Unfortunately this history is shared by the present Pakistanis too. You seem to forget that too conveniently. Pakistan and Afghanistan have always been the gateway to the invasions of India since ancient times. You yourself proudly claim so much foreign influence in Pakistan: from Greeks to Persians to Afghans to Arabs! Its difficult to deal with so much inconsistency.
Inconsistent, yes, in the sense you don't seem able to state any facts about what I've said, plus you get in a muddle constantly.
1) Colonialism spread through the subcontinent because Eastern Indians helped take over central India and Western India by joining colonial forces. Parts of Pakistan were also occupied due to this fact. However, other parts were not. Two different histories in fact.
2) Some Greek influence, less Persian influence, even less Arab influence, and Afghans always have been a part of Pakistan. Completely different to what you've said really.
The Afghans have interfered in other's affairs when they could and others have done so in Afghanistan when they could. Why complain?
Afghanistan is at an important route in central asia. It always has been, which is why it's been under the eyes of superpowers.
Whilst it's possibly true that Afghan kings would have interfered in the affairs of other countries, if they could have, the fact is they've never been strong enough to do so much of the time. At least compared to the successive superpower strengths that have invaded their country over time. it's a bit one-sided.
Of course the world has seen their fighting back (?) in 2001. When the chiefs (along with their families and clans) were being bought and sold for few pieces of silver by the USA! The same was done by the "brave" Taliban earlier if you chose to remember.
Sounds like Afghan-Tajiks you're referring to here. I agree with that in fact.
Even now their "fighting back" is unique in that it kills more fellow Afghans in suicide bombings and in girl schools than the foreigners!
Another piece of lacklustre brain power from you indeed. Never heard of "collateral damage" it would seem. Hundreds of people are killed in some airstrikes in Iraq or Afghanistan, and innocent people are also killed by suicide bombings. One cannot differentiate the two as you're doing.
Don't worry about my knowledge. The great game was on all this time and Afghanistan was doing fine. The country became a rabble only during and after the Soviet war. The Kabul city and much of the countryside was destroyed by the warlords after the Soviet pullout (with Pakistan's support?). The bandit rule is also a legacy of the "Mujahideen" not the great game. So let's put the blame where it belongs and not all over the place.
Indeed, soon as the third anglo afghan war was over, everyone just left the place, and the economy recovered overnight in a flash. Actually things had improved following this quite dramatically. Yep, it was all due to tohe Soviets of course.
Truth is that Afghanistan improved considerably when left on its own. Women were granted full voting rights in 1965 when countries like Switzerland had not granted it to them. This is what happens when a country is not interfered with by warfare. So, again, you're incorrect. The country was a "rabble" in the early 1920s, improved some decades, then plunged into war again after it improved.
Pakistan did not support anyone after the Soviets left, as you seem to imply. Not sure what bandit rule is either, though you seem to be implying it's the Mujahideen. This is where it gets really tedious talking to you due to the Bharat-Rhaksha type ignorance you come out with. Typical Hindu fanatic. The Mujahideen were responsible for the chaos that followed the Soviet withdrawal, but had the Soviets not invaded, the Wahhabist ideology of the Mujahideen would not have been created. Then there would have been no Mujahideen. You see what interference does?
Don't tell me you didn't get what I meant here! It was so obvious that I did not talk about the Afghans in present India. It was about the various bandit raids that the Afghans conducted in Pakistani and North Indian regions and the various genocides indulged by them (Two million by Mahmud Gazhani alone mainly in Pakistani areas and also North India).
And Mahmud Ghazni was firstly not an Afghan, he was Turkish (I bet they didn't teach you that at Bharat Rhaksha). Secondly, Ghanzi's top commander was Sombay Rai, a Hindu who carried out most of his conquests. The figure of 2 million sounds wrong also. I doubt there was a very good record keeping system of war dead in the 10th century. Just more wind blowing over from you fundamentalist household.
And don't get me started about this Aryan/Dravidian stuff. You have nothing to do with being "Aryan". Show me even one Islamic or Pashtun writing which even mentions the word. If you don't find it, accept what you are. Most likely a lost Jewish tribe?
These aren't Aryans (which are a group of people in history):
Look, it's all in the Avesta and other books. It's in map, Aria was centred on Afghanistan. It's even got some mention in Birtannica.
Aria -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
And here's one for Gandhara
http://www.mythinglinks.org/Map~Parthia~c~R50Dinkd~TLPersians.jpg
It's widely accepted that rig vedic scriptures were written in pakistan too.
Modern day India only got a flow of culture from Pakistan, which they adopted and converted into Hinduism.
Don't try to steal Indian scriptures and terms! It is an Indian legacy, not yours.
If only Indians would stop stealing stuff. Even the name India comes from Pakistan originally. Saptha Sindhu, gets converted into Indus, as everyone knows the Indus River is located in Pakistan, and India comes from the Indus name.
And the reasoning for the Afghans turning into drug runners is again pathetic. Not all poor turn into criminals. Only the criminally inclined do so. The main people running the drug business are anything but poor. Drug business fetches good money.
Could be, or the other reality is that the poor grow the opium and sell them to rich dealers. Stop getting so emotional over this. It doesn't make you anymore credible.
I agree that many Afghans are a victim of circumstances and deserve to be helped. Much of the warfare though has been caused by Afghani warlords themselves if not ordinary Afghans.
I would agree that 1989-1994 was the Afghans own fault, though the other invasions couldn't be ascribed to them. Even the 1989-1994 war, one could argue is not their fault, since if the Soviets had not invaded there would be no Mujahideen, or if the madrassas were not funded, there would also have been no Mujahideen. The Mujahideen ideology is a foreign ideology anyway, specially created for Afghanistan.
Blah and more blah! You are the first one to deny or justify the Bangladesh genocide. The events in Kashmir are not even a drop in the ocean compared to them. And they are mostly caused by the "militants" coming in from across the borders, many of them Afghnas.
Bangldesh's "genocide" has been denied by even the Bangladeshi ambassador himself. A Shamshad someone or other. It was officially disproved at a US conference of historians given by Bose, where even the Bangladeshis admitted it was not a genocide. The only people in the world that try and perpetuate this myth are Indians and Bangladeshis. Well, good luck!
Kashmiri militants are also not Afghani. The Indian government acknowledges them to be Kashmiri outfits, Hizb.
I'd have taken the Afghan way 
