Top lashkar commander killed!!

[Hephaestus]

Ok both yours CT and Kashmir. Now happy?

. CT toh apka hai. Deservedly so. What a turnaround. What fearless cricket. We were all made to eat our words and confidence.

 

[Burhan Wani]

. CT toh apka hai. Deservedly so. What a turnaround. What fearless cricket. We were all made to eat our words and confidence.

Oh bahi. Still we have not batting class like your team we need a lot to learn and improve.

 

[Vapnope]

Man this again . Why are you that ashamed of your history , you are not freaking arabs.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1310016/dubious-ancestors

" 97 percent South Asian and had zero percent Middle Eastern ancestry."

99% of Pakistani ancestors were hindus , the only reason Pakistan is majority Muslims is because western India were the first to get invaded & imposed to Muslim rule .
Every time Pakistani claim they are arabs its as cringe as listening to a Christian Somalian claim he's a European.

The funny part is that you are talking to someone who came here with Sher Shah suri Zero Hindu genes or whatever you want to call it. I am not ashamed of my history but i am ready to call BS when i see such BS. I am no arab. The person in my DP belongs to the same tribe i am talking about here.

The funniest part about this whole ancestry thing is that people think Hindus were born hindus or came from another planet as hindus but all the muslims of south asia were convert from Hindus to Muslims under the shadow of sword. While keep reminding muslism that they were originally hindus would someone try to dig deeper and tell who were they before they became Hindus?

 

[Vapnope]

The fuk is a hindu gean ? Were u a alien test tube baby?

Yet you claim your country is descended from invaders lol seriously its so freaking cringe, I'm freaking from Sikhism, you don't see us claiming we are Tibetan or Chinese. Infact that's a insult.



So a nobody

Aah the sweet Indian sticking to the rhetoric he has been fed for years.However here is something you need to read before continue with some unsubstantiated nonsense.
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/sc...he-aryan-migration-debate/article19090301.ece
Some passages from the new study,
//Dr. Underhill is not the only one whose older work has been used to argue against Bronze Age migrations by Indo-European language speakers into India. David Reich, geneticist and professor in the Department of Genetics at the Harvard Medical School, is another one, even though he was very cautious in his older papers. The best example is a study lead-authored by Reich in 2009, titled “Reconstructing Indian Population History” and published in Nature. This study used the theoretical construct of “Ancestral North Indians” (ANI) and “Ancestral South Indians” (ASI) to discover the genetic substructure of the Indian population. The study proved that ANI are “genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans”, while the ASI were unique to India. The study also proved that most groups in India today can be approximated as a mixture of these two populations, with the ANI ancestry higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers. By itself, the study didn’t disprove the arrival of Indo-European language speakers; if anything, it suggested the opposite, by pointing to the genetic linkage of ANI to Central Asians.//

//
One by one, therefore, every single one of the genetic arguments that were earlier put forward to make the case against Bronze Age migrations of Indo-European language speakers have been disproved. To recap:

1. The first argument was that there were no major gene flows from outside to India in the last 12,500 years or so because mtDNA data showed no signs of it. This argument was found faulty when it was shown that Y-DNA did indeed show major gene flows from outside into India within the last 4000 to 4,500 years or so, especially R1a which now forms 17.5% of the Indian male lineage. The reason why mtDNA data behaved differently was that Bronze Age migrations were severely sex-biased.

2. The second argument put forward was that R1a lineages exhibited much greater diversity in India than elsewhere and, therefore, it must have originated in India and spread outward. This has been proved false because a mammoth, global study of R1a haplogroup published last year showed that R1a lineages in India mostly belong to just three subclades of the R1a-Z93 and they are only about 4,000 to 4,500 years old.

3. The third argument was that there were two ancient groups in India, ANI and ASI, both of which settled here tens of thousands of years earlier, much before the supposed migration of Indo-European languages speakers to India. This argument was false to begin with because ANI — as the original paper that put forward this theoretical construct itself had warned — is a mixture of multiple migrations, including probably the migration of Indo-European language speakers.//

@Irfan Baloch @MastanKhan @Oscar @Arsalan @haviZsultan