![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Why has the fact that the events of 1971 which are described as a genocide in all reliable sources being removed? The section needs expanding, not sanitising Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Provided a reliable source which summarized major academic works about the issue and is run by Adam Jones (Canadian scholar). It says the following:
JCAla ( talk) 20:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Eh? What are you even talking about? Adam Jones is an academic source, Rummel also. Political science is an academic discipline. Adam Jones specialized in genocide studies. He was an Associate Research Fellow in the Genocide Studies Program at Yale University. He is a senior book review editor of the Journal of Genocide Research and has given academic presentations on genocide at conferences worldwide. Rummel achieved the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Conflict Processes Section, American Political Science Association and also lectured for a very long time at Yale University. He has over 100 peer reviewed publications in academic journals.
Also, I strongly disagree with TopGun removing who killed the 1-3 million civilians. I will seek community input on this if no plausible argument is provided here. These people were deliberately targeted in a systematic genocide by specific perpetrators and not killed by accident by different sides in a war. JCAla ( talk) 19:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Pakistan is not with Taliban's this is the reason there is no section Pakistan Supporting Taliban.
I just read the Military section twice and see no mention of Pakistan's support of the Taliban? Given they founded and have given weapons, cash, air support, military support and intelligence support shouldn't it be mentioned? Or is it in another section? Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Only two things are still missing: 1) the perpetrators of the 1-3 million systematically killed in the Bangladesh genocide and 2) the Balochistan conflict should be mentioned with one sentence such as "In its Balochistan province Pakistan faces a struggle for self-determination by a separatist movement". Correct me if it is already there but I didn't see it. JCAla ( talk) 10:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Sticking to the content, I think this phrasing has POV issues... even in the Taliban article it got in with a very marginal consensus with closer comments on further discussion and fixing the POV issues. This needs to be removed and discussed before re-addition. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 12:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
After examining the discussion at Talk:Pakistan/Archive_14#Pakistan_has_been_characterized_as_.22failed_state.22_from_last_4_years, I have concluded that consensus there was for keeping the failed state index factoid out of this article. Regards, -- Aervanath ( talk) 00:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
There are about 1.4 million to 2 million Persian people (which includes Tajiks) in Pakistan, which by numeric accounts, makes Pakistan home to the fifth largest population of Persians in the world. Maybe there should be a brief mention of this major ethnic group in the demographics section. Mar4d ( talk) 00:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Latest figures show pakistan population is vastly under estimated, it may be as high as 197,362,000 compared to the estimate of about 170,000,000. http://www.dawn.com/2012/03/30/pakistans-population-up-by-46-9-per-cent-since-1998.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.174.218 ( talk) 17:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
As TopGun removed content, this is the sentence to be discussed: "Since 1948, when the Pakistani army annexed Balochistan as its fourth province, until today a Baloch separatist movement is fighting a struggle for self-determination." [1] What is your alternative suggestion, TG? JCAla ( talk) 11:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, the term wasn't coined by me but by several academic books on the issue, so ... What about this compromise: "Since 1948, when the Pakistani army annexed Balochistan as its fourth province, there has been an ongoing separatist struggle in the province of Balochistan, driven by various Baloch groups who seek political autonomy." JCAla ( talk) 12:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Pakistan's army invaded Balochistan in 1948, why was that? Because the Balochs were so happy to join? I propose: "Since 1948, when the Pakistani army invaded Balochistan and it was acceded to Pakistan as its fourth province, there has been an ongoing separatist struggle in the province of Balochistan, driven by various Baloch groups who seek political autonomy." Balochistan is different as Balochs and scholars allege that Balochistan was forcibly annexed and until this very day there are military offensives in Balochistan against Baloch groups with thousands killed or disappearing. Balochistan is generally described by the media as "Pakistan's other war". It is noteworthy for that matter but also because the Balochistan issue is increasingly gaining international attention. JCAla ( talk) 12:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Since 1948, there has been an ongoing, and at times fluctuating, insurgency in the southwestern province of Balochistan, driven by various Baloch seperatist groups who seek greater political autonomy.
Obviously, there is great controversy over the history, so I don't want to go into the details here now. Strike my above suggestion as I took some things from your version with which I actually do not agree. Your suggestion, Mar4d, is onesided speaking of pov. It is not just an insurgency, it is a conflict with several major issues, sometimes it has been driven by Pakistani army military action against Balochs at times the insurgency was sleeping. So this will be my proposal (central government of Pakistan could be replaced with "Pakistani army"):
Since 1948, there has been an ongoing, and at times fluctuating, violent conflict in the southwestern province of Balochistan, between various Baloch seperatist groups who seek greater political autonomy and political rights and the central government of Pakistan.
Let's simplify this without any POV from either side... be impartial:
Since 1948, there has been an ongoing, and at times fluctuating, insurgency in Balochistan between various Baloch seperatist groups government of Pakistan.
— TopGun 13:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Pakistan army is following orders from the government over it to minimize the insurgency so simple stating government will do. I've also other redundancies and POVs. Now, I can put this back if you explain why does this have a weight in the article and why will some one else not remove it on those basis. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 13:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
That is your sentence for the whole of the Balochistan conflict, dear September88 (?): "In 1970s, the military quelled a Baloch nationalist uprising." You can strike that sentence and we can take Mar4d's and my version to a noticeboard and ask which is more appropriate. JCAla ( talk) 16:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you mispresenting what I said on purpose or did you simply not understand it, TG? JCAla ( talk) 16:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, how's this as a compromise:
Since 1948, there has been an ongoing, and at times fluctuating, insurgency in Balochistan involving various Baloch seperatist groups who seek greater political autonomy, and the central government. This conflict has also engulfed portions of the Balochistan region in neighbouring Iran and Afghanistan. Recently, the government has undertaken efforts to subside the conflict through the introduction of reform packages and initiatives which aim to address the social, economic and political grievances of the province.
This has neutral language, conciseness (with the whole conflict summarized adequately in three sentences), a bit about the conflict not being strictly limited to Pakistan but also including parts of Iran and Afghanistan, as well as the last sentence which discusses the political attention the conflict has drawn recently and subsequent initiatives on part of the government that aim to resolve the conflict. One of the citations that could be used for the last sentence (talking about government reforms) could be about the Aghaz-e-Huqooq Balochistan package. I think everything has been summarised so I don't see any reason for further opposes now. Mar4d ( talk) 16:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
No, that is again pov, Mar4d. Baloch rebels see the situation as escalating and explicitly not being addressed. Also, I don't think what happens in Iran or what is not happening in Afghanistan for that matter is relevant here. Huon, globalsecurity wasn't considered a FA-worthy source on the RS board. Also, I do think we should geolocate the conflict to the province for the reader to better understand. I think, this is it:
Since 1948, there has been an ongoing, and at times fluctuating, violent conflict in the southwestern province of Balochistan between various Baloch seperatist groups who seek greater political autonomy, and the central government of Pakistan. JCAla ( talk) 16:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The readers obviously know that the article is about Pakistan (they didn't come to read about Iran). So they will ask "where in Pakistan" and we need to give the answer to that.I see a lot wrong with Mar4d's mention of "government efforts" when one party to the conflict doubts said efforts. I suggest, either we mention both narratives or none. What makes the efforts more noteworthy than this first recent line by the BBC about the conflict: "Balochistan's long-running insurgency is all about greater political autonomy and the conflict has been brutal, with human rights groups accusing security forces of regularly detaining and torturing political activists." [3] BTW, as you can see both terms, "brutal conflict" and "insurgency", are being used. In another BBC article it is called a "civil war" [4], so I propose we simply stick to "violent conflict" as it is the most NPOV term. JCAla ( talk) 17:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I think we should first wait what comes out of this. I also don't think the package is more noteworthy than the parallel strategy of systematic detentions and killings, etc. Also, the efforts are highly doubted and came together only because of some U.S. congressmen making it a big issue in Congress and in the international media. See:
"It took an obscure United States congressman holding a controversial hearing in Washington on the civil war in Balochistan to awaken the conscience of the Pakistani government, military and public. For years the civil war in Balochistan has either been forgotten by most Pakistanis or depicted as the forces of law and order battling Baloch tribesmen, who are described as "Indian agents". Don't expect Baloch leaders to turn the other cheek at Mr Malik's sudden shift - the Baloch have seen too many such U-turns before. Brahamdagh Bugti, head of the separatist Baloch Republican Party and living in exile in Geneva, remains sceptical. His grandfather Sardar Akbar Bugti, the head of the Bugti tribe, was killed in 2006 on the orders of former President Pervez Musharraf in a massive aerial bombardment, while his sister Zamur Domki and her 12-year old daughter were gunned down in Karachi in broad daylight just in late January - allegedly by government agents. ... Community leaders like Brahamdagh Bugti and Harbayar Marri, a leader of the Balochistan Liberation Army who is in exile in London, have seen two major efforts by Pakistani politicians to talk to them fail in the past nine years - largely due to the army's intransigence. The first was under former President Musharraf when some of his federal ministers tried to hold talks with the Marri and Bugti leaders. They were thwarted by Gen Musharraf who was determined to deal with the issue militarily, taunting the Baloch with quips such as this time you won't even know what hit you". The second was when the present Pakistan People's Party government was elected to power in 2008 and President Asif Ali Zardari asked for a ceasefire in Balochistan for six months - which surprisingly was adhered to - and promised negotiations with Baloch leaders. However, the army was against any talks and the government's will to carry them out melted away."'' [5]
I think we should leave it to the one sentence and if indeed these effort turn out as honest and substantial, then of course we should mention them. But now there is still too much controversy about them to get all facts into one sentence. Or we can try if you are insistent on adding it? JCAla ( talk) 08:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC) and JCAla ( talk) 07:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
September88 made a request for a GOCE copy edit of this article. I would like to do it, but it's pointless to copy edit articles whose content is not agreed, and the ongoing bickering -- what else can one call it? -- about how to word the Balochistan conflict, and what (if anything) to say about Pakistan's relationship (if any) with the Taliban, just convince me that any copy editing work done right now would end up wasted. Wikipedia ought to be able to put together a fine article about a country as major as Pakistan, especially with such able editors around. I hope you guys get it together one day and manage to agree what the article should say. Until then, I am marking the GOCE request as on hold.
I have no position on any of the issues you disagree about, and would be happy to copy edit the article without disrupting whatever final agreement you reach. But do you all actually want to reach one? Because there's an awful lot of insisting going on here, on both sides. And a certain amount of making it harder to close off debates by introducing new issues. For example, both Mar4d's and JCAla's initial proposed wording for the Balochistan conflict used the phrase "southwestern province of Balochistan"; not awfully controversial and both sides were agreeing about these four words at least. So why did that have to become an extra bone of contention?
Anyway, if you ever reach stability, please would TopGun and JCAla both pop a note on my talk page and I'll remove the stopper from the GOCE request. -- Stfg ( talk) 15:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The slaughter of Afghans in 1837 in NWFP was one of the biggest slaughter of 19th century , over 12,000 afghans(all men were killed) all those Tribals who were loyal to Sikh Maharaja Ranjit Singh was given pardon but the leader of revolt Painda Khan Afridi along with his whole family was slaughtered. Thousands and thousands of Women and Children who were given pardon by Rajah Ghulab Singh were sold at lahore and Jammu, i dont think such a big incident can be ignored. Many of afghans left NWFP and went back to Afghanistan(on the opposite side of Khyber Pass) some afghan tribes returned in 1846-1850AD when sikh rule was ended by British Empire through Anglo-Sikh War. The main reason behind slaughter was revolt of afghans as they wanted to take advantage of hari singh nalwa death at khyber pass however it failed as Prince Akbar Khan of kabul fled on arrival of Wazir Dhyan Singh and the revolt of NWFP tribes who expected support from afghan armies was shattered 122.161.253.183 ( talk) 10:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone
I see the article is undergoing a major reconstruction. Hence, I would like to suggest a few things which you need to take care.
Please notify on my talk Thanks Srikar Kashyap ( talk) 08:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment Actually, you know what, I think Srikarkashyap has got a point here. This article is about Pakistan, we're probably giving too much undue WP:WEIGHT by having China and the United States in the lead. It should be mentioned probably in the starting paragraphs of the foreign relations/politics section but having it in the lead is probably out of context. I think armed forces, nuclear power, membership in Organisation of the Islamic Conference, UN, Commonwealth etc. is alright for international relations for the lead. But let's leave bilateral relations (country-to-country relations) i.e. China and USA for the sections below. Having said that, Srikarkashyap, could you elaborate on what you find biased in the article? Mar4d ( talk) 09:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
As there are still no to mention of the support given to the Taliban the article remains POV Darkness Shines ( talk) 14:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a general consensus here that any support, referenced or not, by Pakistan of the Taliban does not merit inclusion. I'm going to remove the tag. If Darkness Shines believes that the consensus is mistaken, I suggest taking this to another DR venue (an RfC perhaps). -- regentspark ( comment) 22:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Nah, you want to be extremely unimpressed. You cite a statement of one cable, out of many, which during the time it was written (mid-90s) cited a lack of evidence, when later cables published inside the same documentation say "while Pakistani support for the Taliban has been long-standing, the magnitude of recent support is unprecedented. ... Additional reports indicate that direct Pakistani involvement in Taliban military operations has increased. ". Also, the cable was published as part of a documentation called "Pakistan: "The Taliban's Godfather"? Documents Detail Years of Pakistani Support for Taliban, Extremists". That is self-explanatory. The sources in the Taliban article state exactly what is written in that article (no matter how casual you want to treat them) i. e.:
JCAla ( talk) 12:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The Google Book preview of Prof. William Maley's book does show the page. And it explicitly talks about Pakistan.
Human Rights Watch is regarded as a reliable source on wikipedia. Furthermore, besides the radicals, the ISI, Pakistani Frontier Corps troops and even some regular army personnel (especially generals) were fighting alongside the Afghan Taliban. What is there not to understand when Human Rights Watch writes: "Pakistan ... directly providing combat support." or "Direct Military Support - Observers interviewed by Human Rights Watch in Afghanistan and Pakistan have reported that Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces during combat operations in late 2000 and that senior members of Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning major Taliban military operations. The extent of this support has attracted widespread international criticism. In November 2000 the U.N. secretary-general implicitly accused Pakistan of providing such support." This news article from January 2002 speaks for itself: "In Afghanistan last November, the Northern Alliance, supported by American Special Forces troops and emboldened by the highly accurate American bombing, forced thousands of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters to retreat inside the northern hill town of Kunduz. Trapped with them were Pakistani Army officers, intelligence advisers, and volunteers who were fighting alongside the Taliban. (Pakistan had been the Taliban’s staunchest military and economic supporter in its long-running war against the Northern Alliance.)" JCAla ( talk) 15:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Huon, haha, compared to Chinese numbers other numbers will always seem "insignificant". China has other dimensions, if we say only if a country provides what China did (900,000 troops) it is significant enough for wikipedia, most country profiles would hardly mention any wars. If the China article truely does not mention the intervention in the 1953 Korean War (I take your word for it, didn't check) that is however a major shortcoming. The Chinese intervention let to the push-back of U.S. & South Korean troops and to the final stalemate at todays border. The USA article by the way mentions the Korean war. Back to the Taliban issue. A number of up to 100,000 is by no means insignificant. The current U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan is less than that. This is not a low-level intervention, it changed the course of history and presents a major invasion into another country. Without that intervention the Taliban would never have come to power in Kabul (and that is according to the sources). (I read the book by Maley, that is why I quoted him not Rashid. I have no problem with quoting Rashid instead.) We have the Pakistani interior minister saying: "We created the Taliban." I propose we have one sentence about the direct involvement in Afghanistan from 1994-2001, and one about the allegation and denial of continued support. Afterall that support is influencing the course of Asia and the whole world. JCAla ( talk) 16:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
What is happening in Afghanistan is not relevant for Pakistan? Are you kidding? What happens in Afghanistan is certainly besides India the utmost occupation of Pakistan's military and intelligence services. And what are you talking about? The Air Force, the Frontier Corps, the generals, they are not volunteers. There were thousands of Pakistani Frontier Corps soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. And all the other of the up to 100,000 Pakistanis were recruited and trained by the Jamaat-e Islami and the ISI and were send on purpose to Afghanistan. That too is direct involvement. U.S. troop numbers in Afghanistan stayed below 10,000 up until 2003 and below 20,000 up until 2006. Yet, that was mentioned in the country profile during that time. According to various estimates in the year 2001 alone, Pakistan had more nationals fighting in Afghanistan than the U.S. up until 2006. JCAla ( talk) 19:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
After Pakistan’s independence in 1947, Afghanistan objected to its admission to the United Nations. The Afghan government of the time decided not to recognize Pakistan as the legitimate inheritor of the territorial agreements reached with the British India. There were several ambiguous and often changing demands from Kabul centered around the aspirations—as Kabul saw it—of the Pashtun and Baluch ethnicities inside Pakistan. For intermittent periods between 1947 and 1973, Kabul extended support to Baluch and Pashtun nationalists inside Pakistan and even called for the creation of a new state called “Pashtunistan.
Ironically, Afghan Pashtuns are a minority. The number of Pashtuns in Pakistan has always been double their size. Nevertheless, the Afghan ethnic ultra nationalist/irredentist factor has played an influential role in regional politics. Mar4d ( talk) 03:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Finally. Thank you very much, Mar4d. I appreciate the bluntness. An open discussion without all the double game and denial. We have three reasons for Pakistan's support to the Taliban: 1) the border dispute, 2) economic reasons and 3) backyard against India. And we have a fourth reason, Islamism is being used as a strong identity against Hindu India and a common bond with Arab extremists and Saudi Arabia. This leads to an ideological dream of controlling the "Black Banners from Khorasan" (the future army of Islam originating from
Taloqan, Khorasan - today northern Afghanistan - according to Islamic prophecy, which the Taliban are not
but claim to be). Dr. Fazal-ur-Rahim Marwat, University of Peshawar (Pakistan):
"In short, an articulate section of the [Pakistan] middle class ... supported an ideology which used religion to create Pakistani nationalism and militarism [vs India and Pashtun nationalists] in the society."
Now, for the first reason, the border dispute which you mentioned. Yes, indeed, Pashtun nationalists have not given up their dream of Loy Afghanistan (A Greater Afghanistan/Pashtunistan). Your source, however, is about the period 1947-1973, a different era. When Pakistan directed Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and his Hezb-e Islami to bomb the post-communist Islamic State of Afghanistan into chaos and lawlessness after the communist defeat in 1992, Afghanistan had voiced no such ambitions and the Islamic State was not interfering anywhere inside Pakistan. When Hekmatyar failed to gain control in Kabul and Pakistan introduced the Taliban, it were again not the Pashtun nationalists who were in power but the Islamic State which had no interest whatsoever in making any Pashtun area of Pakistan part of Afghanistan. Somewhere along the way, however, Pakistan reached the conclusion that it needs a Pashtun puppet to rule Afghanistan to integrate the Pashtuns under Pakistan's leadership. For that matter it sought to control the Afghan Pashtuns through Pashtun Islamists as the Islamists are 1) dependent on Pakistan and 2) Pashtun Islamism (promoting a bondage to Muslim Pakistan) is promoted by Pakistan as an alternative identity to Pashtun nationalism (which challenges the legality of the Af-Pak border). Then they preoccupied the Pashtun Islamists (Taliban, Hekmatyar) with fighting the other ethnic groups of Afghanistan (Tajiks, Hazara and Uzbek) opposed to Pashtun Islamism as well as non-Taliban Pashtuns. 60 % of Afghanistan's population are non-Pashtuns and today only an estimated 10% of the 40% Pashtuns are active Taliban supporters. Dr. Fazal-ur-Rahim Marwat, University of Peshawar (Pakistan):
"... to ensure that any Afghan nationalist ideas were kept to a minimum, Pakistani government gave the Islamists a stronger voice in the educational program in the [Afghan refugee] camps, and later on in the cross border transfer of educational materials and establishment of schools inside the Afghan war zone.... if the Afghan war politically damaged the cause of Pashtun political nationalism in Pashtunkhwa for the time being, it accelerated and regenerated the cultural nationalism [against other ethnic groups in Afghanistan], which will prove more effective [internally divisive to Afghanistan] than politics in the future. ... ”The new [Afghan] generation is forgotten and their future is dark. Now the two monsters of militarism and Mafia have opened their mouths to swallow them. They are forced to feed only by the means of war [although] the majority of the Afghan youth themselves wish to get education so that they should have a good standing in the new world order.”"
What a policy, to keep a country forever in a terrible war in order not to let it become independent and strong because there is a border dispute. Why kill millions of human beings, destroy the future of whole generations and endanger peace worldwide as the extremists trained in Pakistan are going to Central Asia, the US, Europe, India and even China? How about simply resolving the border dispute once and for all and in front of the whole world? Further, one should not ignore that the border issue is not the only reason for Pakistan's support to the Taliban. For controlling Afghanistan through the Taliban, Pakistan has two other reasons also. "The Rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan: Mass Mobilization, Civil War and the Future of the Region" by Neamatollah Nojumi:
[Pakistan's strategy is a] combination of pan-Islamism and market orientation policy. [...] three ultimate goals.
The first goal was to pacify the threat that could rise from a strong Afghan government. In this context, such a government in Afghanistan might pursue the cause of independent Pushtonistan and the rejection of the Durand line. In time of conflicts, this government could form an alliance with India and cut off Pakistan from the Central Asian Republics (CAR), a crucial energy source and a prosperous regional market economy. Influencing Afghanistan’s national politics by selecting who should run the government in Kabul became very critical for Pakistani circles. Thus, an ehtnic Pashtun ally in Afghanistan would help Pakistan intergrate the Pushtons on the other side of the border and make them important in the process of Afghan forward policy. Achieving such a goal would reduce the future tension over the Durand issue and could create a psychological integration of the Pushton population in the Pakistani state.
Another priority of the depth strategy was to rescue the collapsing economy by providing economically efficient energy to the fast growing population of Pakistan and having free and fast access to the CAR. The CAR’s energy and market economy would not only help Pakistan economically, it also would provide a free hand for this country to compete with Iran and India in the regional power game. In this case, Pakistan would be able to contain Iran’s influence in the CAR as well as eliminate this influence in Afghanistan. [...] Having access to the Central Asian market became very crucial for the economic growth and industrialization of Pakistan. For Pakistani leaders, controlling the economic road between Central Asia and Pakistan became an important task. In this case, the establishment of a national government, in particular a nationalist one in Afghanistan that could have firm control over the economic highway connecting Pakistan to Central Asia, would not be acceptable to Pakistani leaders. Therefore, the disintegration of the Afghan Mujahideen and the local and regional armed and political groups during and after the Soviet invasion can be viewed in the interest of the Pakistani forward policy toward Afghanistan. Establishing a government with passive military ability in Afghanistan under the influence of Pakistan was considered the most favorable alternative for Pakistani leaders. [...]
The third goal was to contain India in the Kashmir fronts with the avoidance of friendly government relations between India and Afghanistan. Using the Afghan soil as a camping ground for the Kashmirin militants would help the Pakistani army to balance its positions against India in that region. According to sources in Pakistan, in the past five years (1995-2000) 60,000 to 80,000 Pakistani nationals were trained in Afghanistan and went back home [to fight in Kashmir]. […] In addition to this, many Islamic militants from around the world gathered in Afghanistan and participated in battles in Afghanistan, Kashmir, and the CAR. All this would be different if there were friendly government relations between India and Afghanistan."
JCAla ( talk) 10:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion Guys, obviously a huge chunk of text on Pakistan's relationship with the Taliban, its history, causes, and continuing rationale is not going to work because it'll be overkill in a summary article. On the other hand, this discussion has the potential of generating several dissertations and lasting longer than the lifetime of most nations! So here is a suggestion. I note that there is a mention of the war of terror in the article: Pakistan's involvement in the war against terrorism has, according to its own estimates, cost up to $67.93 billion,[66][67] thousands of casualties and nearly 3 million displaced civilians.[68]. Perhaps that is the right place for a mention of Pakistan's relationship with the Taliban as well. Something along the lines of: Pakistan, with its proximity to Afghanistan, has had a complicated involvement in the war against terrorism. According to its own estimates, the war on terror has cost it up to $67.93 billion,[66][67] thousands of casualties and nearly 3 million displaced civilians.[68] On the other hand, there are credible allegations that the Pakistani government continues to support the Taliban as well as terrorist groups active against India. I'm assuming all this can be sourced, and perhaps 'Pakistan's Army' is more accurate than government, but this is one way of including the Taliban in the article and providing balance in the article. -- regentspark ( comment) 19:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
RP, yes, we do need to distinguish the Taliban, just like Pakistan does. :) As experts on the subject write, the common name is misleading as they greatly vary in their goals, in their leadership and in their history. TTP fight the Pakistani state. Afghan Taliban are reliant on the Pakistani state and have repeatedly tried to convince the TTP to stop fighting the Pakistani state. And wait a minute, the Afghan Taliban were not the legitimate government of Afghanistan, never were. They were recognized by three countries only (namely by their supporters: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE). The legitimate government of Afghanistan was the anti-Taliban Islamic State of Afghanistan effectively led by its Defense Minister Ahmad Shah Massoud and President Burhanuddin Rabbani which always kept the seat at the United Nations and the embassies worldwide. And yes, the sentence about before 9/11 is crucial, as without Pakistan there would have been no illegitimate Taliban rule in Kabul and beyond. JCAla ( talk) 20:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
( ←) I want to stay neutral, but if I may make this one suggestion, which you can ditch if you don't like. It seems to me that the debate is polarised between those who want to have something specific said about the Taliban, and those who don't want it mentioned at all. My suggestion is simply to arrange for the article to include a wikilink to Taliban, an article that has plenty to say about all this, and leave it at that.
Perhaps the best way to introduce such a link would be in a resuscitated "See also" section, or by use of a {{ See also}} in one of the article sections, such as "Politics" or its "Military" subsection. This would avoid issues of sourcing and deny any opportunity to slip in some POV. Just a suggestion. As I say, if you don't like it, just ditch it. -- Stfg ( talk) 08:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Stfg, hm, I am not so sure about that ... RP, why "on the other hand"? I think the sentence should definitely be added to this one which already mentions the "war on terrorism": "The U.S. war on terrorism initially led to an improvement in ties between the two countries; however, the relationship was strained by a divergence of interests and resulting mistrust in the war in Afghanistan and on terrorism related issues." After that sentence we could have a mix of your and my suggestion: "From 1994-2001 Pakistan provided direct military support to the Taliban for its own geostrategic reasons. There are credible allegations (denied by Pakistan) that the Pakistani government continues to support the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as terrorist groups active against India." JCAla ( talk) 09:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
RP, the sentence about the "War on Terror" with the "strained relations" is already in the article for some time now. I was just proposing to add any sentence after that already existent one. So it's really only these two sentences (combination of your and my suggestion) I am proposing: "From 1994-2001 Pakistan provided direct military support to the Taliban. There are credible allegations (denied by Pakistan) that the Pakistani government continues to support the Afghan Taliban as well as terrorist groups active against India." That's concise, actually more concise than your proposal. ;) What do you say? JCAla ( talk) 19:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
These sentences about Pakistan involvement are already there. Only thing that is missing are the Taliban. I think the current support for the Taliban needs to be after that sentence however, as Pakistan claims those figures for the past years despite the current allegations. We also have enough sources for the "direct". See the George Washington University archives i. e. which talk about the Frontier Corps troops fighting alongside the Taliban. JCAla ( talk) 20:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Support to the mujahideen is already in the article, obviously people here had no problem mentioning that ... I had proposed "for geostrategic reasons" because mentioning all the reasons will get quite long. Then you would have to mention why Afghanistan's Pashtuns do not accept the Durand border, as they say it was forced on them, etc. And because popular Pakistani Pashtun leaders such as Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan also favoured one "Pashtunistan". We could have something like ... supports Taliban "because for different geostrategic reasons including a simmering border dispute over the Durand Line, Afghanistan presenting the route to Central Asian natural resources and the need for strategic depth versus India, Pakistan conceives the need for an Afghan Islamist government favorable to Pakistani interests." The moral support of the Afghan monarchy 1947-1973 to Pashtun people in Pakistan really has no place in this article. Were there ever tens of thousands of Afghan forces in Pakistan? No, never. As I also pointed out to you above, when Pakistan supported the rise of the Taliban in 1994, the then non-Pashtun dominated Islamic State of Afghanistan was not involved inside Pakistan and certainly had no interest in having the Pashtun areas of Pakistan. JCAla ( talk) 07:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Sock trying to distract
|
---|
RP, or we could say: "The U.S. war on terrorism initially led to an improvement in ties between the two countries; however, the relationship was strained by a divergence of interests and resulting mistrust in the war in Afghanistan and on terrorism related issues." And then: "From 1994-2001 up to 100,000 Pakistani nationals including members of Pakistan's Frontier Corps were fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan. There are credible (or widespread) allegations (denied by Pakistan) that the Pakistani government continues to support the Taliban in Afghanistan today." JCAla ( talk) 09:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
RP, or we could say: "The U.S. war on terrorism initially led to an improvement in ties between the two countries; however, the relationship was strained by a divergence of interests and resulting mistrust in the war in Afghanistan and on terrorism related issues." And then: "From 1994-2001 up to 100,000 Pakistani nationals including members of Pakistan's Frontier Corps were fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan. There are credible (or widespread) allegations (denied by Pakistan) that the Pakistani government continues to support the Taliban in Afghanistan today." JCAla ( talk) 09:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
problems we face now to some extent we have to take responsibility for, having contributed to it. We also have a history of kind of moving in and out of Pakistan, she said. "Lets remember here the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago and we did it because we were locked in a struggle with the Soviet Union. They invaded Afghanistan and we did not want to see them control Central Asia and we went to work and it was President Reagan in partnership with Congress led by Democrats who said you know what it sounds like a pretty good idea lets deal with the ISI and the Pakistan military and lets go recruit these mujahideen." you stated that some interior minister said so and so now read the above Ruffruder0 ( talk) 10:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
|
I was the guy who removed POV tag. Why this article need Taliban detail? I repeat Ruffruder question why USA article not say this stuff? -- Highstakes00 ( talk) 10:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
We are having a good discussion here, while that is not the case on the NPOV. Further, the point you keep mentioning was already resolved on the Taliban RFC. Afghanistan is not just about support to a terrorist group but about a major intervention/interference (with own military forces) in a current and very relevant war. Also, for Pakistan, Afghanistan and India are the foremost foreign policy issues and as such have a high priority. The U.S. provision of only 10,000 soldiers until 2003 in Afghanistan on the side of the United Front (Northern Alliance) was mentioned in the USA article as a U.S. War in Afghanistan. I think Pakistan is fairly good off with just saying they provided such and such support when they provided more Pakistani fighters than the U.S. at that point. In Afghanistan 1994-2001 is also referred to as Pakistan's War in Afghanistan. So, as RP said, the two sentences are fairly neutral and can be sourced with hundreds of reliable sources. They also reflect properly what is the majority position among reliable sources which wikipedia is all about. RegentsPark, there is no problem with changing government to army. That's good to go, as the army is taking such decisions as you mentioned. JCAla ( talk) 13:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
RegentsPark, I think that is ok, but better replace the "though" with "and". We could say "widespread" instead of "credible", which is factual. TG, the last time, the former Pakistani President/Army Chief Musharraf and the former Pakistani Interior Minister both admitted to supporting respectively "creating" the Taliban. But even if they did not, the pre-9/11 part is a majority position among reliable sources. So, it would be the following, right: Pakistan's involvement in the U.S. war against terrorism has, according to its own estimates, cost up to $67.93 billion,[66][67] thousands of casualties and nearly 3 million displaced civilians.[68] But between 1994 and 2001 Pakistan provided military support to the Taliban and there are widespread allegations (denied by Pakistan) that the Pakistani army continues to support the Afghan Taliban in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present). JCAla ( talk) 17:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
That is not correct. The Pakistani government does not deny the pre-9/11 support (it did then, but senior officials do no longer) and it is stated as a matter of fact in all reliable sources. TG, it does not matter where Musharraf stated it. He was Army Chief and President, if he says he supported, then he supported. Also we already have the huge Pakistani pov in the first sentence which is also seen critically and questioned by others. Mediation for this issue is not necessary. I think it does not get better than this: Pakistan's involvement in the U.S. war against terrorism has, according to its own estimates, cost up to $67.93 billion,[66][67] thousands of casualties and nearly 3 million displaced civilians.[68] But between 1994 and 2001 Pakistan provided military support to the Taliban and there are widespread allegations (denied by Pakistan) that the Pakistani army continues to support the Afghan Taliban in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present). JCAla ( talk) 18:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
We shall stay factually correct, shall we? Pakistan had an official policy of denial of any support up until 1999. Then senior military and government officials started to admit to the support 1994-2001, actually, to even "creating" the Taliban alltogether. While still denying that it provided "military support" to the Taliban, that is a majority position among all the reliable sources, there is not one existent source doubting that Pakistan provided arms, logistics and troops to the Taliban until 9/11. Even the UN Security Council officially concluded as much. So we really need no weasel words to water that down. Since 9/11 Pakistan has again had a policy of denial for the ongoing support but not for the past support. The below reflects exactly the majority position among reliable sources. Does wikipedia also reflect that position?
McGrath, Kevin (2011). Confronting Al Qaeda: new strategies to combat terrorism. Naval Institute Press. p. 138:
"We created the Taliban," Nasrullah Babar, the interior minister under Benazir Bhutto, [stated in 1999]. "Mrs. Bhutto had a vision: that through a peaceful Afghanistan, Pakistan could extend its influence into the resource-rich territories of Central Asia." The Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) provided assistance to the Taliban regime, to include its military and Al-Qaeda-related terrorits training camps, to further this vision. Since 9/11, Pakistan's military and civilian leaders have played a double game. One the one hand, Pakistan assures the United States that it is vigorously repressing Islamic militants. On the other hand, it aids and abets those same militants. "Publicly, Pakistan and the militants are enemies. Privately, they are friends."
So, how about the following: Pakistan's involvement in the war against terrorism has, according to its own estimates, cost up to $67.93 billion,[66][67] thousands of casualties and nearly 3 million displaced civilians.[68] But Pakistan provided military support to the Taliban between 1994 and 2001 <citation> and international officials and analysts on the ground as well as the media have brought forward allegations (denied by Pakistan) that the Pakistani government continues to support the Afghan Taliban in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present)<citation>.
If we want the denial of "military support" pre-9/11 we need to reflect it correctly: "While its 'diplomatic machinery' denies 'military support', the Army Chief and Interior Minister admit to creating and supporting the Taliban, 'our boys', to 'defeat' anti-Taliban forces pre-9/11, and 'military assistance to the militia was subsequently confirmed by hundreds of Pakistani officers, troopers and volunteers' which were among the up to 100,000 Pakistani nationals fighting alongside the Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces inside Afghanistan." That would truely reflect all the points. I don't support any further down-watering of what is described as a fact among reliable sources. Actually there are so many relevant things to add to this, such as the involvement with Al-Qaeda pre-9/11, that I think the above sentence is a rather pro-Pakistan compromise. JCAla ( talk) 06:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
RegentsPark, which source do you mean? McGrath, Kevin (2011)? The source has received the following academic review by George H. Quester, Shapiro Professor, Elliot School of International Affairs, The George Washington University, author of Preemption, Prevention and Proliferation: The Threat and Use of Weapons in History:
JCAla ( talk) 12:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you see the reliable sources in the below section named "sources"? What do they say? 1) Pervez Musharraf, the man that ran Pakistan as Army Chief (military dictator some would say) and President, admitted to siding with the Taliban in order to defeat anti-Taliban forces. 2) Nasrullah Babar, the Pakistani Interior Minister in 1994 when the Taliban were created, states "we created the Taliban". What else is there to say? I am not going to support a factually wrong version in order to appease those who want to censor. All of below sources, and dozens of academic sources more DS once put on a noticeboard, say as a matter of fact, there was support. If that is the position among the majority of reliable sources, that is exactly what wikipedia is meant to reflect. Not some sort of weasel wording. Stating "there are reports", when the international experts say there were up to 100,000 Pakistanis fighting in Afghanistan, is simply ludicrous. The below version is correct in all points and we should take it as a pro-Pakistan compromise as I think that i. e. the fact that Pakistani Frontier Corps soldiers were fighting alongside Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan pre-9/11 would also deserve to be mentioned: Pakistan's involvement in the war against terrorism has, according to its own estimates, cost up to $67.93 billion,[66][67] thousands of casualties and nearly 3 million displaced civilians.[68] But Pakistan provided military support to the Taliban between 1994 and 2001 <citation> and international officials and analysts on the ground as well as the media have brought forward allegations (denied by Pakistan) that the Pakistani government continues to support the Afghan Taliban in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present)<citation>. JCAla ( talk) 16:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
TG, I won't even dignify the above with a response. RegentsPark, what do the following sources say about the man, Babar, who was interior minister of Pakistan and Commander of the Pakistani Frontier Corps when the Taliban came to power in Afghanistan and what do they say about one of the most prominent Pakistani ISI leaders, "Colonel Imam"?
"When the Taliban dominated Afghanistan in the 1990s, General Babar, then the interior minister of Pakistan under Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, called the new rulers “our boys.” Colonel Imam, working for Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence served as Pakistan’s consul general in the strategic Afghan town of Herat, providing vital financial and military support to the Taliban. ... He viewed the creation of the Taliban in Afghanistan as an important buffer for Pakistan against Central Asia and Russia. “I’m not sure General Babar realized what demons he unleashed,” said Aitzaz Ahsan, a prominent Pakistani lawyer who was interior minister in an earlier Bhutto government."
Even the Pakistani media says as much:
"Babar’s role in propping up and supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan was also pivotal. He made no bones about the fact that he was the father of the Taliban and commanded respect within the Taliban leadership. However, the sources say, Babar looked at Taliban as a ‘strategic and political ally’, not an organisation he was ideologically connected to, and believed a Taliban government could help Pakistan strategically."
JCAla ( talk) 16:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a consensus for including a sentence about the Taliban and I am going to present some of above suggestions for a RFC. JCAla ( talk) 17:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
No body answer my question? -- Highstakes00 ( talk) 11:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Why has the fact that the events of 1971 which are described as a genocide in all reliable sources being removed? The section needs expanding, not sanitising Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Provided a reliable source which summarized major academic works about the issue and is run by Adam Jones (Canadian scholar). It says the following:
JCAla ( talk) 20:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Eh? What are you even talking about? Adam Jones is an academic source, Rummel also. Political science is an academic discipline. Adam Jones specialized in genocide studies. He was an Associate Research Fellow in the Genocide Studies Program at Yale University. He is a senior book review editor of the Journal of Genocide Research and has given academic presentations on genocide at conferences worldwide. Rummel achieved the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Conflict Processes Section, American Political Science Association and also lectured for a very long time at Yale University. He has over 100 peer reviewed publications in academic journals.
Also, I strongly disagree with TopGun removing who killed the 1-3 million civilians. I will seek community input on this if no plausible argument is provided here. These people were deliberately targeted in a systematic genocide by specific perpetrators and not killed by accident by different sides in a war. JCAla ( talk) 19:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Pakistan is not with Taliban's this is the reason there is no section Pakistan Supporting Taliban.
I just read the Military section twice and see no mention of Pakistan's support of the Taliban? Given they founded and have given weapons, cash, air support, military support and intelligence support shouldn't it be mentioned? Or is it in another section? Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Only two things are still missing: 1) the perpetrators of the 1-3 million systematically killed in the Bangladesh genocide and 2) the Balochistan conflict should be mentioned with one sentence such as "In its Balochistan province Pakistan faces a struggle for self-determination by a separatist movement". Correct me if it is already there but I didn't see it. JCAla ( talk) 10:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Sticking to the content, I think this phrasing has POV issues... even in the Taliban article it got in with a very marginal consensus with closer comments on further discussion and fixing the POV issues. This needs to be removed and discussed before re-addition. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 12:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
After examining the discussion at Talk:Pakistan/Archive_14#Pakistan_has_been_characterized_as_.22failed_state.22_from_last_4_years, I have concluded that consensus there was for keeping the failed state index factoid out of this article. Regards, -- Aervanath ( talk) 00:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
There are about 1.4 million to 2 million Persian people (which includes Tajiks) in Pakistan, which by numeric accounts, makes Pakistan home to the fifth largest population of Persians in the world. Maybe there should be a brief mention of this major ethnic group in the demographics section. Mar4d ( talk) 00:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Latest figures show pakistan population is vastly under estimated, it may be as high as 197,362,000 compared to the estimate of about 170,000,000. http://www.dawn.com/2012/03/30/pakistans-population-up-by-46-9-per-cent-since-1998.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.174.218 ( talk) 17:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
As TopGun removed content, this is the sentence to be discussed: "Since 1948, when the Pakistani army annexed Balochistan as its fourth province, until today a Baloch separatist movement is fighting a struggle for self-determination." [1] What is your alternative suggestion, TG? JCAla ( talk) 11:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, the term wasn't coined by me but by several academic books on the issue, so ... What about this compromise: "Since 1948, when the Pakistani army annexed Balochistan as its fourth province, there has been an ongoing separatist struggle in the province of Balochistan, driven by various Baloch groups who seek political autonomy." JCAla ( talk) 12:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Pakistan's army invaded Balochistan in 1948, why was that? Because the Balochs were so happy to join? I propose: "Since 1948, when the Pakistani army invaded Balochistan and it was acceded to Pakistan as its fourth province, there has been an ongoing separatist struggle in the province of Balochistan, driven by various Baloch groups who seek political autonomy." Balochistan is different as Balochs and scholars allege that Balochistan was forcibly annexed and until this very day there are military offensives in Balochistan against Baloch groups with thousands killed or disappearing. Balochistan is generally described by the media as "Pakistan's other war". It is noteworthy for that matter but also because the Balochistan issue is increasingly gaining international attention. JCAla ( talk) 12:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Since 1948, there has been an ongoing, and at times fluctuating, insurgency in the southwestern province of Balochistan, driven by various Baloch seperatist groups who seek greater political autonomy.
Obviously, there is great controversy over the history, so I don't want to go into the details here now. Strike my above suggestion as I took some things from your version with which I actually do not agree. Your suggestion, Mar4d, is onesided speaking of pov. It is not just an insurgency, it is a conflict with several major issues, sometimes it has been driven by Pakistani army military action against Balochs at times the insurgency was sleeping. So this will be my proposal (central government of Pakistan could be replaced with "Pakistani army"):
Since 1948, there has been an ongoing, and at times fluctuating, violent conflict in the southwestern province of Balochistan, between various Baloch seperatist groups who seek greater political autonomy and political rights and the central government of Pakistan.
Let's simplify this without any POV from either side... be impartial:
Since 1948, there has been an ongoing, and at times fluctuating, insurgency in Balochistan between various Baloch seperatist groups government of Pakistan.
— TopGun 13:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Pakistan army is following orders from the government over it to minimize the insurgency so simple stating government will do. I've also other redundancies and POVs. Now, I can put this back if you explain why does this have a weight in the article and why will some one else not remove it on those basis. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 13:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
That is your sentence for the whole of the Balochistan conflict, dear September88 (?): "In 1970s, the military quelled a Baloch nationalist uprising." You can strike that sentence and we can take Mar4d's and my version to a noticeboard and ask which is more appropriate. JCAla ( talk) 16:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you mispresenting what I said on purpose or did you simply not understand it, TG? JCAla ( talk) 16:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, how's this as a compromise:
Since 1948, there has been an ongoing, and at times fluctuating, insurgency in Balochistan involving various Baloch seperatist groups who seek greater political autonomy, and the central government. This conflict has also engulfed portions of the Balochistan region in neighbouring Iran and Afghanistan. Recently, the government has undertaken efforts to subside the conflict through the introduction of reform packages and initiatives which aim to address the social, economic and political grievances of the province.
This has neutral language, conciseness (with the whole conflict summarized adequately in three sentences), a bit about the conflict not being strictly limited to Pakistan but also including parts of Iran and Afghanistan, as well as the last sentence which discusses the political attention the conflict has drawn recently and subsequent initiatives on part of the government that aim to resolve the conflict. One of the citations that could be used for the last sentence (talking about government reforms) could be about the Aghaz-e-Huqooq Balochistan package. I think everything has been summarised so I don't see any reason for further opposes now. Mar4d ( talk) 16:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
No, that is again pov, Mar4d. Baloch rebels see the situation as escalating and explicitly not being addressed. Also, I don't think what happens in Iran or what is not happening in Afghanistan for that matter is relevant here. Huon, globalsecurity wasn't considered a FA-worthy source on the RS board. Also, I do think we should geolocate the conflict to the province for the reader to better understand. I think, this is it:
Since 1948, there has been an ongoing, and at times fluctuating, violent conflict in the southwestern province of Balochistan between various Baloch seperatist groups who seek greater political autonomy, and the central government of Pakistan. JCAla ( talk) 16:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The readers obviously know that the article is about Pakistan (they didn't come to read about Iran). So they will ask "where in Pakistan" and we need to give the answer to that.I see a lot wrong with Mar4d's mention of "government efforts" when one party to the conflict doubts said efforts. I suggest, either we mention both narratives or none. What makes the efforts more noteworthy than this first recent line by the BBC about the conflict: "Balochistan's long-running insurgency is all about greater political autonomy and the conflict has been brutal, with human rights groups accusing security forces of regularly detaining and torturing political activists." [3] BTW, as you can see both terms, "brutal conflict" and "insurgency", are being used. In another BBC article it is called a "civil war" [4], so I propose we simply stick to "violent conflict" as it is the most NPOV term. JCAla ( talk) 17:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I think we should first wait what comes out of this. I also don't think the package is more noteworthy than the parallel strategy of systematic detentions and killings, etc. Also, the efforts are highly doubted and came together only because of some U.S. congressmen making it a big issue in Congress and in the international media. See:
"It took an obscure United States congressman holding a controversial hearing in Washington on the civil war in Balochistan to awaken the conscience of the Pakistani government, military and public. For years the civil war in Balochistan has either been forgotten by most Pakistanis or depicted as the forces of law and order battling Baloch tribesmen, who are described as "Indian agents". Don't expect Baloch leaders to turn the other cheek at Mr Malik's sudden shift - the Baloch have seen too many such U-turns before. Brahamdagh Bugti, head of the separatist Baloch Republican Party and living in exile in Geneva, remains sceptical. His grandfather Sardar Akbar Bugti, the head of the Bugti tribe, was killed in 2006 on the orders of former President Pervez Musharraf in a massive aerial bombardment, while his sister Zamur Domki and her 12-year old daughter were gunned down in Karachi in broad daylight just in late January - allegedly by government agents. ... Community leaders like Brahamdagh Bugti and Harbayar Marri, a leader of the Balochistan Liberation Army who is in exile in London, have seen two major efforts by Pakistani politicians to talk to them fail in the past nine years - largely due to the army's intransigence. The first was under former President Musharraf when some of his federal ministers tried to hold talks with the Marri and Bugti leaders. They were thwarted by Gen Musharraf who was determined to deal with the issue militarily, taunting the Baloch with quips such as this time you won't even know what hit you". The second was when the present Pakistan People's Party government was elected to power in 2008 and President Asif Ali Zardari asked for a ceasefire in Balochistan for six months - which surprisingly was adhered to - and promised negotiations with Baloch leaders. However, the army was against any talks and the government's will to carry them out melted away."'' [5]
I think we should leave it to the one sentence and if indeed these effort turn out as honest and substantial, then of course we should mention them. But now there is still too much controversy about them to get all facts into one sentence. Or we can try if you are insistent on adding it? JCAla ( talk) 08:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC) and JCAla ( talk) 07:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
September88 made a request for a GOCE copy edit of this article. I would like to do it, but it's pointless to copy edit articles whose content is not agreed, and the ongoing bickering -- what else can one call it? -- about how to word the Balochistan conflict, and what (if anything) to say about Pakistan's relationship (if any) with the Taliban, just convince me that any copy editing work done right now would end up wasted. Wikipedia ought to be able to put together a fine article about a country as major as Pakistan, especially with such able editors around. I hope you guys get it together one day and manage to agree what the article should say. Until then, I am marking the GOCE request as on hold.
I have no position on any of the issues you disagree about, and would be happy to copy edit the article without disrupting whatever final agreement you reach. But do you all actually want to reach one? Because there's an awful lot of insisting going on here, on both sides. And a certain amount of making it harder to close off debates by introducing new issues. For example, both Mar4d's and JCAla's initial proposed wording for the Balochistan conflict used the phrase "southwestern province of Balochistan"; not awfully controversial and both sides were agreeing about these four words at least. So why did that have to become an extra bone of contention?
Anyway, if you ever reach stability, please would TopGun and JCAla both pop a note on my talk page and I'll remove the stopper from the GOCE request. -- Stfg ( talk) 15:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The slaughter of Afghans in 1837 in NWFP was one of the biggest slaughter of 19th century , over 12,000 afghans(all men were killed) all those Tribals who were loyal to Sikh Maharaja Ranjit Singh was given pardon but the leader of revolt Painda Khan Afridi along with his whole family was slaughtered. Thousands and thousands of Women and Children who were given pardon by Rajah Ghulab Singh were sold at lahore and Jammu, i dont think such a big incident can be ignored. Many of afghans left NWFP and went back to Afghanistan(on the opposite side of Khyber Pass) some afghan tribes returned in 1846-1850AD when sikh rule was ended by British Empire through Anglo-Sikh War. The main reason behind slaughter was revolt of afghans as they wanted to take advantage of hari singh nalwa death at khyber pass however it failed as Prince Akbar Khan of kabul fled on arrival of Wazir Dhyan Singh and the revolt of NWFP tribes who expected support from afghan armies was shattered 122.161.253.183 ( talk) 10:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone
I see the article is undergoing a major reconstruction. Hence, I would like to suggest a few things which you need to take care.
Please notify on my talk Thanks Srikar Kashyap ( talk) 08:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment Actually, you know what, I think Srikarkashyap has got a point here. This article is about Pakistan, we're probably giving too much undue WP:WEIGHT by having China and the United States in the lead. It should be mentioned probably in the starting paragraphs of the foreign relations/politics section but having it in the lead is probably out of context. I think armed forces, nuclear power, membership in Organisation of the Islamic Conference, UN, Commonwealth etc. is alright for international relations for the lead. But let's leave bilateral relations (country-to-country relations) i.e. China and USA for the sections below. Having said that, Srikarkashyap, could you elaborate on what you find biased in the article? Mar4d ( talk) 09:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
As there are still no to mention of the support given to the Taliban the article remains POV Darkness Shines ( talk) 14:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a general consensus here that any support, referenced or not, by Pakistan of the Taliban does not merit inclusion. I'm going to remove the tag. If Darkness Shines believes that the consensus is mistaken, I suggest taking this to another DR venue (an RfC perhaps). -- regentspark ( comment) 22:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Nah, you want to be extremely unimpressed. You cite a statement of one cable, out of many, which during the time it was written (mid-90s) cited a lack of evidence, when later cables published inside the same documentation say "while Pakistani support for the Taliban has been long-standing, the magnitude of recent support is unprecedented. ... Additional reports indicate that direct Pakistani involvement in Taliban military operations has increased. ". Also, the cable was published as part of a documentation called "Pakistan: "The Taliban's Godfather"? Documents Detail Years of Pakistani Support for Taliban, Extremists". That is self-explanatory. The sources in the Taliban article state exactly what is written in that article (no matter how casual you want to treat them) i. e.:
JCAla ( talk) 12:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The Google Book preview of Prof. William Maley's book does show the page. And it explicitly talks about Pakistan.
Human Rights Watch is regarded as a reliable source on wikipedia. Furthermore, besides the radicals, the ISI, Pakistani Frontier Corps troops and even some regular army personnel (especially generals) were fighting alongside the Afghan Taliban. What is there not to understand when Human Rights Watch writes: "Pakistan ... directly providing combat support." or "Direct Military Support - Observers interviewed by Human Rights Watch in Afghanistan and Pakistan have reported that Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces during combat operations in late 2000 and that senior members of Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning major Taliban military operations. The extent of this support has attracted widespread international criticism. In November 2000 the U.N. secretary-general implicitly accused Pakistan of providing such support." This news article from January 2002 speaks for itself: "In Afghanistan last November, the Northern Alliance, supported by American Special Forces troops and emboldened by the highly accurate American bombing, forced thousands of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters to retreat inside the northern hill town of Kunduz. Trapped with them were Pakistani Army officers, intelligence advisers, and volunteers who were fighting alongside the Taliban. (Pakistan had been the Taliban’s staunchest military and economic supporter in its long-running war against the Northern Alliance.)" JCAla ( talk) 15:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Huon, haha, compared to Chinese numbers other numbers will always seem "insignificant". China has other dimensions, if we say only if a country provides what China did (900,000 troops) it is significant enough for wikipedia, most country profiles would hardly mention any wars. If the China article truely does not mention the intervention in the 1953 Korean War (I take your word for it, didn't check) that is however a major shortcoming. The Chinese intervention let to the push-back of U.S. & South Korean troops and to the final stalemate at todays border. The USA article by the way mentions the Korean war. Back to the Taliban issue. A number of up to 100,000 is by no means insignificant. The current U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan is less than that. This is not a low-level intervention, it changed the course of history and presents a major invasion into another country. Without that intervention the Taliban would never have come to power in Kabul (and that is according to the sources). (I read the book by Maley, that is why I quoted him not Rashid. I have no problem with quoting Rashid instead.) We have the Pakistani interior minister saying: "We created the Taliban." I propose we have one sentence about the direct involvement in Afghanistan from 1994-2001, and one about the allegation and denial of continued support. Afterall that support is influencing the course of Asia and the whole world. JCAla ( talk) 16:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
What is happening in Afghanistan is not relevant for Pakistan? Are you kidding? What happens in Afghanistan is certainly besides India the utmost occupation of Pakistan's military and intelligence services. And what are you talking about? The Air Force, the Frontier Corps, the generals, they are not volunteers. There were thousands of Pakistani Frontier Corps soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. And all the other of the up to 100,000 Pakistanis were recruited and trained by the Jamaat-e Islami and the ISI and were send on purpose to Afghanistan. That too is direct involvement. U.S. troop numbers in Afghanistan stayed below 10,000 up until 2003 and below 20,000 up until 2006. Yet, that was mentioned in the country profile during that time. According to various estimates in the year 2001 alone, Pakistan had more nationals fighting in Afghanistan than the U.S. up until 2006. JCAla ( talk) 19:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
After Pakistan’s independence in 1947, Afghanistan objected to its admission to the United Nations. The Afghan government of the time decided not to recognize Pakistan as the legitimate inheritor of the territorial agreements reached with the British India. There were several ambiguous and often changing demands from Kabul centered around the aspirations—as Kabul saw it—of the Pashtun and Baluch ethnicities inside Pakistan. For intermittent periods between 1947 and 1973, Kabul extended support to Baluch and Pashtun nationalists inside Pakistan and even called for the creation of a new state called “Pashtunistan.
Ironically, Afghan Pashtuns are a minority. The number of Pashtuns in Pakistan has always been double their size. Nevertheless, the Afghan ethnic ultra nationalist/irredentist factor has played an influential role in regional politics. Mar4d ( talk) 03:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Finally. Thank you very much, Mar4d. I appreciate the bluntness. An open discussion without all the double game and denial. We have three reasons for Pakistan's support to the Taliban: 1) the border dispute, 2) economic reasons and 3) backyard against India. And we have a fourth reason, Islamism is being used as a strong identity against Hindu India and a common bond with Arab extremists and Saudi Arabia. This leads to an ideological dream of controlling the "Black Banners from Khorasan" (the future army of Islam originating from
Taloqan, Khorasan - today northern Afghanistan - according to Islamic prophecy, which the Taliban are not
but claim to be). Dr. Fazal-ur-Rahim Marwat, University of Peshawar (Pakistan):
"In short, an articulate section of the [Pakistan] middle class ... supported an ideology which used religion to create Pakistani nationalism and militarism [vs India and Pashtun nationalists] in the society."
Now, for the first reason, the border dispute which you mentioned. Yes, indeed, Pashtun nationalists have not given up their dream of Loy Afghanistan (A Greater Afghanistan/Pashtunistan). Your source, however, is about the period 1947-1973, a different era. When Pakistan directed Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and his Hezb-e Islami to bomb the post-communist Islamic State of Afghanistan into chaos and lawlessness after the communist defeat in 1992, Afghanistan had voiced no such ambitions and the Islamic State was not interfering anywhere inside Pakistan. When Hekmatyar failed to gain control in Kabul and Pakistan introduced the Taliban, it were again not the Pashtun nationalists who were in power but the Islamic State which had no interest whatsoever in making any Pashtun area of Pakistan part of Afghanistan. Somewhere along the way, however, Pakistan reached the conclusion that it needs a Pashtun puppet to rule Afghanistan to integrate the Pashtuns under Pakistan's leadership. For that matter it sought to control the Afghan Pashtuns through Pashtun Islamists as the Islamists are 1) dependent on Pakistan and 2) Pashtun Islamism (promoting a bondage to Muslim Pakistan) is promoted by Pakistan as an alternative identity to Pashtun nationalism (which challenges the legality of the Af-Pak border). Then they preoccupied the Pashtun Islamists (Taliban, Hekmatyar) with fighting the other ethnic groups of Afghanistan (Tajiks, Hazara and Uzbek) opposed to Pashtun Islamism as well as non-Taliban Pashtuns. 60 % of Afghanistan's population are non-Pashtuns and today only an estimated 10% of the 40% Pashtuns are active Taliban supporters. Dr. Fazal-ur-Rahim Marwat, University of Peshawar (Pakistan):
"... to ensure that any Afghan nationalist ideas were kept to a minimum, Pakistani government gave the Islamists a stronger voice in the educational program in the [Afghan refugee] camps, and later on in the cross border transfer of educational materials and establishment of schools inside the Afghan war zone.... if the Afghan war politically damaged the cause of Pashtun political nationalism in Pashtunkhwa for the time being, it accelerated and regenerated the cultural nationalism [against other ethnic groups in Afghanistan], which will prove more effective [internally divisive to Afghanistan] than politics in the future. ... ”The new [Afghan] generation is forgotten and their future is dark. Now the two monsters of militarism and Mafia have opened their mouths to swallow them. They are forced to feed only by the means of war [although] the majority of the Afghan youth themselves wish to get education so that they should have a good standing in the new world order.”"
What a policy, to keep a country forever in a terrible war in order not to let it become independent and strong because there is a border dispute. Why kill millions of human beings, destroy the future of whole generations and endanger peace worldwide as the extremists trained in Pakistan are going to Central Asia, the US, Europe, India and even China? How about simply resolving the border dispute once and for all and in front of the whole world? Further, one should not ignore that the border issue is not the only reason for Pakistan's support to the Taliban. For controlling Afghanistan through the Taliban, Pakistan has two other reasons also. "The Rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan: Mass Mobilization, Civil War and the Future of the Region" by Neamatollah Nojumi:
[Pakistan's strategy is a] combination of pan-Islamism and market orientation policy. [...] three ultimate goals.
The first goal was to pacify the threat that could rise from a strong Afghan government. In this context, such a government in Afghanistan might pursue the cause of independent Pushtonistan and the rejection of the Durand line. In time of conflicts, this government could form an alliance with India and cut off Pakistan from the Central Asian Republics (CAR), a crucial energy source and a prosperous regional market economy. Influencing Afghanistan’s national politics by selecting who should run the government in Kabul became very critical for Pakistani circles. Thus, an ehtnic Pashtun ally in Afghanistan would help Pakistan intergrate the Pushtons on the other side of the border and make them important in the process of Afghan forward policy. Achieving such a goal would reduce the future tension over the Durand issue and could create a psychological integration of the Pushton population in the Pakistani state.
Another priority of the depth strategy was to rescue the collapsing economy by providing economically efficient energy to the fast growing population of Pakistan and having free and fast access to the CAR. The CAR’s energy and market economy would not only help Pakistan economically, it also would provide a free hand for this country to compete with Iran and India in the regional power game. In this case, Pakistan would be able to contain Iran’s influence in the CAR as well as eliminate this influence in Afghanistan. [...] Having access to the Central Asian market became very crucial for the economic growth and industrialization of Pakistan. For Pakistani leaders, controlling the economic road between Central Asia and Pakistan became an important task. In this case, the establishment of a national government, in particular a nationalist one in Afghanistan that could have firm control over the economic highway connecting Pakistan to Central Asia, would not be acceptable to Pakistani leaders. Therefore, the disintegration of the Afghan Mujahideen and the local and regional armed and political groups during and after the Soviet invasion can be viewed in the interest of the Pakistani forward policy toward Afghanistan. Establishing a government with passive military ability in Afghanistan under the influence of Pakistan was considered the most favorable alternative for Pakistani leaders. [...]
The third goal was to contain India in the Kashmir fronts with the avoidance of friendly government relations between India and Afghanistan. Using the Afghan soil as a camping ground for the Kashmirin militants would help the Pakistani army to balance its positions against India in that region. According to sources in Pakistan, in the past five years (1995-2000) 60,000 to 80,000 Pakistani nationals were trained in Afghanistan and went back home [to fight in Kashmir]. […] In addition to this, many Islamic militants from around the world gathered in Afghanistan and participated in battles in Afghanistan, Kashmir, and the CAR. All this would be different if there were friendly government relations between India and Afghanistan."
JCAla ( talk) 10:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion Guys, obviously a huge chunk of text on Pakistan's relationship with the Taliban, its history, causes, and continuing rationale is not going to work because it'll be overkill in a summary article. On the other hand, this discussion has the potential of generating several dissertations and lasting longer than the lifetime of most nations! So here is a suggestion. I note that there is a mention of the war of terror in the article: Pakistan's involvement in the war against terrorism has, according to its own estimates, cost up to $67.93 billion,[66][67] thousands of casualties and nearly 3 million displaced civilians.[68]. Perhaps that is the right place for a mention of Pakistan's relationship with the Taliban as well. Something along the lines of: Pakistan, with its proximity to Afghanistan, has had a complicated involvement in the war against terrorism. According to its own estimates, the war on terror has cost it up to $67.93 billion,[66][67] thousands of casualties and nearly 3 million displaced civilians.[68] On the other hand, there are credible allegations that the Pakistani government continues to support the Taliban as well as terrorist groups active against India. I'm assuming all this can be sourced, and perhaps 'Pakistan's Army' is more accurate than government, but this is one way of including the Taliban in the article and providing balance in the article. -- regentspark ( comment) 19:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
RP, yes, we do need to distinguish the Taliban, just like Pakistan does. :) As experts on the subject write, the common name is misleading as they greatly vary in their goals, in their leadership and in their history. TTP fight the Pakistani state. Afghan Taliban are reliant on the Pakistani state and have repeatedly tried to convince the TTP to stop fighting the Pakistani state. And wait a minute, the Afghan Taliban were not the legitimate government of Afghanistan, never were. They were recognized by three countries only (namely by their supporters: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE). The legitimate government of Afghanistan was the anti-Taliban Islamic State of Afghanistan effectively led by its Defense Minister Ahmad Shah Massoud and President Burhanuddin Rabbani which always kept the seat at the United Nations and the embassies worldwide. And yes, the sentence about before 9/11 is crucial, as without Pakistan there would have been no illegitimate Taliban rule in Kabul and beyond. JCAla ( talk) 20:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
( ←) I want to stay neutral, but if I may make this one suggestion, which you can ditch if you don't like. It seems to me that the debate is polarised between those who want to have something specific said about the Taliban, and those who don't want it mentioned at all. My suggestion is simply to arrange for the article to include a wikilink to Taliban, an article that has plenty to say about all this, and leave it at that.
Perhaps the best way to introduce such a link would be in a resuscitated "See also" section, or by use of a {{ See also}} in one of the article sections, such as "Politics" or its "Military" subsection. This would avoid issues of sourcing and deny any opportunity to slip in some POV. Just a suggestion. As I say, if you don't like it, just ditch it. -- Stfg ( talk) 08:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Stfg, hm, I am not so sure about that ... RP, why "on the other hand"? I think the sentence should definitely be added to this one which already mentions the "war on terrorism": "The U.S. war on terrorism initially led to an improvement in ties between the two countries; however, the relationship was strained by a divergence of interests and resulting mistrust in the war in Afghanistan and on terrorism related issues." After that sentence we could have a mix of your and my suggestion: "From 1994-2001 Pakistan provided direct military support to the Taliban for its own geostrategic reasons. There are credible allegations (denied by Pakistan) that the Pakistani government continues to support the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as terrorist groups active against India." JCAla ( talk) 09:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
RP, the sentence about the "War on Terror" with the "strained relations" is already in the article for some time now. I was just proposing to add any sentence after that already existent one. So it's really only these two sentences (combination of your and my suggestion) I am proposing: "From 1994-2001 Pakistan provided direct military support to the Taliban. There are credible allegations (denied by Pakistan) that the Pakistani government continues to support the Afghan Taliban as well as terrorist groups active against India." That's concise, actually more concise than your proposal. ;) What do you say? JCAla ( talk) 19:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
These sentences about Pakistan involvement are already there. Only thing that is missing are the Taliban. I think the current support for the Taliban needs to be after that sentence however, as Pakistan claims those figures for the past years despite the current allegations. We also have enough sources for the "direct". See the George Washington University archives i. e. which talk about the Frontier Corps troops fighting alongside the Taliban. JCAla ( talk) 20:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Support to the mujahideen is already in the article, obviously people here had no problem mentioning that ... I had proposed "for geostrategic reasons" because mentioning all the reasons will get quite long. Then you would have to mention why Afghanistan's Pashtuns do not accept the Durand border, as they say it was forced on them, etc. And because popular Pakistani Pashtun leaders such as Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan also favoured one "Pashtunistan". We could have something like ... supports Taliban "because for different geostrategic reasons including a simmering border dispute over the Durand Line, Afghanistan presenting the route to Central Asian natural resources and the need for strategic depth versus India, Pakistan conceives the need for an Afghan Islamist government favorable to Pakistani interests." The moral support of the Afghan monarchy 1947-1973 to Pashtun people in Pakistan really has no place in this article. Were there ever tens of thousands of Afghan forces in Pakistan? No, never. As I also pointed out to you above, when Pakistan supported the rise of the Taliban in 1994, the then non-Pashtun dominated Islamic State of Afghanistan was not involved inside Pakistan and certainly had no interest in having the Pashtun areas of Pakistan. JCAla ( talk) 07:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Sock trying to distract
|
---|
RP, or we could say: "The U.S. war on terrorism initially led to an improvement in ties between the two countries; however, the relationship was strained by a divergence of interests and resulting mistrust in the war in Afghanistan and on terrorism related issues." And then: "From 1994-2001 up to 100,000 Pakistani nationals including members of Pakistan's Frontier Corps were fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan. There are credible (or widespread) allegations (denied by Pakistan) that the Pakistani government continues to support the Taliban in Afghanistan today." JCAla ( talk) 09:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
RP, or we could say: "The U.S. war on terrorism initially led to an improvement in ties between the two countries; however, the relationship was strained by a divergence of interests and resulting mistrust in the war in Afghanistan and on terrorism related issues." And then: "From 1994-2001 up to 100,000 Pakistani nationals including members of Pakistan's Frontier Corps were fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan. There are credible (or widespread) allegations (denied by Pakistan) that the Pakistani government continues to support the Taliban in Afghanistan today." JCAla ( talk) 09:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
problems we face now to some extent we have to take responsibility for, having contributed to it. We also have a history of kind of moving in and out of Pakistan, she said. "Lets remember here the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago and we did it because we were locked in a struggle with the Soviet Union. They invaded Afghanistan and we did not want to see them control Central Asia and we went to work and it was President Reagan in partnership with Congress led by Democrats who said you know what it sounds like a pretty good idea lets deal with the ISI and the Pakistan military and lets go recruit these mujahideen." you stated that some interior minister said so and so now read the above Ruffruder0 ( talk) 10:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
|
I was the guy who removed POV tag. Why this article need Taliban detail? I repeat Ruffruder question why USA article not say this stuff? -- Highstakes00 ( talk) 10:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
We are having a good discussion here, while that is not the case on the NPOV. Further, the point you keep mentioning was already resolved on the Taliban RFC. Afghanistan is not just about support to a terrorist group but about a major intervention/interference (with own military forces) in a current and very relevant war. Also, for Pakistan, Afghanistan and India are the foremost foreign policy issues and as such have a high priority. The U.S. provision of only 10,000 soldiers until 2003 in Afghanistan on the side of the United Front (Northern Alliance) was mentioned in the USA article as a U.S. War in Afghanistan. I think Pakistan is fairly good off with just saying they provided such and such support when they provided more Pakistani fighters than the U.S. at that point. In Afghanistan 1994-2001 is also referred to as Pakistan's War in Afghanistan. So, as RP said, the two sentences are fairly neutral and can be sourced with hundreds of reliable sources. They also reflect properly what is the majority position among reliable sources which wikipedia is all about. RegentsPark, there is no problem with changing government to army. That's good to go, as the army is taking such decisions as you mentioned. JCAla ( talk) 13:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
RegentsPark, I think that is ok, but better replace the "though" with "and". We could say "widespread" instead of "credible", which is factual. TG, the last time, the former Pakistani President/Army Chief Musharraf and the former Pakistani Interior Minister both admitted to supporting respectively "creating" the Taliban. But even if they did not, the pre-9/11 part is a majority position among reliable sources. So, it would be the following, right: Pakistan's involvement in the U.S. war against terrorism has, according to its own estimates, cost up to $67.93 billion,[66][67] thousands of casualties and nearly 3 million displaced civilians.[68] But between 1994 and 2001 Pakistan provided military support to the Taliban and there are widespread allegations (denied by Pakistan) that the Pakistani army continues to support the Afghan Taliban in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present). JCAla ( talk) 17:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
That is not correct. The Pakistani government does not deny the pre-9/11 support (it did then, but senior officials do no longer) and it is stated as a matter of fact in all reliable sources. TG, it does not matter where Musharraf stated it. He was Army Chief and President, if he says he supported, then he supported. Also we already have the huge Pakistani pov in the first sentence which is also seen critically and questioned by others. Mediation for this issue is not necessary. I think it does not get better than this: Pakistan's involvement in the U.S. war against terrorism has, according to its own estimates, cost up to $67.93 billion,[66][67] thousands of casualties and nearly 3 million displaced civilians.[68] But between 1994 and 2001 Pakistan provided military support to the Taliban and there are widespread allegations (denied by Pakistan) that the Pakistani army continues to support the Afghan Taliban in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present). JCAla ( talk) 18:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
We shall stay factually correct, shall we? Pakistan had an official policy of denial of any support up until 1999. Then senior military and government officials started to admit to the support 1994-2001, actually, to even "creating" the Taliban alltogether. While still denying that it provided "military support" to the Taliban, that is a majority position among all the reliable sources, there is not one existent source doubting that Pakistan provided arms, logistics and troops to the Taliban until 9/11. Even the UN Security Council officially concluded as much. So we really need no weasel words to water that down. Since 9/11 Pakistan has again had a policy of denial for the ongoing support but not for the past support. The below reflects exactly the majority position among reliable sources. Does wikipedia also reflect that position?
McGrath, Kevin (2011). Confronting Al Qaeda: new strategies to combat terrorism. Naval Institute Press. p. 138:
"We created the Taliban," Nasrullah Babar, the interior minister under Benazir Bhutto, [stated in 1999]. "Mrs. Bhutto had a vision: that through a peaceful Afghanistan, Pakistan could extend its influence into the resource-rich territories of Central Asia." The Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) provided assistance to the Taliban regime, to include its military and Al-Qaeda-related terrorits training camps, to further this vision. Since 9/11, Pakistan's military and civilian leaders have played a double game. One the one hand, Pakistan assures the United States that it is vigorously repressing Islamic militants. On the other hand, it aids and abets those same militants. "Publicly, Pakistan and the militants are enemies. Privately, they are friends."
So, how about the following: Pakistan's involvement in the war against terrorism has, according to its own estimates, cost up to $67.93 billion,[66][67] thousands of casualties and nearly 3 million displaced civilians.[68] But Pakistan provided military support to the Taliban between 1994 and 2001 <citation> and international officials and analysts on the ground as well as the media have brought forward allegations (denied by Pakistan) that the Pakistani government continues to support the Afghan Taliban in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present)<citation>.
If we want the denial of "military support" pre-9/11 we need to reflect it correctly: "While its 'diplomatic machinery' denies 'military support', the Army Chief and Interior Minister admit to creating and supporting the Taliban, 'our boys', to 'defeat' anti-Taliban forces pre-9/11, and 'military assistance to the militia was subsequently confirmed by hundreds of Pakistani officers, troopers and volunteers' which were among the up to 100,000 Pakistani nationals fighting alongside the Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces inside Afghanistan." That would truely reflect all the points. I don't support any further down-watering of what is described as a fact among reliable sources. Actually there are so many relevant things to add to this, such as the involvement with Al-Qaeda pre-9/11, that I think the above sentence is a rather pro-Pakistan compromise. JCAla ( talk) 06:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
RegentsPark, which source do you mean? McGrath, Kevin (2011)? The source has received the following academic review by George H. Quester, Shapiro Professor, Elliot School of International Affairs, The George Washington University, author of Preemption, Prevention and Proliferation: The Threat and Use of Weapons in History:
JCAla ( talk) 12:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you see the reliable sources in the below section named "sources"? What do they say? 1) Pervez Musharraf, the man that ran Pakistan as Army Chief (military dictator some would say) and President, admitted to siding with the Taliban in order to defeat anti-Taliban forces. 2) Nasrullah Babar, the Pakistani Interior Minister in 1994 when the Taliban were created, states "we created the Taliban". What else is there to say? I am not going to support a factually wrong version in order to appease those who want to censor. All of below sources, and dozens of academic sources more DS once put on a noticeboard, say as a matter of fact, there was support. If that is the position among the majority of reliable sources, that is exactly what wikipedia is meant to reflect. Not some sort of weasel wording. Stating "there are reports", when the international experts say there were up to 100,000 Pakistanis fighting in Afghanistan, is simply ludicrous. The below version is correct in all points and we should take it as a pro-Pakistan compromise as I think that i. e. the fact that Pakistani Frontier Corps soldiers were fighting alongside Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan pre-9/11 would also deserve to be mentioned: Pakistan's involvement in the war against terrorism has, according to its own estimates, cost up to $67.93 billion,[66][67] thousands of casualties and nearly 3 million displaced civilians.[68] But Pakistan provided military support to the Taliban between 1994 and 2001 <citation> and international officials and analysts on the ground as well as the media have brought forward allegations (denied by Pakistan) that the Pakistani government continues to support the Afghan Taliban in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present)<citation>. JCAla ( talk) 16:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
TG, I won't even dignify the above with a response. RegentsPark, what do the following sources say about the man, Babar, who was interior minister of Pakistan and Commander of the Pakistani Frontier Corps when the Taliban came to power in Afghanistan and what do they say about one of the most prominent Pakistani ISI leaders, "Colonel Imam"?
"When the Taliban dominated Afghanistan in the 1990s, General Babar, then the interior minister of Pakistan under Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, called the new rulers “our boys.” Colonel Imam, working for Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence served as Pakistan’s consul general in the strategic Afghan town of Herat, providing vital financial and military support to the Taliban. ... He viewed the creation of the Taliban in Afghanistan as an important buffer for Pakistan against Central Asia and Russia. “I’m not sure General Babar realized what demons he unleashed,” said Aitzaz Ahsan, a prominent Pakistani lawyer who was interior minister in an earlier Bhutto government."
Even the Pakistani media says as much:
"Babar’s role in propping up and supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan was also pivotal. He made no bones about the fact that he was the father of the Taliban and commanded respect within the Taliban leadership. However, the sources say, Babar looked at Taliban as a ‘strategic and political ally’, not an organisation he was ideologically connected to, and believed a Taliban government could help Pakistan strategically."
JCAla ( talk) 16:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a consensus for including a sentence about the Taliban and I am going to present some of above suggestions for a RFC. JCAla ( talk) 17:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
No body answer my question? -- Highstakes00 ( talk) 11:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)