Talk:Lashkar-e-Toiba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lashkar-e-Toiba article.
Article policies
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Language

This article had Persian script at some point, and later it was replaced with the current Urdu script. Why not have them both? --tyomitch 18:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

LET is a terrorist organization. It has been added to the US list of 
terror organizations

definitions as per Merriam-Webster:

terorist -

  1. the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

[[Lashkar has links to al-qaeda and its global network.they also supply kashmiri and pakistan based men to conduct attacks in iraq and US.Many of its sympathisers are hiding in europe and US.]]

LET is a TERROR organization, not a militant organization.--IMpbt 17:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) to army of the pure, it had been changed by someone to a derogatory word in Hindi- fkh8

[edit] Self proclaimed experts on LeT

There are individuals portraying themselves as LeT observers and claim to be neutral. Ironically the neutralism has more to do with removing words ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorists’ in the description of LeT.

This self proclaimed observer needs a scrutiny and his/her role-connections within jihadi terrorism network. Some connections will be easily exposed debunking all the neutrality nonsense.

[edit] Using Terrorist

Calling it a terrorist organization is a fairly large POV. Remember the quote, "One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter" ? Now going into that quote would start quite a flame, so I offer a compromise. How about in these articles Wikipedia says something like "ABC is a group that is fighting for revolutionary purposes." <-- Note that the stuff following "is" would be the organizations definition or mission statement for themselves. Then, afterwards, Wikipedia would say "The United States Government labels ABC as a top ten terrorist group. Blah blah blah".
This way, its not as blatant a POV. Remember, it goes both ways. One's man freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. For example, many people believe the United States or Russia may be terrorist states (regarding their large killing of innocents, wars, etc). It doens't matter if YOU actually think their actions are justified, not meant, innocent etc., but if you disagree with the statement about the USA and Russia, then you can understand that labeling someone a terrorist is definetly a big POV.
What do you think?
Theuedimaster 23:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


I agree that when the article writes that the Collin Powell claimed it the status of a terrrorist group....it may on the surface seem as though the group belongs in the definition. However, Collin Powell alone should not be the one to define terms...wikipedia is not the property of the Republican party of America. The groups tactics, however, are pretty close to labeling them as such. Your point on "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is well taken....would George Washington be a terrorist in modern times?....It is best to leave it as "this so-called terrorist group". Atleast this is as I feel.

Terrorism as a fact

It is true that using a clever and sophisticated language even the most heinous crime against humanity can be portrayed correct and justified. This is the strategy seems to be adopted by many fundamentalist jihadi individuals starting debates about use of correct terms while describing terrorism in today’s world. This is the most unfortunate reality of open forums. Indeed sometime in future these jihadis will even justify acts of killing of innocent people by using arguments that sound plausible.

There can not be any other description of organisation such as Al-Queda and Laskar-e-Toiba than Terrorists. To term their actions as just ‘militancy’ is in real sense itself an act of terrorism and unjustified fundamentalism.

       Richard

'The word Terrorism is appropriate'

The main argument against using the word "terrorist" to describe the LeT seems to be this: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Consider this: A man murders another. We cant say here that one man's murderer is another man's saviour. A murder is a murder. A terrorist act is a terrorist act. The fact is that terrorists KILL. They kill INNOCENTS. That should fit the definition of terrorism reasonably. The LeT therefore, should be called a terrorist organisation.

Some have said "Shouldnt the US also be called terrorists because they too are responsible for killing innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq then?" The US cannot be called a terrorist state because of two crucial differences:

1. Unlike terrorist organisations like the LeT, the US does not bomb primarily to create terror and panic among the civilian population.
2. Unlike terrorist organisation like the LeT, the US does not AIM its attacks on civilians. The attacks are aimed at military personnel though they end up killing civilians, unfortunately.
3. The US when it attacks makes no secret of its intentions. Its intentions are clearly mentioned before any attack takes place. However, terrorists always attack from behind. They take us by surprise.
4. The US doesnt fly planes into buildings! :)

- Anonymous 18:04 Indian Standard Time, 4th Oct. 2006.

Indeed! Nor does the US behead journalists on television, or operate madrassas that teach hate before the alphabet.Given LeT's tactics and methodology it is entirely appropriate to call them terrorist. There is no partisan bias here as the Ku Klux Klan, the Stern Gang, the Jewish Defense League and other non-muslim orgs are also listed as terrorists for their use of terror tactics.Hkelkar 12:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recruitment

"Almost all LT members are Pakistanis from madrassas across Pakistan or Afghan veterans of the Afghan wars." http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/lt.htm. LeT terrorist do not have any support base in the Kashmir Valley. The cadres generally terrorise the localites into submission to provide them with food, shelter and even women.

[edit] alleged involvement

LeT has claimed responsibility of some of these terrorist acts. Why still say "India accuses......." for other incidents?

Because as you said "some" of these acts. India has accused them for several things, infact if it were possible, it would probably blame the group for a lot of its problems. Regardless, there need to be sources for definite acts by the group. Btw, there is also a source needed for the "pamphlet" material that you added otherwise those sentences will be removed. I will leave the material as it is for now, but unless a source is provided, it is objectionable. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 02:20, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Changed the meaning of Lashkar-e-Toiba to army of the pure, it had been changed by someone to a derogatory word in Hindi- fkh8

[edit] Vandalism?

i dont understand how my actions and adding statements that are truthful with references(GlobalSecurity.org), which is used by many of you users, is vandalism. Furthermore, I don't understand the necessity to call this vandalism, when Wikipedia is after-all opensource, meaning people should be able to add information which is correct and honest, unlike the actions you guys are doing in thinking it is okay to correct and undermine everyone else's infromation for you're own! Please do reply. P.S- The first time I added this information my info. was deleted because it did not have proper links, but this time I added links and now whats the problem?

  • Since no one has replied to you yet, and I have been also deleting your comments. First of all, you do need references for something you put in an article. Second, you are stating you own opinion, something that is not either encyclopedic nor neutral. You obviosuly don't have neutral point of view. I am talking about comments you added on the article Muzaffarabad. this is what you wrote there:
    • ==Indian Territory==

This land always has belonged to the Indians, and we will not give it up to some Pakistanis who claim for self-pride. the underdevelopment of this area, is clearly seen in the 2005 earthquake, as no damage or limited damage was done in Indian Kashmir, while thousands died in POK controlled Kashmir. If this land was developed by the rightful land owners(Indians) nothing horrible or inhumane would happen to the residents!

  • This is considered vanadlism. I deleted it the first time you put it. YOu put it again, and I deleted it again today.

Svetlana Miljkovic 01:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Me?

sorry but i consider what you guys do vandalism, in trying to control the writings and facts of everything, especially something that i am being very neutral on(Lashkar...). I have stopped putting it one, only to find that someone else has updated my writing with sources of not myself but government agencies and international intelligence agencies. obviously with more tha one source it shows that my writing is not only my belief but the belief of many people, including the American government. After this, I let go and left my work to be deleted by you guys only to find that someone else, probably across the world had updated my article information and changed it completely using my information. Today when checking i see that LABCOAT has blamed this on me too. Does he or she(LABCOAT) not realize the difference in IP addresses? that he has to blame that on me too! Please do not take this offensive, but adding knowledge that many nationalities and people share shows tha tit the belief of many people and that this info. is okay. As for my writing on Muzaffarabad, i agree i was being vandalisitic.

[edit] Urdu

I changed Persian to Urdu and corrected the script. The -e- particle is called an izafat and represented by the diacritical dash under the re. Valiant effort though, easy mistake to make. The 't' in taiyyib(ah) should in my opinion preferably have two dots under it in normalized Urdu transliteration. However; I don't know of a unicode character for this. A tashdid can be added as well, but I didn't feel it necessary. Khirad 00:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistani Involvement

Can someone please reference the claims of Pakistani involvement in this group. Especially in regards to official involvement (such as the claim that leading Pakistani officials have visited the groups HQ) these claims need to be either evidenced or withdrawn. لقمانLuqman 12:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why not to leave this article to specialists?

I really wonder why so many Indians who know only what government news agencies serve them feel so authorised to write about the issues of the country they have never seen and have very faint idea about. The issue of jihadi organisations in Pakistan, as with lot of things concerning South Asia, is a very complex one, and it would be better for all Wikipedia users to leave its edition to real specialists - political scientists and researchers. Imagine an article on Vishwa Hindu Parishad or Shiv Sena edited by an average Pakistani who reads only daily "Jang"! It would correspond to the level of your comments. Don't feel offended please. Kacper 20:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply:

It is unbelievable to see someone here 'Why not to leave this article to specialists' is justifying acts of terrorism or taking a sympathetic stand towards LeT and distracting attention by spilling-out buzz words about Indian media, politics etc. To whomsoever wrote above discussion, it seems your knowledge about India, Pakistan is extremely shallow and is based on few books you have read while back-packing in this region. Please do not comment on such deep and intense topics you do not understand well. Such comments and attitude have in fact fuelled and encouraged terrorism in South Asia and subsequently caused wide loss of life and economic destruction of this region.

I believe you are most likely a post-graduate student in UK/EU trying to make a living by becoming an expert on terrorism in South Asia. Please leave it to South Asians. Inteference, soft stand and political support (sometimes unintentional) within Europe has caused already an havoc in India and Pakistand and have destroyed many lives. - Indra

Reply by: Kacper

Acts of terrorism can never be justified, I think we agree as to this. Your comments on backpacking are childish at the best and rude at the worst. Your argument going "you are wrong because you are perhaps a backpacker" is also not really academic - argumentum ad personam has been despised of ever since the ancient Greeks. But I don't assume you have ever studied logics or philosophy. Pity.

As to the point, I oppose two things: (1) Attributing all terrorist acts in India whatsoever to LeT, even before they are investigated - as you have done. (2) Language full of "dreadful Islamic terrorists ruthlessly murdering innocent women and children". Quote only facts, and not media-facts!!! Before writing anything in Wikipedia, please please read the Neutral Point of View Policy, especially the section on Bias. Your language does not conform to Wikipedia standards - ultimately if not me then someone else will edit out your comments.

Kacper 20:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Kacper by Richard I have never come across so much sympathy for LeT by anyone. It is astonishing that you are using nice and clever words to justify your stand towards terrorism. It is indeed a sad fact such attitude towards terrorism has fuelled it to an extent we see it as a part of daily life today. By your philosophical arguments you are making lives of many people difficult since your views are seen as encouraging by many terrorist organisations. Finally as an outsider of South Asia, frankly you have no moral right to justify the terror activities in India by LeT as right or wrong.

The study of logic and philosohpy you are mentioning sadly you have no idea what you are talking about. There is absolutely no connection of it to this topic of discussion. So let's not use some art studies to justify anything here.

I feel sorry to see fairly educated individuals like you indirectly supporting terrorism under the name of balanced views and other specious arguments. - Richard

I cant believe you (Kacper) can insult Indians like this. LeT is like Al-qaida, the poeple kill innoncent civilians. Also they have no justification fro any of their activities except for pure hatred. I have to concur with the IP address, don't talk about LeT in a positive manner unless you can prove they're some angelic freedom-fighting group. As for NPOV, the facts are biased so the article reflects the facts. Bakaman Bakatalk 16:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply by: Kacper

Dear Richard,

This is an encyclopedia. Please now prove - and reference - the following statements of yours:

"LeT is like Al-qaida", and what it precisely means in your opinion.
"such attitude towards terrorism has fuelled it" (By "such attitude" you mean any attempts to understand the phenomenon of jihad, jihadi organisations, holy wars, Kashmir issue, etc.?);
"[to] kill innocent civilians" always consitutes an act of terrorism;
that I want to prove "they're some angelic freedom-fighting group".

Before you start answering, please read the debate at the start of this page - particularly concerning the word "terrorism". Don't edit anything there please.

Requested for Mediation on this article.

Kacper 18:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply by: Kaaccper

(This is a fake letter, please read "watch out" below.)

To Indians,

I apologise for supporting or being sympathetic to LeT even though it has been involved in killing of civilians and waging a war against a democratic country. I am well aware that LeT has a support from military undemocratic regime, still my love of jihadi brotherhood keeps me appealing to support LeT. I am ready to close my eyes towards their activities and want to keep using my meaningless arguments in their support.

I spent some years in Pakistan and currently my living expenses and tuition fees in UK are paid by certain elements of terrorist organisations. Hence I continue to spread their propaganda on internet. My knowledge of India and Pakistan is most based on anecdotal interviews and talks I initiated with few locals while travelling this land as a backpacker. Nobody really gave me any importance while I was there. This great country which has a civilisation of more than 5000 years old is beyond my understanding or capability of my intelligence. Hence I continue to look at it through my narrow judgement based on my high school level education which only contained Roman civilisation centric teachings and total vindication of all other cultures in the world.

I choose to ignore the facts that Pakistan is only 60 years old and in fact it is a historical aberration on this great land called Bharat with a history that is many thousand years old. My lack of knowledge is due to mainly my limited Eurocentric upbringing which is hinged on the notions of racial superiority over the people in Africa, South America, China and India.

I am sorry for indirectly supporting terrorism. My apologies if LeT like organisations feel inspired by my actions/support and resort to more killings of many more civilians.

Honestly, I have no respect for human life and civilian decency. For me what matters most is my ego, my academic views and my survival which depends on my becoming a self-proclaimed observer on terrorism. This is a hot topic today and all I want to do is cash in.


[edit] Please watch out

Someone has created an nick "Kaaccper" which resembles mine, and is posting under this profile in this discussion. My own profile has also been copied to the new, false one (including my copyrighted image).

Please kindly watch out the editor's nick. The Wikipedia administration has been already notified about the falsification. Thanks.

Computers are used by everyone. Also by idiots. Unfortunately.

Kacper 16:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Words to Avoid: Terrorist

According to WP:WTA Terrorist, the description "terrorist" shouldn't be used. However, factually stating they are considered a terrorist organization by the US, for example, is acceptable. Addhoc 17:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal request

There has been a Mediation Cabal request filed in regards to this article, and I anticipate having to use the talk page here shortly to help in sorting matters out. Would anyone be opposed to creating an archive of this page so we can start with a fresh slate? CQJ 18:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. Addhoc 18:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there still an issue with this article requiring mediation? Both the requesting editor and the disputing editor have been contacted to no avail. CQJ 16:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly not, the edit history of the last week has been fairly quiet.[1] Addhoc 16:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


Sorry, did not have access to the Internet last week. The issue continues - shall I resubmit the request? Kacper 14:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving a comment on CQJ's user page. Apologies for my comment, I obviously didn't know. Addhoc 14:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagged Sentences

I'll start deleting the tagged sentences tomorrow, unless references are found. The BBC reference appears to be fairly comprehensive and so I'll see if that can't be used before deleting anything. Addhoc 14:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

By "tagged sentences" do you mean the ones you added the {fact} tag to yesterday? Er, um, do you really think it is collegial and cooperative to give other contributors just 24 hours notice? Particularly on a long weekend?
I don't have a dog in this fight. I already documented my own brief contribution to this article. I have sometimes given warnings like yours. But I think I almost always give people at least a week. And I don't think give them a deadline at all, unless the authors of the unreferenced -- or to my perception at least -- biased sections have shown hints of a lack of cooperation. But YMMV. -- Geo Swan 19:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll separate the exercises of looking to see what the BBC article could be used to verify and deleting the unsupported information. The only sentence that I consider really should be deleted tomorrow relates to the London bombing, which certainly isn't a majority view. The rest can wait until after the weekend. Addhoc 19:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, possibly ignore my comment. If mediation is about to restart, then clearly I shouldn't make any significant changes that could trigger an edit war. Addhoc 21:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I have tagged the article for cleanup and source identification. Please make the appropriate changes as soon as possible. CQJ 18:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New BBC Story

An LeT member convicted in France. [2] Thinking of adding this. Hypnosadist 16:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Spelling

Can we please change the title of this article to its real name; Lashkar-e-Taiba.

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.193.4 (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)