact that Pakistani haplogroups are in many ways related to Steppenary haplogroups than to other Iranic or Iranian people as you call them here.

Pakistani is a nationality, Iranian is a nationality. That should be enough. But as I know it wont be I'll say something more. Iranian is the generic term given in the historical sense to the group of people that speak Iranic languages. The Pashtuns do speak an Iranic language, this does not mean they came from the same ancestral point as all other Iranic speakers or Iranian people. All the theories of Pashtuns being of similar ancestry as Arabs or as other Iranic speakers have been by now clearly and decisively put to rest by genetics. It's time you caught up with this..

Iranian is not an ethnic term. It can be used to describe a nationality (Iranian), it can be used to describe the language phylogeny of a language. In no way can the term "Iranian" be applied to the racial makeup of a person in the same way that "Indic" cannot be applied to the racial makeup of a person. Indic is a linguistical term. Applying Iranian as an ethnic term means that the Persians, Azeris, Kurds, etc are all

the same ethnic group, which they are not, or do you think they are?

What you have said above is finally true. But how does this relate to what I said?

The Punjabis, Kashmiris, Sindhis and Muhajirs of Pakistan are ethnic groups, they can be classified linguistically as Indic, but they are not all the same racial people. A Kashmiri is in no way racially related to a Muhajir..Anybody with rudimentary knowledge of Pakistan will know this.

LOL! Absolutely clueless. This is one of the most ignorant statements I've heard for a while. Indian is not a uniform haplogroup distribution and neither is Iranian in the sense you're using it. Iranian has many different ethnic groups with many many different genetics the way you're applying it. In fact if you define Indian and Iranian like this, the Pashtun group would fall more into the Indic group than the Iranian group (which is clearly false) so this means your own theory of Iranian and Indic racial groupings is incorrect.

The Musharraf government has not admitted it as such, and neither has "every other intelligence source" unless you consider yourself amongst such a distinguished category..no comment on that..The Taliban was supported by Pakistan to get a cooperative neighbour for it though, as any country wants..

The Taliban were filled with Afghan Pashtuns..do get your facts straight on this. Pakistani Pashtuns were a minority in the Taliban, they were there because they are of the same ethnic group as the Afghan Taliban.

Those "interests" as you put it were to get a trade route established to central asia and to prevent meddling in the affairs of Pakistan as Afghanistan had done in the 4 or 5 decades ago.

And when it was clear they were no good, Pakistan broke off the support. As did UAE. Taliban didn't need recognition, they needed support.

Absolutely clueless. Pakistan government and Army is dominated by Pashtuns and Punjabis. Muhajirs form a very small part of it. Pakistani Punjabis form the other major part of it besides the Pashtuns. This is quoted all over the place.

And they say it's bliss :D At least 20 years or nearly half of Pakistan's existence has been led by Pashtuns who only form about an eighth of the population!

Sarcasm needs to be understood for it to work, else you end up looking stupid.

LOL! You need the history lesson.. Political Islam has never worked in Pakistan. If political Islam was the purpose of the Pakistan government, then why was everyone voting for PPP in the seventies when Afghanistan was supplying arms to Pashtuns from Afghanistan to destabilize Pakistan? Political Islam never caught on in Pakistan, until 2002 when the people reacted to the American bombing of Afghanistan. Other than that Pakistan has never once had a period where it supported Islam politically..Not one, would be nice if you could show me one phase though, but I think you won't be successful.

:D I think you do, else you wouldnt bring it up so much.

Iranian people are nationals of Iran, Indian people are nationals of India. One can also say Iranians are those people that speak the Iranic languages, and Indians those people that speak the Indic languages. This completely neglects the fact that within these groupings that you have chosen, there can be many different ethnicities with completely different ancestries. A more better classification would be those people that have common haplogroups, or, those people with common ancestral origins. And if you go by those classifications, Pakistanis all share some pretty similar haplogroups, and dare I say it but you could have a case for classing Steppary people as more Pashtun related than other "Iranian" linguistical groups.

His sources come from Pakistani propaganda sites as well. That was what I was trying to prove by posting that link from the Kashmiri Pundit website - the bias involved.

 Which Polls, conducted by who, using which sampling techniques, questioning what proportion of the population, was their bias involved, was an equal socio-demographic segmentation asked etc etc

Presenting your subjective views as being the "norm", is not only ridiculous its also mis-leading to forumer's who don't know Turkey very well. Would you like to tell me exactly where Turkish people don't refer to themselves as Turks  and why being a Muslim conflicts with being a Turk, ie who are you to say that a person who calls himself a Turk cannot also be a Muslim when the majority of people have this view.