![]() | 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 |
Anyone who reverts the restoration I did on October 30, 2005 will be blocked for 24 hours. I'm tired of the vandalism and undiscussed reverts. I took the time to restore the info-you can take the time to growup. freestylefrappe 23:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
This article is not based on facts. There is a need to balance this article.
Here is an example:
"Religious fundamentalism has also believed to have played some role in contributing to the rise of terrorist activity. The 7 July 2005 London bombings was carried out by people who are believed to have visited a Pakistani madrassa at some time in their life"
These terrorists were born and bread in UK. They might have visited Pakistan for few months. But, was it going to change their thinking altogether? What is the percentage of few months say in 28 years?
Are you accusing Pakistan for training these terrorists?
Maakhter 04:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Huh duh, they were extremist from the start, but terrorists only when they got training.-- 59.177.17.193 18:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Would anyone oppose merging List of terrorist incidents in Pakistan into this article? KazakhPol 22:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I support such a move. It would cater to the well being of this plagued article. Razzsic 05:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It is understandable P.O.V when the writer is getting his/her information from childish anti-Pakistan articles on http://www.khurmi.com/danger.htm or alike.
I would encourage him/her to look out for sane information sources to balance the article out rather than depending on Indian propped-up propaganda sources. Ofcource they are not going to tell you the background of Kashmiri Separatists movement in their interest. They are never going to accept that India supported insurgency in Bangladesh(East-Pakistan) untill 1971, and later invaded with a four times larger force than Pakistan's to detach it.
So, Pakistan becomes a terrorist nation IF independent west-Pakistanis 'tats' for 'tits'. And Pakistan gets accused of hosting terrorism when she has banned such organizations outright and froze all their financial assets as soon as Pakistan found concrete evidence for their involvement in cross boarder activities. I didn't know that giving a moral support to freedom fighters is also considered terrorism. That way, 3/4 of the world should be considered terrorists too when they sympathize with Palestinians.
Obviously, Kashmiri freedom fighters are terrorists for India who resist 700,000 Indian Army occupation of their land, and oppression of Kashmiris under the lame excuse of insurgency from Pakistan. Just think for a second about the large number of military presence in Kashmir, which is not larger than state of New Jersey. Do you think that they need to keep such a huge military presence in that small area when people are willing to live happily with India? They are never going to tell you that India is disregarding Kashmiri's right to decide their fate for last 60 years, and U.N resolutions that calls for plebiscite for Kashmiris. And what excuse they have for that? Oh, because so called insurgents have killed or made Kashmiri 'Hindus & Sikhs' run away from Kashmir in large percentage in order to make Kashmir a 100% Muslim majority state. Well, if they have not re-invented their history, the neutral historians testifies that Kashmir has been a Muslim majority state by 9:1 or more, even before 1947 division of British India. Less than 10% of Kashmiri 'Hindus & Sikhs' didn't prefer the life under the gun point and didn't want to be part of 'collateral damage' of Indian forces as Kashmiri Muslims does, therefore, those 'Hindus & Sikhs' that moved out of Kashmir voluntarily has been a stagnant stand point for India for not upholding the U.N resolutions. Where's Kashmiris fault in there? Why Kashmiris should suffer being Muslims having their Monarch Sikh ruler signing Kashmir's annexation with India in 1948 when according to "Two-nation theory", which implemented separation of Muslim majority lands from British India to Pakistan in 1947, Kashmir was suppose to be Pakistan's part.
Neutral international arbitrators know that Kashmir was supposed to be with Pakistan regardless of their Sikh Monarch's annexation with India. 1947 comes before 1948. Therefore, Maharaja should have showed compliance to division of British India as other princely Indian states did. Indians are not going to deny that State of Hyderabad ruled by The Nizams, Muslim rulers, was dissolved into present state of Karnatica, Andhra Pardesh, and Maharashtra by force when they announced their decision to remain independent from Indian rule. This is called plain hypocricy. The fact of the matter is, India doesn't give a damn to "Two-nation theory" and has not fully accepted Pakistan as a separate sovereign state right from the beginning and has tried to even annex Pakistan back into India by force in 1965. Some don't even shy calling Pakistan as India's 'Atoot Ang'- Broken wing - of India; disregarding Pakistan's claim on Kashmir. India's policies have been very aggressive against Pakistan being the 7 times bigger force untill 1998 Pakistan's nuclear tests, which helped toned down Indians.
So, article should be labeled biased as I don't see it bringing up the reality upfront without putting all the numbers in the equations.
Please do Pakistanis a favor and hang a little 'non-neutrality' sign on this article untill it is corrected. mbutt01@guelphhumber.ca --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.137.145.74 ( talk) 16:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
This article is showing totally wrong information.Infact, the reality is that UK is involved in all this processes. In short this is done by command of UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.66.238 ( talk) 12:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful piece of research which is well-written.
Is it possible for the author/researcher to find out the costs involved in suicide bombing. Heard C-4 explosive is avilable in the international market for 15 British pounds per kg; add to this the amount paid on "training" the suicide bomber and other logistics involved in moving the bomber to the target and you get a rough estimate.
Calculate the total number of suicide bombing and get the cost of the operation. I bet it is going to be so big that our poor Dadullahs category extremists cannot afford on their own.
Read somewhere tons of RDX/C-4 explosive is missing from US military stores in Iraq. Any clues?
Timegetta ( talk) 18:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I have went through many articles, but this won simply tells us that Pakistan is killer. Wikipedia has surely lowered its standard or it is listening to anti-Pakistan elements. Either this page be removed or it should be made neutral.
Also, I want to have a complete list of terrorist attack in pakistan
Spasage
(talk) 08:34, 27 September 2010
I have attempted to sumarize and de-POV the lead adding the the old lead to the causes section. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 23:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
A good informative article. It has provided insight of Terrorists groups in Pakistan. After attack on Indian city Mumbai, US govt. has identified few more terrorists groups in Pakistan. A terrorist group called Jama'at-ud-Da'wah, involved in India-Mumbai attack is not included in this article.
San25872 ( talk) 13:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Instead of beating it in the comment space I welcome all talk here. The intro words for the paragraph were composed based on a couple of Pakistani authors who were less biased than anon editor is. Also I dont see why all intro articles should be cut and copies from an existing one. The original intro for this article was just used as a placeholder. The current one talks both on diversity and the real underlying issues backed with statistics. The presentation for each articles differs considerably because two nations are not essentially the same. In
Terrorism in India, the format is to present it on a state basis whereas in Pakistan the ground reality is different (which someone not in subcontinent wouldn't know). Thus the way the article develops too is different. People can't be like horses with
blinders. If anon user does revert this again, I'll have to go for arbitration where his brand of POV without any backed up sources will be cut short.
Note to anon:Please READ the sources before jumping up and down. Your comments too showed that even after me changing the words to "state sponsored terrorism" from "state terrorism" you were still crying in your comments calling others as kids. Don't ignore the log in your eye before pointing the speck in others' eyes. Idleguy 05:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Time and time again, Idleguy's limited ability to understand the simplest of reasons and the simplest of wikipedia policy has proved that he is interested only to put anti-Pakistan bias into every article possible. What's even funnier are his threats for arbitration, which I see as a futile attempt to get back at me for my initial warning that I will request arbitration if he continues to revert edits, which he has done several times more than me and without any compromise. A simple read of the edit history over the past few days will prove this. Here are several actions he has undertaken within the last few days that prove his ability to act neutral is non-existent:
Idleguy, isn't only like this on this article, but also other articles where he sees India as a "magnificent rich cultured country that never harmed anyone in it's history" and Pakistan as the "evil occupiers who kill Indians". He sees kashmiri separatists as "terrorists" and claims that they are "Indians" only when they are not resisting the Indian occupation. He prefers blaming the victims for all the deaths. Unfortunately his POV has drifted over to this article too. Hopefully he will now read wikipedia policy, admit his mistakes and start improving the article in a constructive way. I am glad to see that a couple of new editors are also editing the article now. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Razzsic has made a lot of major changes, much of it an improvement, but I think the lead is now too long. IMHO it needs more summary less detail.
I propose a shortening the text in the lead on the killing of non-combatants before Islamisation (the partition of India and the independence of bangladesh) into one paragraph and then having a short section on those eras before the Causes section. Maybe called History. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 22:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
"RAW is commited to destroy pakistan completelty by propagating against Pakistan. RAW is sponsing various terrorist groups in pakistan for a robust terrorsim inside pakistan. RAW carried out several suicide attacks inside pakistan with the help of so-called Jehadi groups like Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) headed by the Baitullah Mehsud. Pakistan has collected all evidences against RAW involvement in terrorists attacks on official installation. Soon Pakistan will take action against those all."
If the above quotes in articles doesn't look like a rant..then what is. There is absolutely no basis or citations from any (reliable or unreliable) sources to state that Indian Intelligence is behind Tehreek-e-Taliban. The author of this article is evidently a pakistani "patriot", but he/she could have mention it as an allegation by Pakistan Government rather than an absolute universal truth. So I am deleting that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.42.27 ( talk) 08:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes Pakistanis seem to react overly sensitively to accusations that their govt. tacitly or actively supports terrorism.However there is enough truth in the fact that Pakistan is a terrorist state and only half heartedly fights terrorism under duress and US pressure while actively keeping the sanctuaries and training camps of terror alive in various parts of Pakistan.-- User:Vikramjits (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Please give me reference/reason/criteria of fist sentence "While Pakistan has a long history of exporting terrorism, terrorism within Pakistan is a more recent phenomenon". I am removing/replacing this sentence.-- User:Spasage (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Terrorism in Pakistan/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This article although of being of high importance, is very badly written. Also, it is missing a lot of important data. It needs a lot of work, which I have also hinted in the Wikiproject Pakistan. Razzsic 05:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC) The article is very timely, useful and informative. However it should be better organized, more thorough, and with a better writing style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.59.116 ( talk) 20:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 20:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, just because our dear benevolent leader has promised us that he is fighting terrorism by bombing a country we are not at war with doesn't mean we have to adhere to that standard on a website that should maintain neutrality. When the U.S bombs Pakistan it is an act of terrorism no matter what way you look at it. Terrorism in the doctrinal sense means things you do to us not things we do to you. In its real neutral definition terrorism is an act of violence committed by anyone, whether its the United States or Al Qaeda, it's still terrorism! PlasticJesus341 ( talk) 19:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The statement "Terrorism in the doctrinal sense means things you do to us not things we do to you" is incorrect. From Terrorism: "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)." You can debate whether specific U.S. bombings that killed Pakistani civilians were intended to create fear for a political goal or whether they were botched attempts to kill militants, but you cannot change the meaning of a word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.28.16 ( talk) 21:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I think wikipedia should point http://faithfreedom.org to moslems so that all moslems can leave islam for the peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.19.46 ( talk) 05:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, moon god cult of pagan arabia has affected pakistan which is the core reason why pakistan faces troubles. Be a proud murtad rather than a moon god cult member. Faithfreedom.org helps muslims to leave the cult much easier.In moon god cult, muslim versus kafir always goes through the mind of "pious" musulman, he fails to understand that he IS brainwashed under this cult. Leave islam. Embrace Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism or New age religion to make Pakistan a better place. Enough of target killings.- a murtad pashtun 68.32.3,4.29 ( talk) 09:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Smsarmad, Osama bin Laden was found and killed in Pakistan and the Govt. of Pakistan has done a deal with the Taliban to allow them to impose the Sharia in NWFP and FATA regions. I have inserted those sentences with the proper citations, so why have you removed them? Please justify or else I will revert your edit.
Do you have sources that say that the Pak government recognising so-called Sharia Law is relevant to terrorism? If you do not, then including it in this article is original research.
I suspect that what people are really talking about is Pashtunwali rather than Sharia Law. Though I accept that Western and Indian journalists often refer to it as Sharia Law (even though it is often clear from descriptions of crimes that it is really Pashtunwali - for example there was a case reported by British media where a Pashtun [Pathan] couple who had eloped were shot - eloping is a crime in Pashtunwali that carries the death penalty). If it really is Sharia Law rather than Pashtunwali, then this is interesting. Sharia Law is in some ways more liberal and pro-feminist than Pashtunwali.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 20:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Terror buster or should I say Khabboos, do you mind coming to the talk page instead if edit warring? AcidSnow ( talk) 18:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
I reverted this diff due to a large claim with only one source. I'm not sure that the source is reliable but I feel like this change in the wording violates both WP:NPOV and WP:OR, possibly WP:RS. Thoughts on this edit?
-- Dane2007 talk 06:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
So for some reason, an edit to the article to depict the conditions as in 2017 was reverted because the cited references of compiled data of terror incidents in 2017 did not satisfy one editor who said "We need more conclusive evidence on that before you remove content. discuss on talk page". So what kind of more conclusive data do we need other than the compiled data itself? I mean the stats do speak for themselves. Just to be clear, the edit was not about long term impacts of the recent operations by the Pakistani military(Other than the reversion of the word has from had, which I am okay with), it was about the immediate impact which is visible beyond a doubt in a sharp decline in terror attacks, number of fatalities etc. What does pass for being more "Conclusive" than this?
Snowded, I propose:-
On July 2, 2013 in Lahore, 50 Muslim scholars of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) issued a collective fatwa against suicide bombings, the killing of innocent people, bomb attacks, and targeted killings declaring them as Haraam or forbidden. [1] Others have also issued fatwas declaring that terrorism is kufr under Islamic law. [2] [3] [4]
References
- Karumari ( talk) 19:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I could find this online, "The US has conveyed to Pakistan that it wants Islamabad to cooperate fully in the war against terrorism as it is a matter of "extraordinary importance" to America, President Donald Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton has said.
During his visit to Islamabad last week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had pressed the new Pakistani government led by Prime Minister Imran Khan "to do more" to rein in terror groups operating from the country's soil. The Trump administration has recently cancelled USD 300 million in military aid to Islamabad after it failed to take actions against terror groups. It was done knowing well that Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state, and the risk that the government could fall into the hands of terrorists that would get control of those nuclear weapons was particularly serious," Bolton said. Early this year, Trump had ordered suspension of all military aid to Pakistan arguing that it has failed to take satisfactory actions against terrorist groups." from here.— Karumari ( talk) 09:20, 20 November 2018 (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 |
Anyone who reverts the restoration I did on October 30, 2005 will be blocked for 24 hours. I'm tired of the vandalism and undiscussed reverts. I took the time to restore the info-you can take the time to growup. freestylefrappe 23:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
This article is not based on facts. There is a need to balance this article.
Here is an example:
"Religious fundamentalism has also believed to have played some role in contributing to the rise of terrorist activity. The 7 July 2005 London bombings was carried out by people who are believed to have visited a Pakistani madrassa at some time in their life"
These terrorists were born and bread in UK. They might have visited Pakistan for few months. But, was it going to change their thinking altogether? What is the percentage of few months say in 28 years?
Are you accusing Pakistan for training these terrorists?
Maakhter 04:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Huh duh, they were extremist from the start, but terrorists only when they got training.-- 59.177.17.193 18:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Would anyone oppose merging List of terrorist incidents in Pakistan into this article? KazakhPol 22:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I support such a move. It would cater to the well being of this plagued article. Razzsic 05:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It is understandable P.O.V when the writer is getting his/her information from childish anti-Pakistan articles on http://www.khurmi.com/danger.htm or alike.
I would encourage him/her to look out for sane information sources to balance the article out rather than depending on Indian propped-up propaganda sources. Ofcource they are not going to tell you the background of Kashmiri Separatists movement in their interest. They are never going to accept that India supported insurgency in Bangladesh(East-Pakistan) untill 1971, and later invaded with a four times larger force than Pakistan's to detach it.
So, Pakistan becomes a terrorist nation IF independent west-Pakistanis 'tats' for 'tits'. And Pakistan gets accused of hosting terrorism when she has banned such organizations outright and froze all their financial assets as soon as Pakistan found concrete evidence for their involvement in cross boarder activities. I didn't know that giving a moral support to freedom fighters is also considered terrorism. That way, 3/4 of the world should be considered terrorists too when they sympathize with Palestinians.
Obviously, Kashmiri freedom fighters are terrorists for India who resist 700,000 Indian Army occupation of their land, and oppression of Kashmiris under the lame excuse of insurgency from Pakistan. Just think for a second about the large number of military presence in Kashmir, which is not larger than state of New Jersey. Do you think that they need to keep such a huge military presence in that small area when people are willing to live happily with India? They are never going to tell you that India is disregarding Kashmiri's right to decide their fate for last 60 years, and U.N resolutions that calls for plebiscite for Kashmiris. And what excuse they have for that? Oh, because so called insurgents have killed or made Kashmiri 'Hindus & Sikhs' run away from Kashmir in large percentage in order to make Kashmir a 100% Muslim majority state. Well, if they have not re-invented their history, the neutral historians testifies that Kashmir has been a Muslim majority state by 9:1 or more, even before 1947 division of British India. Less than 10% of Kashmiri 'Hindus & Sikhs' didn't prefer the life under the gun point and didn't want to be part of 'collateral damage' of Indian forces as Kashmiri Muslims does, therefore, those 'Hindus & Sikhs' that moved out of Kashmir voluntarily has been a stagnant stand point for India for not upholding the U.N resolutions. Where's Kashmiris fault in there? Why Kashmiris should suffer being Muslims having their Monarch Sikh ruler signing Kashmir's annexation with India in 1948 when according to "Two-nation theory", which implemented separation of Muslim majority lands from British India to Pakistan in 1947, Kashmir was suppose to be Pakistan's part.
Neutral international arbitrators know that Kashmir was supposed to be with Pakistan regardless of their Sikh Monarch's annexation with India. 1947 comes before 1948. Therefore, Maharaja should have showed compliance to division of British India as other princely Indian states did. Indians are not going to deny that State of Hyderabad ruled by The Nizams, Muslim rulers, was dissolved into present state of Karnatica, Andhra Pardesh, and Maharashtra by force when they announced their decision to remain independent from Indian rule. This is called plain hypocricy. The fact of the matter is, India doesn't give a damn to "Two-nation theory" and has not fully accepted Pakistan as a separate sovereign state right from the beginning and has tried to even annex Pakistan back into India by force in 1965. Some don't even shy calling Pakistan as India's 'Atoot Ang'- Broken wing - of India; disregarding Pakistan's claim on Kashmir. India's policies have been very aggressive against Pakistan being the 7 times bigger force untill 1998 Pakistan's nuclear tests, which helped toned down Indians.
So, article should be labeled biased as I don't see it bringing up the reality upfront without putting all the numbers in the equations.
Please do Pakistanis a favor and hang a little 'non-neutrality' sign on this article untill it is corrected. mbutt01@guelphhumber.ca --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.137.145.74 ( talk) 16:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
This article is showing totally wrong information.Infact, the reality is that UK is involved in all this processes. In short this is done by command of UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.66.238 ( talk) 12:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful piece of research which is well-written.
Is it possible for the author/researcher to find out the costs involved in suicide bombing. Heard C-4 explosive is avilable in the international market for 15 British pounds per kg; add to this the amount paid on "training" the suicide bomber and other logistics involved in moving the bomber to the target and you get a rough estimate.
Calculate the total number of suicide bombing and get the cost of the operation. I bet it is going to be so big that our poor Dadullahs category extremists cannot afford on their own.
Read somewhere tons of RDX/C-4 explosive is missing from US military stores in Iraq. Any clues?
Timegetta ( talk) 18:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I have went through many articles, but this won simply tells us that Pakistan is killer. Wikipedia has surely lowered its standard or it is listening to anti-Pakistan elements. Either this page be removed or it should be made neutral.
Also, I want to have a complete list of terrorist attack in pakistan
Spasage
(talk) 08:34, 27 September 2010
I have attempted to sumarize and de-POV the lead adding the the old lead to the causes section. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 23:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
A good informative article. It has provided insight of Terrorists groups in Pakistan. After attack on Indian city Mumbai, US govt. has identified few more terrorists groups in Pakistan. A terrorist group called Jama'at-ud-Da'wah, involved in India-Mumbai attack is not included in this article.
San25872 ( talk) 13:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Instead of beating it in the comment space I welcome all talk here. The intro words for the paragraph were composed based on a couple of Pakistani authors who were less biased than anon editor is. Also I dont see why all intro articles should be cut and copies from an existing one. The original intro for this article was just used as a placeholder. The current one talks both on diversity and the real underlying issues backed with statistics. The presentation for each articles differs considerably because two nations are not essentially the same. In
Terrorism in India, the format is to present it on a state basis whereas in Pakistan the ground reality is different (which someone not in subcontinent wouldn't know). Thus the way the article develops too is different. People can't be like horses with
blinders. If anon user does revert this again, I'll have to go for arbitration where his brand of POV without any backed up sources will be cut short.
Note to anon:Please READ the sources before jumping up and down. Your comments too showed that even after me changing the words to "state sponsored terrorism" from "state terrorism" you were still crying in your comments calling others as kids. Don't ignore the log in your eye before pointing the speck in others' eyes. Idleguy 05:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Time and time again, Idleguy's limited ability to understand the simplest of reasons and the simplest of wikipedia policy has proved that he is interested only to put anti-Pakistan bias into every article possible. What's even funnier are his threats for arbitration, which I see as a futile attempt to get back at me for my initial warning that I will request arbitration if he continues to revert edits, which he has done several times more than me and without any compromise. A simple read of the edit history over the past few days will prove this. Here are several actions he has undertaken within the last few days that prove his ability to act neutral is non-existent:
Idleguy, isn't only like this on this article, but also other articles where he sees India as a "magnificent rich cultured country that never harmed anyone in it's history" and Pakistan as the "evil occupiers who kill Indians". He sees kashmiri separatists as "terrorists" and claims that they are "Indians" only when they are not resisting the Indian occupation. He prefers blaming the victims for all the deaths. Unfortunately his POV has drifted over to this article too. Hopefully he will now read wikipedia policy, admit his mistakes and start improving the article in a constructive way. I am glad to see that a couple of new editors are also editing the article now. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Razzsic has made a lot of major changes, much of it an improvement, but I think the lead is now too long. IMHO it needs more summary less detail.
I propose a shortening the text in the lead on the killing of non-combatants before Islamisation (the partition of India and the independence of bangladesh) into one paragraph and then having a short section on those eras before the Causes section. Maybe called History. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 22:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
"RAW is commited to destroy pakistan completelty by propagating against Pakistan. RAW is sponsing various terrorist groups in pakistan for a robust terrorsim inside pakistan. RAW carried out several suicide attacks inside pakistan with the help of so-called Jehadi groups like Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) headed by the Baitullah Mehsud. Pakistan has collected all evidences against RAW involvement in terrorists attacks on official installation. Soon Pakistan will take action against those all."
If the above quotes in articles doesn't look like a rant..then what is. There is absolutely no basis or citations from any (reliable or unreliable) sources to state that Indian Intelligence is behind Tehreek-e-Taliban. The author of this article is evidently a pakistani "patriot", but he/she could have mention it as an allegation by Pakistan Government rather than an absolute universal truth. So I am deleting that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.42.27 ( talk) 08:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes Pakistanis seem to react overly sensitively to accusations that their govt. tacitly or actively supports terrorism.However there is enough truth in the fact that Pakistan is a terrorist state and only half heartedly fights terrorism under duress and US pressure while actively keeping the sanctuaries and training camps of terror alive in various parts of Pakistan.-- User:Vikramjits (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Please give me reference/reason/criteria of fist sentence "While Pakistan has a long history of exporting terrorism, terrorism within Pakistan is a more recent phenomenon". I am removing/replacing this sentence.-- User:Spasage (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Terrorism in Pakistan/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This article although of being of high importance, is very badly written. Also, it is missing a lot of important data. It needs a lot of work, which I have also hinted in the Wikiproject Pakistan. Razzsic 05:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC) The article is very timely, useful and informative. However it should be better organized, more thorough, and with a better writing style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.59.116 ( talk) 20:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 20:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, just because our dear benevolent leader has promised us that he is fighting terrorism by bombing a country we are not at war with doesn't mean we have to adhere to that standard on a website that should maintain neutrality. When the U.S bombs Pakistan it is an act of terrorism no matter what way you look at it. Terrorism in the doctrinal sense means things you do to us not things we do to you. In its real neutral definition terrorism is an act of violence committed by anyone, whether its the United States or Al Qaeda, it's still terrorism! PlasticJesus341 ( talk) 19:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The statement "Terrorism in the doctrinal sense means things you do to us not things we do to you" is incorrect. From Terrorism: "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)." You can debate whether specific U.S. bombings that killed Pakistani civilians were intended to create fear for a political goal or whether they were botched attempts to kill militants, but you cannot change the meaning of a word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.28.16 ( talk) 21:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I think wikipedia should point http://faithfreedom.org to moslems so that all moslems can leave islam for the peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.19.46 ( talk) 05:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, moon god cult of pagan arabia has affected pakistan which is the core reason why pakistan faces troubles. Be a proud murtad rather than a moon god cult member. Faithfreedom.org helps muslims to leave the cult much easier.In moon god cult, muslim versus kafir always goes through the mind of "pious" musulman, he fails to understand that he IS brainwashed under this cult. Leave islam. Embrace Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism or New age religion to make Pakistan a better place. Enough of target killings.- a murtad pashtun 68.32.3,4.29 ( talk) 09:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Smsarmad, Osama bin Laden was found and killed in Pakistan and the Govt. of Pakistan has done a deal with the Taliban to allow them to impose the Sharia in NWFP and FATA regions. I have inserted those sentences with the proper citations, so why have you removed them? Please justify or else I will revert your edit.
Do you have sources that say that the Pak government recognising so-called Sharia Law is relevant to terrorism? If you do not, then including it in this article is original research.
I suspect that what people are really talking about is Pashtunwali rather than Sharia Law. Though I accept that Western and Indian journalists often refer to it as Sharia Law (even though it is often clear from descriptions of crimes that it is really Pashtunwali - for example there was a case reported by British media where a Pashtun [Pathan] couple who had eloped were shot - eloping is a crime in Pashtunwali that carries the death penalty). If it really is Sharia Law rather than Pashtunwali, then this is interesting. Sharia Law is in some ways more liberal and pro-feminist than Pashtunwali.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 20:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Terror buster or should I say Khabboos, do you mind coming to the talk page instead if edit warring? AcidSnow ( talk) 18:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
I reverted this diff due to a large claim with only one source. I'm not sure that the source is reliable but I feel like this change in the wording violates both WP:NPOV and WP:OR, possibly WP:RS. Thoughts on this edit?
-- Dane2007 talk 06:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
So for some reason, an edit to the article to depict the conditions as in 2017 was reverted because the cited references of compiled data of terror incidents in 2017 did not satisfy one editor who said "We need more conclusive evidence on that before you remove content. discuss on talk page". So what kind of more conclusive data do we need other than the compiled data itself? I mean the stats do speak for themselves. Just to be clear, the edit was not about long term impacts of the recent operations by the Pakistani military(Other than the reversion of the word has from had, which I am okay with), it was about the immediate impact which is visible beyond a doubt in a sharp decline in terror attacks, number of fatalities etc. What does pass for being more "Conclusive" than this?
Snowded, I propose:-
On July 2, 2013 in Lahore, 50 Muslim scholars of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) issued a collective fatwa against suicide bombings, the killing of innocent people, bomb attacks, and targeted killings declaring them as Haraam or forbidden. [1] Others have also issued fatwas declaring that terrorism is kufr under Islamic law. [2] [3] [4]
References
- Karumari ( talk) 19:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I could find this online, "The US has conveyed to Pakistan that it wants Islamabad to cooperate fully in the war against terrorism as it is a matter of "extraordinary importance" to America, President Donald Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton has said.
During his visit to Islamabad last week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had pressed the new Pakistani government led by Prime Minister Imran Khan "to do more" to rein in terror groups operating from the country's soil. The Trump administration has recently cancelled USD 300 million in military aid to Islamabad after it failed to take actions against terror groups. It was done knowing well that Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state, and the risk that the government could fall into the hands of terrorists that would get control of those nuclear weapons was particularly serious," Bolton said. Early this year, Trump had ordered suspension of all military aid to Pakistan arguing that it has failed to take satisfactory actions against terrorist groups." from here.— Karumari ( talk) 09:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)