![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I can't believe that this is disputed. I agree that the Taliban is a horrible group of people. -- Wassermann 16:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I guess I've just stepped in the middle of something, but I guess I'll just put my two cents in. Firstly, the Taliban seriously abused much more than 50% of the Afghan population; women were not the only subject of their abuse and it is not the sum of their wrongs while in power. Secondly, whether the Taliban are only "famous" for "strict application of Sharia" is irrelevant. You could argue with just as much force that the Nazis are most "famous" for the extermination of the Jews, but no one is suggesting the image that should be included at the top of the Nazi Party article is that of the death camps. Like all other political organisation articles their symbol is used. This is precisely to avoid this kind of pointless, utterly subjective, dispute. I'm going to put the infobox back. Please help me expand and complete it. Thank you. Marshall 17:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Wasserman: You say: "the Taliban is obviously known for MANY things other than their public executions" and I ask: Like what? and i ask this because i am retarded and do not know a thing about the history of the Taliban. IZAK 04:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me ask the men in this thread, and I'm assuming from the way you write that you're all men, to engage in this thought experiment.
Imagine that a group of radicalized women — the SlimVirginban — stages a coup d'etat in England. We take over the government, abolish the independent judiciary, and place our own people (all radical, violent, feminist SlimVirginistas) in positions of power. We decree that from now on, we don't want to see men's skin unless we're married to them. Men are not allowed outside unless covered from head to toe, and if we so much as see one of your bare arms, it's tantamout to a sexual assault. We form a group of gender police, women with sticks and whips, who go around beating men in the street. Men are thrown out of universities, hospitals, and all other institutions, and are replaced by the violent feminists. Men aren't allowed to work, aren't allowed to be educated, aren't allowed to drive, aren't allowed to engage in any of your old habits and hobbies: no golf, no football, no hockey: just stay at home, please, and don't make us see your wicked faces. If any of you turn on us and kill one of the women who are forcing you to stay indoors, you'll be dragged to the local football stadium, and publicly executed in front of your children.
Then please imagine the Wikipedia article about this coup d'etat. Would the lead consist, as this one does, of 238 words about the background of the SlimVirginban, with a lovely big image of our logo, and then, tagged on at the end, 72 words about the abuse of men?
Would the body of the article be 6211 words about the SlimVirginban's history and ideology, with only 152 words about their treatment of men, the rest of it pushed off into a badly written fork?
Please answer honestly, and if the answer is no, explain why this article should be any different. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't really follow what you're saying. The paragraph is:
The Taliban became notorious internationally for their treatment of women,[3] and for human rights abuses in general. Women were forced to wear the burqa in public,[4] and were not allowed to work. They were not allowed to be educated after the age of eight, and until then were permitted only to study the Qur'an; women seeking an education were forced to attend underground schools, where they and their teachers risked execution if caught. They were not allowed to be treated by male doctors unless accompanied by a male chaperone. They faced public flogging for the most trivial violations of the Taliban's laws.[5][6][7] Both men and women were executed in public.
Why do you want to offer an analysis of why they did it? You don't know why they did it, except that we know they are Islamists, but even that doesn't explain it. What does purdah have to do with hacking women's fingers off if they wear nail varnish, and not allowing them to be educated?
We stick to reliable, mainstream sources; we don't offer apologetics. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, I now note that even my grammar and punctuation edits were reverted by you. So the article now, once more, proudly proclaims that "The overwhelmingly majority of Taliban movement..." Even if you don't agree with some of my edits, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, please. Marshall 23:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't get it. Someone posts a request for a third opinion on a thought experiment? In my opinion:
= Axlq 02:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The Taliban did beat women but suprisingly most of the women who were beaten up and publicized were from Kabul. I also feel that there is the assumption that the Taliban are hated in Afghanistan. If the Taliban are hated then why are they as strong as ever since 2001? And why are many Afghans from the Southern, Eastern, and Western part of Afghanistan, supporting the Taliban? It would make more sense to support a more legitimate Karzai government backed by the international community but nevertheless Talbian are gaining support. Yes the Taliban did horrendous things when they were in power but they also did some good things like security, reduction of poppy, crackdown on lawless warlords, and the crackdown on some mafia elements in Afghanistan. I recommend that they be judged by a professional and neutral view. For readings on the Taliban please read "Ghost Wars", "Reaping the Whirlwind", and " The Punishement of Virtue and the Promotion of Vice".* —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seomann ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Come on folks women have been executed by the millions globally for murders that they committed.
Under no circumstances should one person kill another, and if it happens then they must face the law and God. The woman (Zarmina) killed her husband with an axe while he was alseep, that is the most evil thing any person can do. So what if he was abusive, that's a common exuse always used by women who murdered their husband. The fact is that she was a murderer and in every country on earth a murderer faces death, since Afghanistan at the time did not have leathal injection they had to rely on shooting her with a gun. It was not good way to kill murderers but what other option did they have, to let her free? If you don't like death penalty, then avoid murder or treason, it's simple as that. I been beaten by my mother and dad many times in my life and I had never intended to kill my parents, especially not to kill them while they were asleep. Anyway, this was just one incident and it was not happening everyday. If you really have the guts to talk so much negative about the Taliban, I'd like for you to go into southern Afghanistan ( Helmand province) and tell that to their face, otherwise you are a normal coward person with no strength. The Taliban brought justice and the rule of law to Afghanistan, prior to that warlords ruled the country and those warlords committed the worst crimes you can imagine. For get about raping girls, women, boys, the warolrds committed some un-thinkable crimes such as raping helpless old men to make them lose dignity, self-honor and defame them. That was something that always made me cry when I heard and saw old men aged 60s and 70s were purposely raped in revenge attacks against other warlords or people. I am from Afghanistan and I know very well about many things that never cought the attention of any media. It was because of these kinds of evil things happening in the country, the Taliban rose against the warlords.
At the same time, it's true that many of the members of the Taliban were in on it for fun, there were many Pakistanis joining the Taliban and taking advantage of the situation. Those specific Pakistani Taliban (from border areas) were the ones trying to oppress Afghan people. They also had a conspiracy to make Afghanistan become part of Pakistan. Even until today, it is mainly those Taliban still fighting with the Government of Afghanistan and Nato forces. If you don't know about Taliban and the situation in Afghanistan, don't write stuff in this article just to please yourself. You westerners have your own views on the situation while we Afghans have our own views and we know the ground realities, something you westerners don't know yet. By the way, when I say "westerners" I am also including those Afghans who live in the west.-- Birdazi 23:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Just few more things, I am totally against Taliban style rule at the present times. I think the Taliban did their job from 1994 to 2001 and now they should just retire, give up the fight and let the new Afghan government establish their rule and law the in that country, and ofcourse with the help of the international community. I support all those countries helping Afghanistan, including USA, Britian, Canada, Europe, Australia, and others. This should have been done after Soviet forces left the country.-- Birdazi 23:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Continued personal attacks may lead to getting blocked. Be Civil. - Ariana310 20:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Ariana, please have some tolerance and listen to counter-views. A discussion means a discussion of the every aspect of the article. Ok, you are a northern alliance loyalist, but that doesn't mean this encyclopedia is compiled according to your whims. Be polite and accommodate of others's concerns and opinion. If you couldn't, we few Pashtuns reserve the right to appeal directly to the managers and owners of this encyclopedia to have this article edited by some impartial person(s) than Northern Alliance "intellectuals". Fateh
The Shia Hazaras in 1997 or 1998 lined up 2,500 plus Talibans and slaughtered each one on top of the grave of Abdul Ali Mazari. A few Taliban men escaped somehow and reported what they saw to their leaders. Then Taliban went to Mazari Sharif and began killing any Hazara they go their hands on. They also began bombing on fleeing Hazaras, not caring if civilians or not. This is what happens when you start war with someone, they will come back for you. If the Hazaras did not kill the 2,500 Taliban in Mazari Sharif, there was no way for the Taliban to go after them. What were the Hazaras thinking? that they would be spared?-- Birdazi 22:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
How could you possibly generalize such a complex issue as the Hazara-Pashtun relationship? There is a very long history of discrimination and racism against Afghans of Hazara origin, and to suggest that the slaughter at Mazari Sharif was motivated by only one specific event is ignorant of an entire history between the two ethnic groups.
On a side note, what is your historical basis for the event you are describing (executions of Talibans by Hazaras)? I have done some research and found no sufficient documentation to suggest that the event took place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoso45N ( talk • contribs) 17:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't try to keep adding that Taliban were Pashtun movement, they were not because they killed many Pashtuns also. They did not care about ethnicity of people, they only wanted people to follow Sharia law which is an extremely strict system of law that only very few people can cope with. Although it is a good thing but not many people can follow those rules these days. If your intentions are to make Pashtuns look bad or trying to defame or degradeing them, it will not work because Pashtuns are very powerful. The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad is also Pashtun and he is the representative of United States in the United Nations. He is also George Bush's best friend and not to mention that he is the first Muslim in the Bush's administration. Pashtuns are very moderate people and they love mondernization, peace and are very compassionate people. These Taliban were mostly uneducated farmers who joined Taliban movement for the money that they were being paid.-- Birdazi 23:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Umm. About the make-up of the Taliban. It's accepted that it's a largely Pashtun movement surely? That needn't reflect badly on the Pashtun people, but whether it does or doesn't it must be mentioned here. If, as Birdazi's edit summary suggests, there are more Punjabis than Pashtuns in the Taliban now (or indeed that 160 million Pakistanis are in the Taliban...) then that is worth a mention. However, since it's not a particularly widely held opinion it'll need to be referenced. Marshall 01:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Look, I'm not going to get into this because any edit I make is instantly reverted by you. But, to quote Encarta: "The Taliban consisted mostly of Pashtuns intent on once again dominating the central government in Kābul". It was only in the aftermath of the Soviet withdrawal that Afghanistan's government wasn't dominated by Pashtuns. No-one has claimed however that the Taliban is an exclusively Pashtun movement, because as you have taken great pains to point out, there are Taliban who are not Pashtun. Marshall 15:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
As already discussed I didn't know the 3RR applied to different disputes in the same article. So I'd wager I'd reverted double the times I should've before I was warned? Why don't we move on from this, eh? Who's it helping? It's just wasting both our time. Why don't we move all our discussion to the section where I've been discussing content? Marshall 05:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
If Taleban is a Pashtun movement, then by that implication Nazis was also a white supramcist movement and Wikipedia should mention that. But the fact of the matter is, America, the new global "Empire", needed an enemy after the collapse of USSR, to deploy its miltary power strategically in an important region to sustain its global hegemony and it found itself a pretence in form Taleban unfortunately on Pashtun Land?
Also Mr. Marshal if Taleban are Pashtun movement why should not this imply that Ku Ka Klan was a racist movement of white America?
Hope this gives you some food for thought and get you out of this neo-colonialist propaganda mood.July 07, 2007 Fateh
I have included some material and resources as to the fact that US forces and its notorious NA warlord allies also committed crimes and probably more brutal. This would not bring any significant impartiality to this highly biased article for which some more effort is needed but still it is an effort. Hope the authors of this article have the intellectual honesty to tolerate this little modification to the article. FatehM 05:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Their aim was not to establish a state where Pashtunwali would prevail. Rather it was based on the broader Pan-Islamist ideology. That is why there were people from multitude of ethnicities in their movement although Pashtuns were in majority because it all took place in an Afghan context. Neither their movement was Pashtun exclusive. However, if you are still intent to use Wikipedia pages and resources for spreading a specific kind of poltical propaganda, that is another matter, but then you should have the flexibility to listen to counter opinion as well. FatehM 06:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The changes I had made to the article have been purged. It seems Northen Alliance loyalist are in full control of Wikipedia and want to use it to further their hate-addled political agenda. We a group of Pashtuns appeal to the owners and managers of Wikipedia to have the contents of Wikipedia reviewed by academicians and people with some intellecual honesty and integrity. The Wikipedia project that could have been a great source of authentic information and unbiased views has unfortunately been hijacked by few with ulterior motives. Due to this, the image of Wikipedia has become so tarnished that it is now a days being called Wickedpedia. FatehM 05:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, is there any way to contact administrators and owners of Wikipedia. We few Pashtuns want to lodge protest with them for Wikipedia being used for racist propaganda. FatehM 05:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
This news report I came across should help settle the issue. The following is from an Afghani news, explaining that Taliban were not a Pashtun movement, and, that there were non-Pashtun members in the Taliban.
Taliban can't be bracketed with Pashtuns: Analysts
KABUL, Nov 2 (Pajhwok Afghan News): Tribespeople living in the long-neglected region that straddles the Durand Line are the worst-hit by war, political analysts agree. They reason a wrenchingly persistent lack of elemental necessities of life is contributing in no small measure to the rise of militancy in benighted border areas.
In interviews with Pajhwok Afghan News, observers pour scorn on the impression that Taliban have grown out of the tribal politics of the Pashtun community. While vehemently rejecting the insinuation that the escalating insurgency has roots in the backward region, they argue the rebels are not associated with one particular community.
Some Internet-based news organisations recently carried a flurry of reports alleging Pashtun tribal feuds have been the bane of Afghanistan and Taliban a product of the politics of tribalism. Such anti-Pashtun commentaries, according to analysts, are not based on credible research on the factors that fuel the ongoing wave of insecurity in the landlocked country.
Political commentator Wahid Muzhda opines Taliban are not the representatives of a single Afghan faction."Being an ethnic Tajik myself, I have been with the movement for half a decade. They listened to a Chechen national more raptly than the hearing they gave me or a Pashtun for that matter."
Many people from the southern Kandahar province held high positions in the Taliban government, he recalls, but hastens to explain it does not mean they exclusively represent the Pashtuns. "For one, I will never subscribe to the point of view that Taliban can be bracketed with any one Afghan community."
Reminded of the media blitz against the largest ethnic group, Muzhda responds Pashtuns have historically been faced with a phalanx of foes and that situation continues to date. "This propaganda is essentially the handwork of their opponents," the intellectual thinks.
Parliamentarian Kabir Ranjbar, echoing Muzhda's opinion, makes it abundantly clear the insurgents are not born out of the Pashtun politics of tribalism. "Espousing an ideology called fundamentalism, Taliban have links to the al-Qaeda network," he elucidates.
Mullah Omar was stoutly supported by Tajiks, Uzbeks, Chechens, Arabs and extremists from other nations, maintains the legislator. It is loyalists of Uzbek warlord Rashid Dostum and other ethnic rivals brand the militants as devious Pashtuns, the Wolesi Jirga member comments.
"Pashtuns themselves are simultaneously being mowed down by Taliban and bombed by foreign troops. Making matters worse is the hard fact the government is paying little - if any - heed to the reconstruction of the war-devastated belt inhabited by them," continues Ranjbar.
As another Wolesi Jirga member from the eastern Nangarhar province Mir Wais Yaseeni puts it: Pashtuns enormously have played a crucial role in the jihad against Soviet invaders in yesteryear and now they are battling the insurgents, who in no way can be characterised as a purely Pashtun outfit. "Whosoever casts such racist slurs on the Pashtuns are doing a disservice to the country," he remarks.
Security experts charge some elements have a vested interest in fomenting trouble on both sides of the frontier to further their agenda. Advisor at Afghanistan's Regional Studies Centre Abdul Rashid Wazir claims Pakistan's powerful military intelligence agency ISI acted as a midwife to the birth of the student militia.
When routed in Afghanistan, Wazir adds, the rebels streamed into the neighbouring country, where ISI tasked mighty religious groups with reorganising them. "In a contemptible attempt to scuttle the process of empowering the Afghans, the secret agency is lending a boost to the guerrillas." END OF NEWS REPORT
As a result of this news report, I am going to remove the "Pashtun movement" so it only says Muslim movement. You don't have to be Pashtun in order to be Taliban.-- Litrboxr 21:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I am the first person who'll toe the line and say that the Talibans actions were subhuman. My views on islamic opression of women go without saying, as a libertarian the thought that someone is of higher station based on the simple fact they were born with a penis is abhorrent.
However I am writing here to address the numerous people who have been placing up kill-scene / snuff footage and images of executions, et cetera. As I have addressed on a few users talk pages, this is a sketchy area because emotions naturally run high on anything political of this nature. However, we all have to take a step back and evaluate what this medium is, Wikipedia. Who are the people viewing it? Students mostly. Do you think students need to see this? I'm sure you'll say yes, but I'm sure also many will say no. As Wikipedia isn't censored, that's out of the equation.
Thus, what we're dealing with here prima facie is a lack of context, the potential that it could be seen as advertising or agenda pushing and thus bringing into question the POV status of the entire article. Further, images must have a purposive construct, that being to bring forth a further meaning to something which is not clearly explainable through text. Text is, for the most part, an appropriate means and thusfar the article reads very well in this regards of depicting the brutality of the taliban regime.
So, I ask you all, please refrain from re-adding material that is removed by other editors for any of the above reasons. If you can narrow the scope, remove the advertising, remove the external link aspect to political agenda related websites, et cetera, please re add them if you see fit. Otherwise they're not suitable for the article.
I hope this clarifies things. Jachin 21:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone wishing to improve this article's NPOV might look to Khmer Rouge for ideas. WAS 4.250 06:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
While reading the section on the taliban resurgence I came across this interesting sentence:
" It is believed that the successes of the Taliban in 2006 have laid the foundation for a major uprising in 2007 under the leadership of Mullah Dadullah"
What successes is this refering to? Though they have managed to kill scores of civilians and some ANA and ISAF soldiers, if you weigh that against their reported losses and their inability to drive out western forces, I honnestly don't see much to boast about. Furthemore ISAF has been mounting operations all winter to deny the Taliban time to recover and mount a major spring offensive(time will tell if that has worked)
Daft, may 15th 2007, 15:10
(moved from SV and Marshall talk pages) ==Plagiarism== OK, well I just copied and pasted that from the Encarta article to prove a point. Which you would have understood if you'd actually bothered reading what I'd written. Marshall 05:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Please don't add plagiarism or copyright violations to Wikipedia again, whether to make a point or for any other reason. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Virginia Slim, I moved criticism and explanation back to the end of the section, as I thought it made sense to first describe the ideology before explaining what it was criticized for and why some thought it turned out the way it did. -- Leroy65X 16:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a supporter of the Taliban but I don't think we really need three pictures of execution. This is not an article on methods of executions. The Taliban were not the ones who invented the death penalty, nor were they the only ones to perform it on women. The Soviet Union or Kim Jong Il of Korea, did the same and more (see gulag). There are no execution pictures in the Soviet Union article and I don't think it's a shortcoming. Aminullah 17:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that all of the pictures of executions in this article and are entirely inappropriate; they are, in fact, nothing more than propaganda and are clearly not NPOV. Because of this these gruesome pictures should be removed entirely in favor of more neutral pictures. -- Wassermann 19:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Especially from the the time of their government. -- HanzoHattori 21:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone find a reference for the "decree ordering non-muslims to wear distinctive yellow patches" as stated in the last paragraph of the first section of "Internation Relations"? I was there in July 2001 as a tourist. I'm not a muslim and i didn't have to wear any patch. I didn't hide not being a muslim (my beard was obviously too short but I was dressed as a local) and this was the case for the several ngo workers I spoke to there, all over the country. I even met a sikh family living in Jalalabad, also without patch. -- bluuurgh 15:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the depth of information relayed to the general audience in this article, but I believe that it can become much more user-friendly. In other words, a brief overview of the Taliban and it's history in the beginning would do far more good than to outrightly go into descriptive detail about the specific ethnicities of historic Taliban leaders and whatnot. An initial clear and concise summary would do a lot of good. I hope this is an agreeable proposition to all. Thanks.
Mueller921 23:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Some images are being removed on various grounds,
Looking at the idea of advertising, copyright and attribution. Some images are released for use and they will have the copyright holder embedded in the image. Wikipedia allows for a variety of licenses, one of which refers to "Attribution". Acknowledging copyright or attribution is not advertising. Advertising is promoting a product or site and driving traffic with the intent of selling products. Rawa.org isn't clearly selling products and isn't a brand any would recognise (compare the NASA logos on cabinets in the image in
Supercomputer, The Coke Cola logo clearly on the bottle in
Cola etc etc. I would say that pictures with commercial products would be made available to Wikipedia if the brand was clearly displayed - this is "advertising" - maintaining brand awareness so that when you hit a drinks cabinet you specifically ask for 'x'. With rawa.org then I guess when you get oppressed or abused you ask for "a rawa.org" rather than say "Amnesty International" ? Nope advertising claim really tenuous.
On the subject of shock value - well clearly
Wikipedia isn't censored. Rawa.org isn't a "shock site", though what they address is shocking. Because you don't like it isn't grounds for deletion. Anyone reasonable (
The man on the Clapham omnibus is a UK law concept I would use) would expect to not find
a story about a little elf on a page on the Taliban. The images are not over-the-top but topical and few.
You're going to have to try harder censoring these two images on those grounds.
Ttiotsw
16:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Tiotsw for kicking this off again, it gives me an opportunity to further illustrate a few points that some editors seem not to understand. The issue of the photos has been rehashed multiple times, the consensus seems to be held by the majority of editors bar for one or two that the images do not add to the article, are not required, lower the quality of the article, advertise a URL, present a political POV by advertising afforementioned URL, and further cause confliction in editing.
I believe that this editor has hit the nail on the head. There does however seem to be a few POV pushers, or the odd random who doesn't quite understand what's going on. Unfortunately, one of the apparent POV pushers is an administrator. Either way, I've spent more time cleaning this and related articles up than I have most other articles I tend to trawl through on a day to day basis and am pretty much at the point of giving up because my fuel is to keep Wiki academic, which doesn't compete well with the zealous antics of people who want to keep Wiki their soap box. Having no vested interest in a for or against POV tends to lead to a bit of apathy in that regards.
Thus, I believe it's time one of us throw this to arbitration and get some formal declaration on the subject, because I seriously can't be arsed explaining what's going on to every random who comes along and clearly doesn't read the talk page. :) Jachin 03:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
"You're going to have to try harder censoring these two images on those grounds." <-- censoring? Riiiight... also see --> [5]. There's no rule that you can add anything you want to this encyclopedia and removal of anything to improve quality of articles is a 'heinous crime and violation of the Universal declaration of Human rights' . UK law doesn't apply here - I don't care. thestick 16:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It appears our friends of sleight of hand have again readded the images that everyone has reasonably stated detract from the article, advertise some political organisation, and just generally are not neccesary. I propose that we attempt to vote for a consensus on this, or failing that go to arbitration with the two users who seem to feel it neccesary to re-add these images regardless of the prior consensus (per head count of respondents and their views) reached. Jachin 05:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure this is old news, but I just read this book, which was about life in Afghanistan under the Taliban, told through the eyes of an immigrant to he U.S. It was incredible. I haven't read such clear and sensitive writing in years. It described the political situation (as well as the horrors) in everyday language and in such easy-to-read terms. Highly receommended. BlueSapphires 15:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed the POV adjective "legendary" from the description of Ahmad Shah Massoud. Whether or not he is "legendary", there is no citation for this and this article is not about Ahmad Shah Massoud. It is about the Taliban. -- Bejnar 19:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
On 29 July an IP editor, 210.4.69.4, added the onesource Template stating "Most of the claims and statements are being referenced from Rashid's "Taliban" book. All these claims may not be verified, neither can their authenticity." It is true that Rashid's book is cited for a great deal of the material (approximately 45%). However, the three items that I checked, notes 33, 36, & 37 (decision making before 1996, the definition of zakat, the criticism of the title of Amir al-Mu'minin), were all verifiable from other sources. The article does have 85 footnotes to other sources, leaving the 50 or so citations to Rashid's Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. While there may be items in Rashid's book that are not so easily verified, I agree with the author, from the Univ. of Wisconsin, of the 2002 book review:
On the above basis, I have removed the onesource Template. I do agree that other, prehaps more recent, materials should be consulted for any highly controversial claims. But if IP editor 210.4.69.4 or any other editor has questions about any specific item, they should raise them here. This is, after all, the discussion page for the article. -- Bejnar 21:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
탈레반은 죽어라.
On 14 August 2007 Beh-nam placed this article within the scope of the Fascism project. Question: Can a religious-based authoritarian state be classified as fascist? Normally they are classified as theocracies, but that doesn't prevent them from also being fascist does it? I note that until the edits by Beh-nam the Taliban had not been mentioned in the project discussion page. The essence, some would say, of a fascist state is that not only are individual liberties restrained for the good of the state, but that industry and business are co-opted and cooerced to align themselves with the good of the state, or, more briefly, that the "state" is the ultimate good. When the ultimate good is a religion and not the state can it still be called fascist? -- Bejnar 18:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Come on give your resources? How and when did they massacre 10000 people in Mazar Sharif? Even propaganda is done with bit of decency. FatehM 06:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I can do the google search and find more sources to the contrary. But as long as this article is compiled by the political opponents/enemies of Pashtuns or Taleban with their ethnocenteric views injected into it, its authenticity would be dubious. Herein comes the greatest failure of Wikipedia. Any person with any motives can put any thing into it. This article doesn't take into account the peculier circumstances in which Taleban emerged; it rather is a plain, straight, one sided description of events aimed at demonization and overloaded with huge generalization. Such articles should be compiled by those with academic intentions. FatehM 06:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there some reputable source for classification of political ideology that lists the Taliban as fascist? I can definitely see some similarities with fascist regimes but one thing the Taliban is lacking is clear nationalism. Islamism is not nationalism and the Taliban doesn't appear to be a nationalist or ethnic movement. At any rate, I would take this as somewhat disruptive on Behnam's part unless there is really a consensus among political scientists that this should be called fascism. I'm sure there is a volume of advocacy journalism that applies the label fascism but that isn't political science. I would rather focus on aspects of Islamism that are factual like their treatment of women. Add the Taliban and Islamism articles to the sexism project for example - who could argue with that? -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 06:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The Taliban received valuable training, supplies and arms from the Pakistani government, particularly the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and many recruits from Madrasahs for Afghan refugees in Pakistan, primarily ones established by the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam JUI.
Obviously, a citation is needed here. How do I know if this is true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.137.193 ( talk) 11:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Gen. Hameed Gul was the one of the key people in organizing Taliban. he was ISI head at the time the Taliban were being organized. he has recived many gifts and visits from Taliban leaders. he has the biggest collection of liscened guns in Pakistan by any one person and he claims to have recived it from Taliban leaders as gifts. He staed in one of his interviews that Pakistani nation faught the soviet nation on the afghan front. he himself as head of ISI supported Afghans in Their Jihad as much as he could —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taqi Laghari ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I have read the article and a bit of discussion about the Taliban and their goverment, miltary Tactics and and their burtality and treatment to women.
I then read THOUGHT EXPERIMENT SlimVirgin in which she said
aren't allowed to engage in any of your old habits and hobbies: no golf, no football, no hockey:
This gave me a thought that can people living thousands of miles away from the place and events they are discussing really apperciate the ground realties of these events and places?
They are discussing about a place where golf, hockey ,football are just a thought having a 24 hour electric supply is the concern of really well off people. to understand the Taliban point of view about everything they are hated for takes more than just a net search, book reading and some media coverage. To understand the feelings, thoughts, and the system one has to observe closely all the aspects of the system. living in modern and developed countries we can not even imagine life with out electricpower, temprature control applicnes, and other such facilites but the people in Afghanistan have and are living without these things they are very different than people living in modern and developed countries.-- Taqi Laghari 23:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Ahen the soviet army left Afghanistan, the united army of mujhaidin (which at that time included nortern alliaince and Taliban though the groups were not seperated at the time) or simply mujhaidin were strived to be the next ruler of Afghanistan the northern Alliaince even bein richer and more powerful than Taliban lost the country to Taliban. Why? Because the people of Aghanistan hepled and supported Taliban ( Almost everybody who is anybody knows the Taliban ideology in Afghanistan and they knew it then as well, it is deeply rooted in the Afghan and Pkistani system) knowing the ideology the Taliban were purposing.
The Taliban are repotted to be brutal specially to women but a Lady jounralist from Britin goes to Afghansitan hidding cameras and taking pictures and is caught and when she returns she accpects the 'strict' ISLAM the Taliban were supporting and 'imposing'.How were Talibans able to put such a good show for western women in middle of war that they converted her thoughts on the same path as theirs?
To fight wars soldiers are needed and to fight a war more than 15 years long a very big number of soliders is needed. how come such a burtal, strict, savages such as Talibans find such a big ammount of soliders to fight a 15 year long war and that too against the super and atomic powers. And to fight a war with force much larger, stornger, better equiped an army needs motivation good enough to give life for.That motivation can not be created by fear. How come Taliban were able to get men in first place to fight war against the forces of entire world? surely not by fear.-- Taqi Laghari 23:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Mullah bob is listed as a leader of this organization. I don't know who mullah bob is, but something tells me that he doesn't exist. Bob isn't an Islamic name is it? I don't know how to edit this page, so if someone else can look into this bob guy and edit this page, awesome. It will help our government, who is probably right now in the midst of a multi-billion dollar search effort to find mullah bob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.213.195.153 ( talk) 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Is Iraq an opponent of the Taliban? I didn't know they had the time and resources to contront the Taliban while dealing with their own insurgency? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manxruler ( talk • contribs) 23:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Many people claim that the Taliban came from Pakistan.That is true but they also originate from Afghanistan because they are of Pashtun blood.So it's not a blame game it's about how can we resolve this problem.Who are the Taliban? Are they people who fight in the name of Islam or are they hypocrtical puppets of the Illuminati and their plan for world domination?
,Pakk4life Oct.22/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakk4life ( talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The following is from news report from Afghanistan, explaining that Taliban were not a Pashtun movement as something anti-Pashtun people are telling others.
Taliban can't be bracketed with Pashtuns: Analysts
KABUL, Nov 2 (Pajhwok Afghan News): Tribespeople living in the long-neglected region that straddles the Durand Line are the worst-hit by war, political analysts agree. They reason a wrenchingly persistent lack of elemental necessities of life is contributing in no small measure to the rise of militancy in benighted border areas.
In interviews with Pajhwok Afghan News, observers pour scorn on the impression that Taliban have grown out of the tribal politics of the Pashtun community. While vehemently rejecting the insinuation that the escalating insurgency has roots in the backward region, they argue the rebels are not associated with one particular community.
Some Internet-based news organisations recently carried a flurry of reports alleging Pashtun tribal feuds have been the bane of Afghanistan and Taliban a product of the politics of tribalism. Such anti-Pashtun commentaries, according to analysts, are not based on credible research on the factors that fuel the ongoing wave of insecurity in the landlocked country.
Political commentator Wahid Muzhda opines Taliban are not the representatives of a single Afghan faction. "Being an ethnic Tajik myself, I have been with the movement for half a decade. They listened to a Chechen national more raptly than the hearing they gave me or a Pashtun for that matter."
Many people from the southern Kandahar province held high positions in the Taliban government, he recalls, but hastens to explain it does not mean they exclusively represent the Pashtuns. "For one, I will never subscribe to the point of view that Taliban can be bracketed with any one Afghan community."
Reminded of the media blitz against the largest ethnic group, Muzhda responds Pashtuns have historically been faced with a phalanx of foes and that situation continues to date. "This propaganda is essentially the handwork of their opponents," the intellectual thinks.
Parliamentarian Kabir Ranjbar, echoing Muzhda's opinion, makes it abundantly clear the insurgents are not born out of the Pashtun politics of tribalism. "Espousing an ideology called fundamentalism, Taliban have links to the al-Qaeda network," he elucidates.
Mullah Omar was stoutly supported by Tajiks, Uzbeks, Chechens, Arabs and extremists from other nations, maintains the legislator. It is loyalists of Uzbek warlord Rashid Dostum and other ethnic rivals brand the militants as devious Pashtuns, the Wolesi Jirga member comments.
"Pashtuns themselves are simultaneously being mowed down by Taliban and bombed by foreign troops. Making matters worse is the hard fact the government is paying little - if any - heed to the reconstruction of the war-devastated belt inhabited by them," continues Ranjbar.
As another Wolesi Jirga member from the eastern Nangarhar province Mir Wais Yaseeni puts it: Pashtuns enormously have played a crucial role in the jihad against Soviet invaders in yesteryear and now they are battling the insurgents, who in no way can be characterised as a purely Pashtun outfit. "Whosoever casts such racist slurs on the Pashtuns are doing a disservice to the country," he remarks.
Security experts charge some elements have a vested interest in fomenting trouble on both sides of the frontier to further their agenda. Advisor at Afghanistan's Regional Studies Centre Abdul Rashid Wazir claims Pakistan's powerful military intelligence agency ISI acted as a midwife to the birth of the student militia.
When routed in Afghanistan, Wazir adds, the rebels streamed into the neighbouring country, where ISI tasked mighty religious groups with reorganising them. "In a contemptible attempt to scuttle the process of empowering the Afghans, the secret agency is lending a boost to the guerrillas." END OF NEWS REPORT
As a result of this news report, I am going to remove the "Pashtun movement" so it only says Muslim movement. You don't have to be Pashtun in order to be Taliban.-- Litrboxr 21:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to add a citation, but that figure is used in the following peer reviewed article: Johnson, Thomas H., and M. Chris Mason. “Understanding the Taliban Insurgency in Afghanistan.” Orbis 51, no. 1 (2007): 71-89. Page 81. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.39.229 ( talk) 22:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Category:Terrorists specifically states that actions taken must be noted by an absence of a state of war to qualify as terrorism, which doesn't seem to apply in this case. Can someone please explain why the term is being used here? - TheMightyQuill 15:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The infobox is confusing. Perhaps something can replace this... I'm not sure what... but this is not a good info box.. The part about the allies and opponents isn't very.. well.. good.. Suggestions? Mikeonatrike ( talk) 20:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The term Taliban has been changed to "Talibanana" in this article. I think that may be a piece of vandalism. Winterstein ( talk) 09:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I know people will accuse me of POV if I add this directly, so I'm asking here. Should this be mentioned: The result of three years of investigation by a leading French intelligence expert and investigative journalist, Forbidden Truth is the untold story of the Clinton and Bush administration's attempts to stabilize Afghanistan so that U.S. energy companies could build a pipeline. In particular, it details the secret and hazardous diplomacy between the Bush administration and the Taliban between February and August 2001 — a story still untold in the U.S. media — talks that ultimately led the US to make threats via Pakistani intermediaries to the Taliban in July 2001 that they were going to bomb Afghanistan if the Taliban didn't comply. This is from: http://www.mapcruzin.com/rev_forbidden_truth.htm Note the books author are well respected journalists (unlike some other books on the subject). Herve661 ( talk) 22:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I can't believe that this is disputed. I agree that the Taliban is a horrible group of people. -- Wassermann 16:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I guess I've just stepped in the middle of something, but I guess I'll just put my two cents in. Firstly, the Taliban seriously abused much more than 50% of the Afghan population; women were not the only subject of their abuse and it is not the sum of their wrongs while in power. Secondly, whether the Taliban are only "famous" for "strict application of Sharia" is irrelevant. You could argue with just as much force that the Nazis are most "famous" for the extermination of the Jews, but no one is suggesting the image that should be included at the top of the Nazi Party article is that of the death camps. Like all other political organisation articles their symbol is used. This is precisely to avoid this kind of pointless, utterly subjective, dispute. I'm going to put the infobox back. Please help me expand and complete it. Thank you. Marshall 17:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Wasserman: You say: "the Taliban is obviously known for MANY things other than their public executions" and I ask: Like what? and i ask this because i am retarded and do not know a thing about the history of the Taliban. IZAK 04:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me ask the men in this thread, and I'm assuming from the way you write that you're all men, to engage in this thought experiment.
Imagine that a group of radicalized women — the SlimVirginban — stages a coup d'etat in England. We take over the government, abolish the independent judiciary, and place our own people (all radical, violent, feminist SlimVirginistas) in positions of power. We decree that from now on, we don't want to see men's skin unless we're married to them. Men are not allowed outside unless covered from head to toe, and if we so much as see one of your bare arms, it's tantamout to a sexual assault. We form a group of gender police, women with sticks and whips, who go around beating men in the street. Men are thrown out of universities, hospitals, and all other institutions, and are replaced by the violent feminists. Men aren't allowed to work, aren't allowed to be educated, aren't allowed to drive, aren't allowed to engage in any of your old habits and hobbies: no golf, no football, no hockey: just stay at home, please, and don't make us see your wicked faces. If any of you turn on us and kill one of the women who are forcing you to stay indoors, you'll be dragged to the local football stadium, and publicly executed in front of your children.
Then please imagine the Wikipedia article about this coup d'etat. Would the lead consist, as this one does, of 238 words about the background of the SlimVirginban, with a lovely big image of our logo, and then, tagged on at the end, 72 words about the abuse of men?
Would the body of the article be 6211 words about the SlimVirginban's history and ideology, with only 152 words about their treatment of men, the rest of it pushed off into a badly written fork?
Please answer honestly, and if the answer is no, explain why this article should be any different. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't really follow what you're saying. The paragraph is:
The Taliban became notorious internationally for their treatment of women,[3] and for human rights abuses in general. Women were forced to wear the burqa in public,[4] and were not allowed to work. They were not allowed to be educated after the age of eight, and until then were permitted only to study the Qur'an; women seeking an education were forced to attend underground schools, where they and their teachers risked execution if caught. They were not allowed to be treated by male doctors unless accompanied by a male chaperone. They faced public flogging for the most trivial violations of the Taliban's laws.[5][6][7] Both men and women were executed in public.
Why do you want to offer an analysis of why they did it? You don't know why they did it, except that we know they are Islamists, but even that doesn't explain it. What does purdah have to do with hacking women's fingers off if they wear nail varnish, and not allowing them to be educated?
We stick to reliable, mainstream sources; we don't offer apologetics. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, I now note that even my grammar and punctuation edits were reverted by you. So the article now, once more, proudly proclaims that "The overwhelmingly majority of Taliban movement..." Even if you don't agree with some of my edits, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, please. Marshall 23:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't get it. Someone posts a request for a third opinion on a thought experiment? In my opinion:
= Axlq 02:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The Taliban did beat women but suprisingly most of the women who were beaten up and publicized were from Kabul. I also feel that there is the assumption that the Taliban are hated in Afghanistan. If the Taliban are hated then why are they as strong as ever since 2001? And why are many Afghans from the Southern, Eastern, and Western part of Afghanistan, supporting the Taliban? It would make more sense to support a more legitimate Karzai government backed by the international community but nevertheless Talbian are gaining support. Yes the Taliban did horrendous things when they were in power but they also did some good things like security, reduction of poppy, crackdown on lawless warlords, and the crackdown on some mafia elements in Afghanistan. I recommend that they be judged by a professional and neutral view. For readings on the Taliban please read "Ghost Wars", "Reaping the Whirlwind", and " The Punishement of Virtue and the Promotion of Vice".* —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seomann ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Come on folks women have been executed by the millions globally for murders that they committed.
Under no circumstances should one person kill another, and if it happens then they must face the law and God. The woman (Zarmina) killed her husband with an axe while he was alseep, that is the most evil thing any person can do. So what if he was abusive, that's a common exuse always used by women who murdered their husband. The fact is that she was a murderer and in every country on earth a murderer faces death, since Afghanistan at the time did not have leathal injection they had to rely on shooting her with a gun. It was not good way to kill murderers but what other option did they have, to let her free? If you don't like death penalty, then avoid murder or treason, it's simple as that. I been beaten by my mother and dad many times in my life and I had never intended to kill my parents, especially not to kill them while they were asleep. Anyway, this was just one incident and it was not happening everyday. If you really have the guts to talk so much negative about the Taliban, I'd like for you to go into southern Afghanistan ( Helmand province) and tell that to their face, otherwise you are a normal coward person with no strength. The Taliban brought justice and the rule of law to Afghanistan, prior to that warlords ruled the country and those warlords committed the worst crimes you can imagine. For get about raping girls, women, boys, the warolrds committed some un-thinkable crimes such as raping helpless old men to make them lose dignity, self-honor and defame them. That was something that always made me cry when I heard and saw old men aged 60s and 70s were purposely raped in revenge attacks against other warlords or people. I am from Afghanistan and I know very well about many things that never cought the attention of any media. It was because of these kinds of evil things happening in the country, the Taliban rose against the warlords.
At the same time, it's true that many of the members of the Taliban were in on it for fun, there were many Pakistanis joining the Taliban and taking advantage of the situation. Those specific Pakistani Taliban (from border areas) were the ones trying to oppress Afghan people. They also had a conspiracy to make Afghanistan become part of Pakistan. Even until today, it is mainly those Taliban still fighting with the Government of Afghanistan and Nato forces. If you don't know about Taliban and the situation in Afghanistan, don't write stuff in this article just to please yourself. You westerners have your own views on the situation while we Afghans have our own views and we know the ground realities, something you westerners don't know yet. By the way, when I say "westerners" I am also including those Afghans who live in the west.-- Birdazi 23:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Just few more things, I am totally against Taliban style rule at the present times. I think the Taliban did their job from 1994 to 2001 and now they should just retire, give up the fight and let the new Afghan government establish their rule and law the in that country, and ofcourse with the help of the international community. I support all those countries helping Afghanistan, including USA, Britian, Canada, Europe, Australia, and others. This should have been done after Soviet forces left the country.-- Birdazi 23:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Continued personal attacks may lead to getting blocked. Be Civil. - Ariana310 20:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Ariana, please have some tolerance and listen to counter-views. A discussion means a discussion of the every aspect of the article. Ok, you are a northern alliance loyalist, but that doesn't mean this encyclopedia is compiled according to your whims. Be polite and accommodate of others's concerns and opinion. If you couldn't, we few Pashtuns reserve the right to appeal directly to the managers and owners of this encyclopedia to have this article edited by some impartial person(s) than Northern Alliance "intellectuals". Fateh
The Shia Hazaras in 1997 or 1998 lined up 2,500 plus Talibans and slaughtered each one on top of the grave of Abdul Ali Mazari. A few Taliban men escaped somehow and reported what they saw to their leaders. Then Taliban went to Mazari Sharif and began killing any Hazara they go their hands on. They also began bombing on fleeing Hazaras, not caring if civilians or not. This is what happens when you start war with someone, they will come back for you. If the Hazaras did not kill the 2,500 Taliban in Mazari Sharif, there was no way for the Taliban to go after them. What were the Hazaras thinking? that they would be spared?-- Birdazi 22:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
How could you possibly generalize such a complex issue as the Hazara-Pashtun relationship? There is a very long history of discrimination and racism against Afghans of Hazara origin, and to suggest that the slaughter at Mazari Sharif was motivated by only one specific event is ignorant of an entire history between the two ethnic groups.
On a side note, what is your historical basis for the event you are describing (executions of Talibans by Hazaras)? I have done some research and found no sufficient documentation to suggest that the event took place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoso45N ( talk • contribs) 17:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't try to keep adding that Taliban were Pashtun movement, they were not because they killed many Pashtuns also. They did not care about ethnicity of people, they only wanted people to follow Sharia law which is an extremely strict system of law that only very few people can cope with. Although it is a good thing but not many people can follow those rules these days. If your intentions are to make Pashtuns look bad or trying to defame or degradeing them, it will not work because Pashtuns are very powerful. The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad is also Pashtun and he is the representative of United States in the United Nations. He is also George Bush's best friend and not to mention that he is the first Muslim in the Bush's administration. Pashtuns are very moderate people and they love mondernization, peace and are very compassionate people. These Taliban were mostly uneducated farmers who joined Taliban movement for the money that they were being paid.-- Birdazi 23:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Umm. About the make-up of the Taliban. It's accepted that it's a largely Pashtun movement surely? That needn't reflect badly on the Pashtun people, but whether it does or doesn't it must be mentioned here. If, as Birdazi's edit summary suggests, there are more Punjabis than Pashtuns in the Taliban now (or indeed that 160 million Pakistanis are in the Taliban...) then that is worth a mention. However, since it's not a particularly widely held opinion it'll need to be referenced. Marshall 01:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Look, I'm not going to get into this because any edit I make is instantly reverted by you. But, to quote Encarta: "The Taliban consisted mostly of Pashtuns intent on once again dominating the central government in Kābul". It was only in the aftermath of the Soviet withdrawal that Afghanistan's government wasn't dominated by Pashtuns. No-one has claimed however that the Taliban is an exclusively Pashtun movement, because as you have taken great pains to point out, there are Taliban who are not Pashtun. Marshall 15:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
As already discussed I didn't know the 3RR applied to different disputes in the same article. So I'd wager I'd reverted double the times I should've before I was warned? Why don't we move on from this, eh? Who's it helping? It's just wasting both our time. Why don't we move all our discussion to the section where I've been discussing content? Marshall 05:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
If Taleban is a Pashtun movement, then by that implication Nazis was also a white supramcist movement and Wikipedia should mention that. But the fact of the matter is, America, the new global "Empire", needed an enemy after the collapse of USSR, to deploy its miltary power strategically in an important region to sustain its global hegemony and it found itself a pretence in form Taleban unfortunately on Pashtun Land?
Also Mr. Marshal if Taleban are Pashtun movement why should not this imply that Ku Ka Klan was a racist movement of white America?
Hope this gives you some food for thought and get you out of this neo-colonialist propaganda mood.July 07, 2007 Fateh
I have included some material and resources as to the fact that US forces and its notorious NA warlord allies also committed crimes and probably more brutal. This would not bring any significant impartiality to this highly biased article for which some more effort is needed but still it is an effort. Hope the authors of this article have the intellectual honesty to tolerate this little modification to the article. FatehM 05:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Their aim was not to establish a state where Pashtunwali would prevail. Rather it was based on the broader Pan-Islamist ideology. That is why there were people from multitude of ethnicities in their movement although Pashtuns were in majority because it all took place in an Afghan context. Neither their movement was Pashtun exclusive. However, if you are still intent to use Wikipedia pages and resources for spreading a specific kind of poltical propaganda, that is another matter, but then you should have the flexibility to listen to counter opinion as well. FatehM 06:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The changes I had made to the article have been purged. It seems Northen Alliance loyalist are in full control of Wikipedia and want to use it to further their hate-addled political agenda. We a group of Pashtuns appeal to the owners and managers of Wikipedia to have the contents of Wikipedia reviewed by academicians and people with some intellecual honesty and integrity. The Wikipedia project that could have been a great source of authentic information and unbiased views has unfortunately been hijacked by few with ulterior motives. Due to this, the image of Wikipedia has become so tarnished that it is now a days being called Wickedpedia. FatehM 05:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, is there any way to contact administrators and owners of Wikipedia. We few Pashtuns want to lodge protest with them for Wikipedia being used for racist propaganda. FatehM 05:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
This news report I came across should help settle the issue. The following is from an Afghani news, explaining that Taliban were not a Pashtun movement, and, that there were non-Pashtun members in the Taliban.
Taliban can't be bracketed with Pashtuns: Analysts
KABUL, Nov 2 (Pajhwok Afghan News): Tribespeople living in the long-neglected region that straddles the Durand Line are the worst-hit by war, political analysts agree. They reason a wrenchingly persistent lack of elemental necessities of life is contributing in no small measure to the rise of militancy in benighted border areas.
In interviews with Pajhwok Afghan News, observers pour scorn on the impression that Taliban have grown out of the tribal politics of the Pashtun community. While vehemently rejecting the insinuation that the escalating insurgency has roots in the backward region, they argue the rebels are not associated with one particular community.
Some Internet-based news organisations recently carried a flurry of reports alleging Pashtun tribal feuds have been the bane of Afghanistan and Taliban a product of the politics of tribalism. Such anti-Pashtun commentaries, according to analysts, are not based on credible research on the factors that fuel the ongoing wave of insecurity in the landlocked country.
Political commentator Wahid Muzhda opines Taliban are not the representatives of a single Afghan faction."Being an ethnic Tajik myself, I have been with the movement for half a decade. They listened to a Chechen national more raptly than the hearing they gave me or a Pashtun for that matter."
Many people from the southern Kandahar province held high positions in the Taliban government, he recalls, but hastens to explain it does not mean they exclusively represent the Pashtuns. "For one, I will never subscribe to the point of view that Taliban can be bracketed with any one Afghan community."
Reminded of the media blitz against the largest ethnic group, Muzhda responds Pashtuns have historically been faced with a phalanx of foes and that situation continues to date. "This propaganda is essentially the handwork of their opponents," the intellectual thinks.
Parliamentarian Kabir Ranjbar, echoing Muzhda's opinion, makes it abundantly clear the insurgents are not born out of the Pashtun politics of tribalism. "Espousing an ideology called fundamentalism, Taliban have links to the al-Qaeda network," he elucidates.
Mullah Omar was stoutly supported by Tajiks, Uzbeks, Chechens, Arabs and extremists from other nations, maintains the legislator. It is loyalists of Uzbek warlord Rashid Dostum and other ethnic rivals brand the militants as devious Pashtuns, the Wolesi Jirga member comments.
"Pashtuns themselves are simultaneously being mowed down by Taliban and bombed by foreign troops. Making matters worse is the hard fact the government is paying little - if any - heed to the reconstruction of the war-devastated belt inhabited by them," continues Ranjbar.
As another Wolesi Jirga member from the eastern Nangarhar province Mir Wais Yaseeni puts it: Pashtuns enormously have played a crucial role in the jihad against Soviet invaders in yesteryear and now they are battling the insurgents, who in no way can be characterised as a purely Pashtun outfit. "Whosoever casts such racist slurs on the Pashtuns are doing a disservice to the country," he remarks.
Security experts charge some elements have a vested interest in fomenting trouble on both sides of the frontier to further their agenda. Advisor at Afghanistan's Regional Studies Centre Abdul Rashid Wazir claims Pakistan's powerful military intelligence agency ISI acted as a midwife to the birth of the student militia.
When routed in Afghanistan, Wazir adds, the rebels streamed into the neighbouring country, where ISI tasked mighty religious groups with reorganising them. "In a contemptible attempt to scuttle the process of empowering the Afghans, the secret agency is lending a boost to the guerrillas." END OF NEWS REPORT
As a result of this news report, I am going to remove the "Pashtun movement" so it only says Muslim movement. You don't have to be Pashtun in order to be Taliban.-- Litrboxr 21:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I am the first person who'll toe the line and say that the Talibans actions were subhuman. My views on islamic opression of women go without saying, as a libertarian the thought that someone is of higher station based on the simple fact they were born with a penis is abhorrent.
However I am writing here to address the numerous people who have been placing up kill-scene / snuff footage and images of executions, et cetera. As I have addressed on a few users talk pages, this is a sketchy area because emotions naturally run high on anything political of this nature. However, we all have to take a step back and evaluate what this medium is, Wikipedia. Who are the people viewing it? Students mostly. Do you think students need to see this? I'm sure you'll say yes, but I'm sure also many will say no. As Wikipedia isn't censored, that's out of the equation.
Thus, what we're dealing with here prima facie is a lack of context, the potential that it could be seen as advertising or agenda pushing and thus bringing into question the POV status of the entire article. Further, images must have a purposive construct, that being to bring forth a further meaning to something which is not clearly explainable through text. Text is, for the most part, an appropriate means and thusfar the article reads very well in this regards of depicting the brutality of the taliban regime.
So, I ask you all, please refrain from re-adding material that is removed by other editors for any of the above reasons. If you can narrow the scope, remove the advertising, remove the external link aspect to political agenda related websites, et cetera, please re add them if you see fit. Otherwise they're not suitable for the article.
I hope this clarifies things. Jachin 21:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone wishing to improve this article's NPOV might look to Khmer Rouge for ideas. WAS 4.250 06:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
While reading the section on the taliban resurgence I came across this interesting sentence:
" It is believed that the successes of the Taliban in 2006 have laid the foundation for a major uprising in 2007 under the leadership of Mullah Dadullah"
What successes is this refering to? Though they have managed to kill scores of civilians and some ANA and ISAF soldiers, if you weigh that against their reported losses and their inability to drive out western forces, I honnestly don't see much to boast about. Furthemore ISAF has been mounting operations all winter to deny the Taliban time to recover and mount a major spring offensive(time will tell if that has worked)
Daft, may 15th 2007, 15:10
(moved from SV and Marshall talk pages) ==Plagiarism== OK, well I just copied and pasted that from the Encarta article to prove a point. Which you would have understood if you'd actually bothered reading what I'd written. Marshall 05:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Please don't add plagiarism or copyright violations to Wikipedia again, whether to make a point or for any other reason. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Virginia Slim, I moved criticism and explanation back to the end of the section, as I thought it made sense to first describe the ideology before explaining what it was criticized for and why some thought it turned out the way it did. -- Leroy65X 16:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a supporter of the Taliban but I don't think we really need three pictures of execution. This is not an article on methods of executions. The Taliban were not the ones who invented the death penalty, nor were they the only ones to perform it on women. The Soviet Union or Kim Jong Il of Korea, did the same and more (see gulag). There are no execution pictures in the Soviet Union article and I don't think it's a shortcoming. Aminullah 17:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that all of the pictures of executions in this article and are entirely inappropriate; they are, in fact, nothing more than propaganda and are clearly not NPOV. Because of this these gruesome pictures should be removed entirely in favor of more neutral pictures. -- Wassermann 19:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Especially from the the time of their government. -- HanzoHattori 21:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone find a reference for the "decree ordering non-muslims to wear distinctive yellow patches" as stated in the last paragraph of the first section of "Internation Relations"? I was there in July 2001 as a tourist. I'm not a muslim and i didn't have to wear any patch. I didn't hide not being a muslim (my beard was obviously too short but I was dressed as a local) and this was the case for the several ngo workers I spoke to there, all over the country. I even met a sikh family living in Jalalabad, also without patch. -- bluuurgh 15:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the depth of information relayed to the general audience in this article, but I believe that it can become much more user-friendly. In other words, a brief overview of the Taliban and it's history in the beginning would do far more good than to outrightly go into descriptive detail about the specific ethnicities of historic Taliban leaders and whatnot. An initial clear and concise summary would do a lot of good. I hope this is an agreeable proposition to all. Thanks.
Mueller921 23:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Some images are being removed on various grounds,
Looking at the idea of advertising, copyright and attribution. Some images are released for use and they will have the copyright holder embedded in the image. Wikipedia allows for a variety of licenses, one of which refers to "Attribution". Acknowledging copyright or attribution is not advertising. Advertising is promoting a product or site and driving traffic with the intent of selling products. Rawa.org isn't clearly selling products and isn't a brand any would recognise (compare the NASA logos on cabinets in the image in
Supercomputer, The Coke Cola logo clearly on the bottle in
Cola etc etc. I would say that pictures with commercial products would be made available to Wikipedia if the brand was clearly displayed - this is "advertising" - maintaining brand awareness so that when you hit a drinks cabinet you specifically ask for 'x'. With rawa.org then I guess when you get oppressed or abused you ask for "a rawa.org" rather than say "Amnesty International" ? Nope advertising claim really tenuous.
On the subject of shock value - well clearly
Wikipedia isn't censored. Rawa.org isn't a "shock site", though what they address is shocking. Because you don't like it isn't grounds for deletion. Anyone reasonable (
The man on the Clapham omnibus is a UK law concept I would use) would expect to not find
a story about a little elf on a page on the Taliban. The images are not over-the-top but topical and few.
You're going to have to try harder censoring these two images on those grounds.
Ttiotsw
16:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Tiotsw for kicking this off again, it gives me an opportunity to further illustrate a few points that some editors seem not to understand. The issue of the photos has been rehashed multiple times, the consensus seems to be held by the majority of editors bar for one or two that the images do not add to the article, are not required, lower the quality of the article, advertise a URL, present a political POV by advertising afforementioned URL, and further cause confliction in editing.
I believe that this editor has hit the nail on the head. There does however seem to be a few POV pushers, or the odd random who doesn't quite understand what's going on. Unfortunately, one of the apparent POV pushers is an administrator. Either way, I've spent more time cleaning this and related articles up than I have most other articles I tend to trawl through on a day to day basis and am pretty much at the point of giving up because my fuel is to keep Wiki academic, which doesn't compete well with the zealous antics of people who want to keep Wiki their soap box. Having no vested interest in a for or against POV tends to lead to a bit of apathy in that regards.
Thus, I believe it's time one of us throw this to arbitration and get some formal declaration on the subject, because I seriously can't be arsed explaining what's going on to every random who comes along and clearly doesn't read the talk page. :) Jachin 03:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
"You're going to have to try harder censoring these two images on those grounds." <-- censoring? Riiiight... also see --> [5]. There's no rule that you can add anything you want to this encyclopedia and removal of anything to improve quality of articles is a 'heinous crime and violation of the Universal declaration of Human rights' . UK law doesn't apply here - I don't care. thestick 16:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It appears our friends of sleight of hand have again readded the images that everyone has reasonably stated detract from the article, advertise some political organisation, and just generally are not neccesary. I propose that we attempt to vote for a consensus on this, or failing that go to arbitration with the two users who seem to feel it neccesary to re-add these images regardless of the prior consensus (per head count of respondents and their views) reached. Jachin 05:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure this is old news, but I just read this book, which was about life in Afghanistan under the Taliban, told through the eyes of an immigrant to he U.S. It was incredible. I haven't read such clear and sensitive writing in years. It described the political situation (as well as the horrors) in everyday language and in such easy-to-read terms. Highly receommended. BlueSapphires 15:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed the POV adjective "legendary" from the description of Ahmad Shah Massoud. Whether or not he is "legendary", there is no citation for this and this article is not about Ahmad Shah Massoud. It is about the Taliban. -- Bejnar 19:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
On 29 July an IP editor, 210.4.69.4, added the onesource Template stating "Most of the claims and statements are being referenced from Rashid's "Taliban" book. All these claims may not be verified, neither can their authenticity." It is true that Rashid's book is cited for a great deal of the material (approximately 45%). However, the three items that I checked, notes 33, 36, & 37 (decision making before 1996, the definition of zakat, the criticism of the title of Amir al-Mu'minin), were all verifiable from other sources. The article does have 85 footnotes to other sources, leaving the 50 or so citations to Rashid's Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. While there may be items in Rashid's book that are not so easily verified, I agree with the author, from the Univ. of Wisconsin, of the 2002 book review:
On the above basis, I have removed the onesource Template. I do agree that other, prehaps more recent, materials should be consulted for any highly controversial claims. But if IP editor 210.4.69.4 or any other editor has questions about any specific item, they should raise them here. This is, after all, the discussion page for the article. -- Bejnar 21:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
탈레반은 죽어라.
On 14 August 2007 Beh-nam placed this article within the scope of the Fascism project. Question: Can a religious-based authoritarian state be classified as fascist? Normally they are classified as theocracies, but that doesn't prevent them from also being fascist does it? I note that until the edits by Beh-nam the Taliban had not been mentioned in the project discussion page. The essence, some would say, of a fascist state is that not only are individual liberties restrained for the good of the state, but that industry and business are co-opted and cooerced to align themselves with the good of the state, or, more briefly, that the "state" is the ultimate good. When the ultimate good is a religion and not the state can it still be called fascist? -- Bejnar 18:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Come on give your resources? How and when did they massacre 10000 people in Mazar Sharif? Even propaganda is done with bit of decency. FatehM 06:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I can do the google search and find more sources to the contrary. But as long as this article is compiled by the political opponents/enemies of Pashtuns or Taleban with their ethnocenteric views injected into it, its authenticity would be dubious. Herein comes the greatest failure of Wikipedia. Any person with any motives can put any thing into it. This article doesn't take into account the peculier circumstances in which Taleban emerged; it rather is a plain, straight, one sided description of events aimed at demonization and overloaded with huge generalization. Such articles should be compiled by those with academic intentions. FatehM 06:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there some reputable source for classification of political ideology that lists the Taliban as fascist? I can definitely see some similarities with fascist regimes but one thing the Taliban is lacking is clear nationalism. Islamism is not nationalism and the Taliban doesn't appear to be a nationalist or ethnic movement. At any rate, I would take this as somewhat disruptive on Behnam's part unless there is really a consensus among political scientists that this should be called fascism. I'm sure there is a volume of advocacy journalism that applies the label fascism but that isn't political science. I would rather focus on aspects of Islamism that are factual like their treatment of women. Add the Taliban and Islamism articles to the sexism project for example - who could argue with that? -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 06:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The Taliban received valuable training, supplies and arms from the Pakistani government, particularly the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and many recruits from Madrasahs for Afghan refugees in Pakistan, primarily ones established by the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam JUI.
Obviously, a citation is needed here. How do I know if this is true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.137.193 ( talk) 11:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Gen. Hameed Gul was the one of the key people in organizing Taliban. he was ISI head at the time the Taliban were being organized. he has recived many gifts and visits from Taliban leaders. he has the biggest collection of liscened guns in Pakistan by any one person and he claims to have recived it from Taliban leaders as gifts. He staed in one of his interviews that Pakistani nation faught the soviet nation on the afghan front. he himself as head of ISI supported Afghans in Their Jihad as much as he could —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taqi Laghari ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I have read the article and a bit of discussion about the Taliban and their goverment, miltary Tactics and and their burtality and treatment to women.
I then read THOUGHT EXPERIMENT SlimVirgin in which she said
aren't allowed to engage in any of your old habits and hobbies: no golf, no football, no hockey:
This gave me a thought that can people living thousands of miles away from the place and events they are discussing really apperciate the ground realties of these events and places?
They are discussing about a place where golf, hockey ,football are just a thought having a 24 hour electric supply is the concern of really well off people. to understand the Taliban point of view about everything they are hated for takes more than just a net search, book reading and some media coverage. To understand the feelings, thoughts, and the system one has to observe closely all the aspects of the system. living in modern and developed countries we can not even imagine life with out electricpower, temprature control applicnes, and other such facilites but the people in Afghanistan have and are living without these things they are very different than people living in modern and developed countries.-- Taqi Laghari 23:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Ahen the soviet army left Afghanistan, the united army of mujhaidin (which at that time included nortern alliaince and Taliban though the groups were not seperated at the time) or simply mujhaidin were strived to be the next ruler of Afghanistan the northern Alliaince even bein richer and more powerful than Taliban lost the country to Taliban. Why? Because the people of Aghanistan hepled and supported Taliban ( Almost everybody who is anybody knows the Taliban ideology in Afghanistan and they knew it then as well, it is deeply rooted in the Afghan and Pkistani system) knowing the ideology the Taliban were purposing.
The Taliban are repotted to be brutal specially to women but a Lady jounralist from Britin goes to Afghansitan hidding cameras and taking pictures and is caught and when she returns she accpects the 'strict' ISLAM the Taliban were supporting and 'imposing'.How were Talibans able to put such a good show for western women in middle of war that they converted her thoughts on the same path as theirs?
To fight wars soldiers are needed and to fight a war more than 15 years long a very big number of soliders is needed. how come such a burtal, strict, savages such as Talibans find such a big ammount of soliders to fight a 15 year long war and that too against the super and atomic powers. And to fight a war with force much larger, stornger, better equiped an army needs motivation good enough to give life for.That motivation can not be created by fear. How come Taliban were able to get men in first place to fight war against the forces of entire world? surely not by fear.-- Taqi Laghari 23:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Mullah bob is listed as a leader of this organization. I don't know who mullah bob is, but something tells me that he doesn't exist. Bob isn't an Islamic name is it? I don't know how to edit this page, so if someone else can look into this bob guy and edit this page, awesome. It will help our government, who is probably right now in the midst of a multi-billion dollar search effort to find mullah bob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.213.195.153 ( talk) 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Is Iraq an opponent of the Taliban? I didn't know they had the time and resources to contront the Taliban while dealing with their own insurgency? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manxruler ( talk • contribs) 23:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Many people claim that the Taliban came from Pakistan.That is true but they also originate from Afghanistan because they are of Pashtun blood.So it's not a blame game it's about how can we resolve this problem.Who are the Taliban? Are they people who fight in the name of Islam or are they hypocrtical puppets of the Illuminati and their plan for world domination?
,Pakk4life Oct.22/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakk4life ( talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The following is from news report from Afghanistan, explaining that Taliban were not a Pashtun movement as something anti-Pashtun people are telling others.
Taliban can't be bracketed with Pashtuns: Analysts
KABUL, Nov 2 (Pajhwok Afghan News): Tribespeople living in the long-neglected region that straddles the Durand Line are the worst-hit by war, political analysts agree. They reason a wrenchingly persistent lack of elemental necessities of life is contributing in no small measure to the rise of militancy in benighted border areas.
In interviews with Pajhwok Afghan News, observers pour scorn on the impression that Taliban have grown out of the tribal politics of the Pashtun community. While vehemently rejecting the insinuation that the escalating insurgency has roots in the backward region, they argue the rebels are not associated with one particular community.
Some Internet-based news organisations recently carried a flurry of reports alleging Pashtun tribal feuds have been the bane of Afghanistan and Taliban a product of the politics of tribalism. Such anti-Pashtun commentaries, according to analysts, are not based on credible research on the factors that fuel the ongoing wave of insecurity in the landlocked country.
Political commentator Wahid Muzhda opines Taliban are not the representatives of a single Afghan faction. "Being an ethnic Tajik myself, I have been with the movement for half a decade. They listened to a Chechen national more raptly than the hearing they gave me or a Pashtun for that matter."
Many people from the southern Kandahar province held high positions in the Taliban government, he recalls, but hastens to explain it does not mean they exclusively represent the Pashtuns. "For one, I will never subscribe to the point of view that Taliban can be bracketed with any one Afghan community."
Reminded of the media blitz against the largest ethnic group, Muzhda responds Pashtuns have historically been faced with a phalanx of foes and that situation continues to date. "This propaganda is essentially the handwork of their opponents," the intellectual thinks.
Parliamentarian Kabir Ranjbar, echoing Muzhda's opinion, makes it abundantly clear the insurgents are not born out of the Pashtun politics of tribalism. "Espousing an ideology called fundamentalism, Taliban have links to the al-Qaeda network," he elucidates.
Mullah Omar was stoutly supported by Tajiks, Uzbeks, Chechens, Arabs and extremists from other nations, maintains the legislator. It is loyalists of Uzbek warlord Rashid Dostum and other ethnic rivals brand the militants as devious Pashtuns, the Wolesi Jirga member comments.
"Pashtuns themselves are simultaneously being mowed down by Taliban and bombed by foreign troops. Making matters worse is the hard fact the government is paying little - if any - heed to the reconstruction of the war-devastated belt inhabited by them," continues Ranjbar.
As another Wolesi Jirga member from the eastern Nangarhar province Mir Wais Yaseeni puts it: Pashtuns enormously have played a crucial role in the jihad against Soviet invaders in yesteryear and now they are battling the insurgents, who in no way can be characterised as a purely Pashtun outfit. "Whosoever casts such racist slurs on the Pashtuns are doing a disservice to the country," he remarks.
Security experts charge some elements have a vested interest in fomenting trouble on both sides of the frontier to further their agenda. Advisor at Afghanistan's Regional Studies Centre Abdul Rashid Wazir claims Pakistan's powerful military intelligence agency ISI acted as a midwife to the birth of the student militia.
When routed in Afghanistan, Wazir adds, the rebels streamed into the neighbouring country, where ISI tasked mighty religious groups with reorganising them. "In a contemptible attempt to scuttle the process of empowering the Afghans, the secret agency is lending a boost to the guerrillas." END OF NEWS REPORT
As a result of this news report, I am going to remove the "Pashtun movement" so it only says Muslim movement. You don't have to be Pashtun in order to be Taliban.-- Litrboxr 21:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to add a citation, but that figure is used in the following peer reviewed article: Johnson, Thomas H., and M. Chris Mason. “Understanding the Taliban Insurgency in Afghanistan.” Orbis 51, no. 1 (2007): 71-89. Page 81. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.39.229 ( talk) 22:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Category:Terrorists specifically states that actions taken must be noted by an absence of a state of war to qualify as terrorism, which doesn't seem to apply in this case. Can someone please explain why the term is being used here? - TheMightyQuill 15:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The infobox is confusing. Perhaps something can replace this... I'm not sure what... but this is not a good info box.. The part about the allies and opponents isn't very.. well.. good.. Suggestions? Mikeonatrike ( talk) 20:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The term Taliban has been changed to "Talibanana" in this article. I think that may be a piece of vandalism. Winterstein ( talk) 09:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I know people will accuse me of POV if I add this directly, so I'm asking here. Should this be mentioned: The result of three years of investigation by a leading French intelligence expert and investigative journalist, Forbidden Truth is the untold story of the Clinton and Bush administration's attempts to stabilize Afghanistan so that U.S. energy companies could build a pipeline. In particular, it details the secret and hazardous diplomacy between the Bush administration and the Taliban between February and August 2001 — a story still untold in the U.S. media — talks that ultimately led the US to make threats via Pakistani intermediaries to the Taliban in July 2001 that they were going to bomb Afghanistan if the Taliban didn't comply. This is from: http://www.mapcruzin.com/rev_forbidden_truth.htm Note the books author are well respected journalists (unlike some other books on the subject). Herve661 ( talk) 22:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)