Why is Iranian listed as an European language?

I mean at this site (eurominority.com): http://www.eurominority.eu/version/eng/languages1.asp

Maybe they do consider Kurds in Southeast Turkey as an European minority, but Kurdish language is not Iranian and Kurds aint no Europeans at all but West-Asians instead. I don't get it. (Btw, I love the new Kurdish map (of Kurdistan) very much on that site)

Here is the list:
THE EUROPEAN LANGUAGES

• Baltic Indo-European
• Balto-Finnic Finn-Ugric
• Celtic (Brythonic) Indo-European
• Celtic (Goidelic) Indo-European
• Euskadian Euskadian
• Germanic (N) Indo-European
• Germanic (W) Continental Indo-European
• Germanic (W) North-Sea Indo-European
• Iranian Indo-European
• Isolated Indo-European
• Italic (Other Romance) Indo-European
• Italic (Gallo-Romance) Indo-European
• Italic (Ibero-Romance) Indo-European
• Italic (Italo-Romance) Indo-European
• Lappic Finn-Ugric
• Ugric Finn-Ugric
• Slavic (E) Indo-European
• Slavic (S) Indo-European
• Slavic (W) Indo-European
• Turkic (NW) Altaic
• Turkic (SW) Altaic

It could be that by "Iranian" they actually mean "Indo-Iranic", which would include the Gypsy languages (which, after all, are part of the Indian languages), and beyond that, there is also Ossetian in the Caucasus, which genuinely belongs to the Iranic languages.

the enumeration is rather obscure, as they forgotten to mention Finnic and Samoyedic. However they mention the clearly east-asian Turkic languages and peoples, what doesn't make sense to me, as the small European part of 'Turkey' as well as some even smaller Turkish speaking pockets elsewhere aren't worth to mention. In a remote past Iranian was spoken in Europe but not today. As far as I know the gypsies (roma and sinti) languages are Indo-Aryan, what isn't the same as Iranian. Its a lousy list. Forget it!

It's weird that they didn't mention Maltese, which is the only Semitic language in Europe

Hindi structure is SOV (Subject Object Verb) while European languages and even Cantonese are SVO (Subject Verb Object). Is structure considered in grouping languages? The word similarity might just be loan words but the structure is the true indication of the origin of the language just like a house the structure is harder to change but chairs, tables, beds can be bought so loan words are like furniture. I don't think Indian languages should be included with European languages.

Because Iranian languages are part of Europe (Ossetian) and they consider Kurdistan part of Europe too, we can agree or disagree on it this is something different.

Romani, the language of Gypsies is not Iranic but Indo-Aryan.

Interesting, in Polynesia its VSO

Finnic is not indo-European, indo-iranian is though, not to mention many languages ( most) across Europe, even parts of the Middle East ( Anatolia, Armenia, Iran) etc. even greek is indo-European, all the languages listed above also.

Strange criteria they have... If Kurds and Armenians in Turkey are considered as European minorities, then why not Georgian and Laz in Turkey?

They are not genetically considered European minorities, they fit in very/relatively well with their other middle eastern compatriots...simply they received the cultural influence, at one point or another, to speak indo-European languages, thus indo-iranian languages where born. Same for greek and India's Sanskrit language, my theory on the Sanskrit language differs from indo-iranian/Anatolian languages although. I believe, especially in northern India, that there was a powerful male R1a movement that introduced this indo-European tongue to the Indian peninsula, which ( a migration of indo-europeans) is not always the case explaining why a region speaks indo-European languages, one must not forget the strength of cultural influence.