Iranian Chief of General Staff arrives in Pakistan

[Taimoor Khan]

The discussion began with the notion that the majority of attacks in Pakistan's Baluchistan originate from Iran, so I responded accordingly.

It's not excluded that some Baluchs from the Iranian side joined the BLA. This is a relatively common phenomenon with cross-border separatist groups. In the same manner, PJAK terrorists attacking Iran have had Kurds with Iraqi or Turkish citizenship in their ranks.

What I'm trying to convey is, this doesn't prove that these people are backed by their respective governments. They're outlaws. Some cross-border activity by the BLA, which is not happening in the majority of attacks they stage, should not be interpreted as evidence for Iranian assistance to these terrorists.

All the recent terrorist activities in Baluchistan have got links with Iran. Since Afghanistan has now got a favourable government, its soil is no longer used to launch terrorist activities in Baluchistan. For crying out loud, whole Kulbashan Yadev network was using Iranian soil as the lunch pad against Pakistan. And then there is the very famous case Uzair Baluch as how Iranian state apparatus was trying very hard against him being handed over to Pakistani security agencies when he was nabbed in a gulf state.

Its impossible that Iranian state is not aware or worst involved in all this non sense.

Work with Iran when it servers Pakistan national interests while keeping hawk eye on them at the same time. Persians are very slippery and can never be trusted.

If it is established that a neighboring state is deliberately harboring terrorists and aiding them to attack you by setting up bases for them, you are entitled by international law to intervene. Hence why there were no lawsuits against Iran's missile strikes on the MKO camp during Saddam's time, or Iran's strikes on Kurdish separatist bases in northern Iraq. But the government of Pakistan has not accused Iran of engaging in such a policy.

Who is going to establish that a country is deliberately harbouring terrorist? A state cannot be a judge, jury and executioner at the same time unless its a super power. Iran isn't. Pakistan has never acknowledged that it is harbouring any doggy elements deliberately. So when Iranian general are being loud mouths, talking about striking within Pakistani soil, where there is no established fact that Pakistani state is deliberating harbouring anyone, you are basically peddling the narrative that indeed Pakistani state is involved.

A mentally disabled Persian will be carrying such illusions tbh considering that when same logic was used by India, world saw what happened to it during operation swift retort. Iran is nothing really in comparison to India.

The lose talk should avoided by Persians, it only cause people in Pakistan to remember their utterance and hold them accountable for it. Not good for any normal relations.

Simply to find ways to further enhance security in the border areas. In addition to other topics such as naval cooperation, planned joint wargames, the topic of Afghanistan (in particular possible cooperation against "I"SIS) and maybe Azarbaijan.

Ofcourse, but it can only work when lose talk is avoided. Even back in 2017, Pakistan had overwhelmingly more posts on Pak-Iran border. When one party is not doing enough and only into blame game, nothing will come out of it.

Terrain is relevant because if geological and environmental conditions are different, civilizational foundations will be as well. The natural surroundings shape the way in which early civilizations developed, as well as the form they took.

Hence Elam and subsequent civilizations on the Iranian plateau had to devise their own distinct characteristics and could not simply content themselves with copying everything from the Mesopotamian model. The qanat irrigation system I mentioned earlier, which is considered world heritage by UNESCO and thus a genuine civilizational feature, is an example.

Sumerian texts themselves, even the famous epic of Gilgamesh, make a distinction between their own local civilization and people from the Zagros mountains to the East.

On the whole, early antiquity stretched over several thousand years. Elam was founded some 500 to 1000 years after Sumer, but is still firmly part of the same period of history and therefore a contemporary of the first three. I never debated the fact that it wasn't the first, but it it's more than just an offshoot or simple carbon copy of Sumer.

You are just summersaulting around the fact the Elam is never considered as the first/elite civilization and it is an offshoot of Mesopotamia. Elam going on and building its own culture and identity later in the timeline is not the issue, the point is, its not indigenous that it sprouted on its own, rather it roots are firmly in its neighbourhood, in Sumer/Mesopotamia.

Iran is sandwiched between two great and most ancient civilizations, on east, the Might Indus and west, the Mesopotamia. Logically, academically, even at the very basis of understanding, its impossible for civilization to exist in Iran before its much ancient neighbours. Worst, the buffoonery of "iranic" heritage when the people around it are much more ancient.

I am using it in the sense of belonging to the same historic period ie early antiquity.

Yet they are not, there are only three "first" civilizations, Elam is not among them.

Yes, in an era where a millennium meant significantly less than it means today. While that era lasted for some thousands of years, subsequent ones became shorter and shorter. A thousand years in early antiquity corresponds to less than 100 years in today's timescale, in terms of rapidity of technological progression and societal evolution etc.

Who told you this? I find it laughable tbh. Every era has got it own set of challenges and constraints. Even century is a long time, let alone 1000 years, regardless what timeline we are talking about.

11000 years ago we had no civilizations but high cultures ie the direct predecessors of civilizations, exhibiting many of the typical features of a civilization but not expanded enough to constitute a fully fledged civilization. Civilization in the Indus Valley formed in the 4th millennium BC, local high cultures much earlier.

Wrong. Mehrgarh is recognized as "Phase 1" of Indus valley civilization. Mohenjodaro and Harrapa are later "phases" of IVC.

It's a historical truth that the Elamite civilization on the Iranian plateau surfaced during early antiquity, the same historic era in which Sumer, Egypt and the Indus Valley gave birth to civilizations.

Academic sources on the topic will not tell otherwise. Like here: https://www.worldhistory.org/elam/

I already explained to you that Elam is not considered as the first civilization, its not even indigenous.

My friend, it would contradict your own timelines in this discussion if civilization in the Indus Valley preceded Sumer (4500-4000 BC) by 6000 years... The correct academic term for settlements like Mehrgarh, Göbekli Tepe (Anatolia), Hassuna, Halaf (Mesopotamia), Dilmun (eastern Arabia) and so on is that of high cultures. These high cultures then developed into proper civilizations at a subsequent stage.

And there were high cultures on the Iranian plateau as well, some of which preceded the Elamite civilization, others that are contemporary to Elam. I mentioned some before: Tape Sialk in central Iran, another UNESCO World Heritage site, dates back to 6000 BC and is therefore older than Elam. Jiroft and Shahre Sukhteh in southeastern Iran, around 3200-3000 BC. Local high cultures of southwestern Iran from which Elam evolved are older than 5000 years as well.

These are examples of artifacts from Jiroft:

And yet Jiroft is classified as a high culture rather than a civilization, due to some of its general properties.

When it comes to settlements, the earliest recorded ones in Iran are located in the western Zagros mountains and date back to between 8000 and 10000 BC (see source cited earlier).

The lost civilisation of Mehrgarh: A treasure in ruins - Pakistan - DAWN.COM

"Mehrgarh is one of the ancient civilisations of the world, dating back 11,000 years,"

"it is older than the Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilisations."




Mehrgarh in itself is the phase 1 of IVC. Its not some random high culture. When you are talking about IVC, it cannot be done without Mehrgarh.


If you really want to go further down the time line, then we are looking at Soan valley, Pakistan. But that is not civilization.


“The oldest evidence of life in Pakistan has been found in Soan River valley. It was here that some of the earliest signs of humans have been discovered during the excavations of prehistoric mounds,” said Director of Taxila Institute of Asian Civilization at Quaid-i-Azam University, Dr Ashraf Khan.

According to Dr Khan, Soan River Valley is where 500,000 year old relics of the Stone Age man have been found, identifying it as the place with the earliest human inhabitation in the region.

Soan River has many archeological as well as natural heritage sites along its banks and there is no denying that the areas of Rawalpindi and Islamabad are a rich den of precious history.

“The historic background of Rawalpindi and Islamabad can be traced back to the Paleolithic period, the oldest stone tools have been reported in Morgah, Sohan and on the banks of River Soan,” said Dr Ashraf.

“The Stone Age men of Soan Valley have been found to organise themselves in a homogeneous society where they formed groups and developed a culture called the Soan Culture,” explained Dr Khan

But in any case, Bani Israel were Semitic tribes. How is the Pashtun language Semitic? Linguists have always classified it as an Iranian idiom from the Eastern Iranian branch of languages.

Here's an academic and detailed enough source to read up on the subject: https://iranicaonline.org/articles/afghanistan-vi-pasto

Ditto for the features, in my book they look more Iranic than Semitic.

Mate, have you actually heard Pashtu? It is sea apart from Persian or any other related language.

Do you know where "Khyber Pass" is? Do you know who were the occupants of "Khyber fort" in Arabia?

You really need to watch this without paying much attention to whatever the agenda might be.

Pakhtoon features are more Semitic then even found in Jews and Arabs. Long noses, sharp features. As mentioned in above documentary, faces out of bible. Both Pashtu and Hebrew focus a lot on "kh" ( ), infact literally every sentence use "kh". Its a hard language whereas Persian is soft. There is literally no comparison. And ofcourse, Pakhtoon tribal system as it was in ancient bani Isreal.

This doesn't affect the overall genetic make up though. As an example, someone can have Arab or Bani Israel paternal ancestors and still be overwhelmingly Indo-European from the genetic point of view.

Problem is that no academic study has questioned the fact that Pashtuns represent an Indo-European and specifically Iranic people... Genetic evidence confirms this as well as their language. So if going by facts, for my part I'd prefer to restrict myself to documented findings substantiated by evidence rather than assertions stemming from folklore but not corroborated by science.

Thats why genetic makeup and then relate to certain nations is really like comparing apply to oranges. For instance, we hear a lot of "Jewish DNA". Problem with that is, the Jews in this day and age, are mostly Khazars of central asia, converted jews. So if we are talking about "Jewish DNA", we are certainly not talking about the Bani Isreal of ancient, but more likely Khazar nation, which might have some unique genetic makeup! Jews themselves admit that their bloodline is now corrupt.

Traditions, culture and memory passed down the generations, and ofcourse family tree are the most important things when establishing identities. And that is where, Pakhtoon connection to Bani Israel is very strong.

And as I mentioned earlier to you, this have got huge implications and understanding of Islamic eschatology, but I will leave at it.

 

[El Sidd]

booom! you understand strategy.

semantic

 

[SalarHaqq]

All the recent terrorist activities in Baluchistan have got links with Iran.

In a majority of cases, Pakistani reports don't mention border crossings to or from Iran in association with these terror attacks.

Who is going to establish that a country is deliberately harbouring terrorist? A state cannot be a judge, jury and executioner at the same time unless its a super power. Iran isn't. Pakistan has never acknowledged that it is harbouring any doggy elements deliberately. So when Iranian general are being loud mouths, talking about striking within Pakistani soil, where there is no established fact that Pakistani state is deliberating harbouring anyone, you are basically peddling the narrative that indeed Pakistani state is involved.

A mentally disabled Persian will be carrying such illusions tbh considering that when same logic was used by India, world saw what happened to it during operation swift retort. Iran is nothing really in comparison to India.

The lose talk should avoided by Persians, it only cause people in Pakistan to remember their utterance and hold them accountable for it. Not good for any normal relations.

Ofcourse, but it can only work when lose talk is avoided. Even back in 2017, Pakistan had overwhelmingly more posts on Pak-Iran border. When one party is not doing enough and only into blame game, nothing will come out of it.

Iran hasn't issued such statements in a while.

The Pakistani side of Baluchistan is significantly more populated so this justifies additional posts.

Iranians aren't only or simply Persians by the way. General Bagheri who visited Pakistan for instance is of Azari descent too.

You are just summersaulting around the fact the Elam is never considered as the first/elite civilization and it is an offshoot of Mesopotamia. Elam going on and building its own culture and identity later in the timeline is not the issue, the point is, its not indigenous that it sprouted on its own, rather it roots are firmly in its neighbourhood, in Sumer/Mesopotamia.

Yet they are not, there are only three "first" civilizations, Elam is not among them.

Iran is sandwiched between two great and most ancient civilizations, on east, the Might Indus and west, the Mesopotamia. Logically, academically, even at the very basis of understanding, its impossible for civilization to exist in Iran before its much ancient neighbours. Worst, the buffoonery of "iranic" heritage when the people around it are much more ancient.

I mentioned that it wasn't the first. However, it is situated in the same period as the others, namely early antiquity.

I have never seen a historian use the term offshoot of Sumer when describing Elam. Elam was not founded by Sumerians nor is it a copy thereof.

There's no logical reason to postulate that because Iran is located between two ancient civilizations, no such thing could have flourished in Iran. Several high cultures existed across the Iranian plateau, some of which like Tape Sialk in central Iran were pretty cut off and distant from both Mesopotamia and the Indus valley.

Who told you this? I find it laughable tbh. Every era has got it own set of challenges and constraints. Even century is a long time, let alone 1000 years, regardless what timeline we are talking about.

Well it is a simple fact that the speed of change / evolution throughout human history hasn't ceased augmenting. Between 4500 BC and 3500 BC the world changed far less than between 1921 and 2021 in societal, political, scientific and technological aspects.

Wrong. Mehrgarh is recognized as "Phase 1" of Indus valley civilization. Mohenjodaro and Harrapa are later "phases" of IVC.

The lost civilisation of Mehrgarh: A treasure in ruins - Pakistan - DAWN.COM

"Mehrgarh is one of the ancient civilisations of the world, dating back 11,000 years,"

"it is older than the Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilisations."

Mehrgarh in itself is the phase 1 of IVC. Its not some random high culture. When you are talking about IVC, it cannot be done without Mehrgarh.

If you really want to go further down the time line, then we are looking at Soan valley, Pakistan. But that is not civilization.

The cited newspaper article doesn't reflect the common academic usage of the concept of civilization. Historians generally date the beginnings of civilization at the 5th millennium BC. During the 9th millennium BC, there were no actual civilizations yet. What started to take shape during that era were the first high cultures. Which themselves were preceded by primitive cultures. That the IVC could not have come into existence without Mehrgarh doesn't invalidate this: each early civilization was the direct heir to a local high culture preceding it.

Journalistic use of the term civilization can be looser indeed. Which is why I don't share reports from Iranian media using the word civilizations in reference to 12000 year old settlements or 8000 year old high cultures of the Iranian plateau.

Below are some publications, mostly of academic nature, employing the terminology established among historians.

Encyclopaedia Britannica:

Indus civilization, also called Indus valley civilization or Harappan civilization, the earliest known urban culture of the Indian subcontinent. The nuclear dates of the civilization appear to be about 2500–1700 bce, though the southern sites may have lasted later into the 2nd millennium bce. Among the world’s three earliest civilizations—the other two are those of Mesopotamia and Egypt—the Indus civilization was the most extensive.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Indus-civilization

___

Smithsonian Magazine:

Rare Ancient DNA Provides Window Into a 5,000-Year-Old South Asian Civilization

The Indus Valley Civilization flourished alongside Mesopotamia and Egypt, but the early society remains shrouded in mystery

Rare Ancient DNA Provides Window Into a 5,000-Year-Old South Asian Civilization

The Indus Valley Civilization flourished alongside Mesopotamia and Egypt, but the early society remains shrouded in mystery

www.smithsonianmag.com

___

Khan Academy:

The Indus River Valley Civilization, 3300-1300 BCE, also known as the Harappan Civilization, extended from modern-day northeast Afghanistan to Pakistan and northwest India.

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanit...-india/a/the-indus-river-valley-civilizations

___

Boundless World History:

The civilization developed in three phases: Early Harappan Phase (3300 BCE-2600 BCE), Mature Harappan Phase (2600 BCE-1900 BCE), and Late Harappan Phase (1900 BCE-1300 BCE).

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/b...chapter/the-indus-river-valley-civilizations/

___

Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, 1935–1975

II. THE OLDEST CIVILIZATION?

Prehistoric India— Mohenjo-daro— Its antiquity

These discoveries establish the existence in Sind (the northernmost province of the Bombay Presidency) and the Punjab, during the fourth and third millennium b.c., of a highly developed city life; and the presence, in many of the houses, of wells and bathrooms as well as an elaborate drainage-system, betoken a social condition of the citizens at least equal to that found in Sumer, and superior to that prevailing in contemporary Babylonia and Egypt.

Mate, have you actually heard Pashtu? It is sea apart from Persian or any other related language.

Do you know where "Khyber Pass" is? Do you know who were the occupants of "Khyber fort" in Arabia?

You really need to watch this without paying much attention to whatever the agenda might be.

Pakhtoon features are more Semitic then even found in Jews and Arabs. Long noses, sharp features. As mentioned in above documentary, faces out of bible. Both Pashtu and Hebrew focus a lot on "kh" ( ), infact literally every sentence use "kh". Its a hard language whereas Persian is soft. There is literally no comparison. And ofcourse, Pakhtoon tribal system as it was in ancient bani Isreal.

Languages of a same family do not have to be overly similar on the phonetic level. How they generally sound is not what determines their genealogical links, precisely defined linguistic criteria do.

What's more, marked pronunciation and frequency of 'kh' is not unique to Pashtun among Iranian languages: some of the Kurdish languages feature this characteristic too, and so did by the way Ancient Persian when compared to Modern Persian.

The same variable use of the 'kh' or resembling sounds can even be observed among Germanic languages, as another example. Whilst it occurs quite heavily in Dutch and certain Swiss German dialects, this is not the case of the Scandinavian Germanic idioms (Danish, Norwegian, Swedish etc). Yet there's no doubt that all of these do belong to the Germanic language group.

The classification of Pashtun as an Iranian language is not an object of debate among linguists, it's firmly consensual and substantiated. Here I will really trust science and academia over internet videos produced by a Jewish religious foundation, which aren't the works of an actual linguist.

Thats why genetic makeup and then relate to certain nations is really like comparing apply to oranges. For instance, we hear a lot of "Jewish DNA". Problem with that is, the Jews in this day and age, are mostly Khazars of central asia, converted jews. So if we are talking about "Jewish DNA", we are certainly not talking about the Bani Isreal of ancient, but more likely Khazar nation, which might have some unique genetic makeup! Jews themselves admit that their bloodline is now corrupt.

Traditions, culture and memory passed down the generations, and ofcourse family tree are the most important things when establishing identities. And that is where, Pakhtoon connection to Bani Israel is very strong.

Mizrahi Jews however aren't late converts and they have no genetic connections to the Pashtuns.

Other than in folkloric oral traditions of the Pashtuns and the writings of certain 19th century British authors and more recently some zionists in Isra"el", the theory has not been taken seriously since it is not based on evidence.

These are two academic-level Pakistani sources rejecting it:

Shah Ka Ka Khel, Sayed Wiqar Ali, Origin of the Afghans: Myths and Reality 1, Journal of Asian Civilizations, Vol. 37 Iss. 1, July 2014
https://www.proquest.com/openview/2b759f0a503f92881c2d372684ae577a/1

Balochistan Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, 2011
https://web.archive.org/web/20130202182751/http://www.uob.edu.pk/journals/BR-2011-1 (Final Printed).pdf

Where the authors conclude on the topic:

We have seen in the above mentioned references that the theory of Bani Israel about the origin of the Pashtoons is not reliable and nor it is based on authentic evidences.