Talk:Taliban/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Taliban/Archive 3 article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Archives

Archive 1, Archive 2

Contents 1 Removal of the POV lead pic of a public execution 2 Thought experiment 2.1 Third opinion 3 Execution of a murderer 4 So much hate 5 About Pashtuns 6 NPOV: RAWA advertising 7 Comparison 8 Taliban "successes of 2006"? 9 Plagiarism 10 Reorganizing the ideology section 11 Too much execution pictures! 12 Okay, can one list some LEADERS please? 13 Citation for yellow patches 14 Reorganization please! 15 Advertising and censorship. 16 The Kite Runner 17 Ahmad Shah Massoud 18 One source 19 Fascist ? 20 Citation needed 21 Ground Reality 22 just a Thought for us 23 Mullah bob 24 Iraq? 25 Taliban orgins 26 Citation for 12, 000 figure 27 Terrorism? 28 Infobox 29 Vandalism 30 Oil pipeline through Afghanistan

[edit] Removal of the POV lead pic of a public execution

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)

I'm not sure that I agree. What is the Taliban famous for except strict application of Sharia? What else did it accomplish in its time in power? Why is picturing an execution propagandistic? Aren't you assuming viewers will think it a bad thing? Taliban thought it a good thing.

NPOV need not mean brushing unpleasantness under the carpet. --Leroy65X 18:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Question for Wasserman: Why the zeal in defending the practices of the Taliban? IZAK 09:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE lay off the slander IZAK, as it's getting quite old...did you not read what I wrote above? If not, I will quote myself: "...I of course agree that the Taliban is a horrible group of people,..." All I'm saying that it is entirely inappropriate and ridiculous to have a video/pic of an execution at the TOP of an article about a group, ANY group. Like I said above, do we put a pic of Nazis executing Jews at the top of the Nazi Germany article, even though they are well known for that? Or a pic of the Soviets executing capitalists at the top of the USSR article? The pic I am trying to remove would certainly belong at the top of the Public execution article, but the Taliban is obviously known for MANY things other than their public executions. Allowing this pic to remain AT THE TOP OF THE ARTICLE is about as POV as one could get...it's laughable, really. I have no objections whatsoever to having this pic in the Taliban treatment of women article, but in this general article about the group it is not appropriate. I don't like to take the position of defending an article about a bad group such as the Taliban, but in the interests of NPOV it seems that I am forced to. --Wassermann 11:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way....why is there no infobox for this article? The insertion of an infobox will solve this problem in a jiffy. --Wassermann 11:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wassermann, the Taliban seriously abused 50 percent of the population it ruled over. They weren't allowed outdoors unless covered, they could be attacked in the street for showing any flesh, they could have their fingers hacked off for wearing nail polish, they weren't allowed to work, they weren't allowed to be educated, they couldn't get medical treatment without a male chaperon, a house with a woman in it had to keep its curtains drawn. This goes beyond even the abuse meted out to black South Africans by the Apartheid regime in South Africa. And yet look at this article. The lead mentions the treatment of women in the last paragraph en passant, and only because I added it. The article itself devotes almost no space to it, preferring to hive it off into a POV fork. If you look at the History of South Africa in the apartheid era, the entire lead is devoted to how black people were treated, even though other things were, of course, happening in South Africa at that time. But that was its major blight, and so we focus on it, and rightly so. The treatment of women under the Taliban regime was its major blight.

Therefore, I suggest that we either rewrite the entire lead to make sure the issue of women is the focus of it, or we at least include an image in the lead that immediately gives readers the flavor of the regime. But to do neither would be historical revisionism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, 11 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)

Yes, you've stepped in the middle of something, decided you are right, and that it's wrong of me to edit war, but it's fine when you do it.

Women were the only people who were abused because of what they were inherently and unchangeably. The treatment of women is the only thing the Taliban were known for internationally until their support for Osama bin Laden came to the forefront after 9/11. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear; it is wrong for you to edit war, as it would be for me to do so, but the criticism I made in my edit summary was of you reverting all my edits, not just the one relevant change. Homosexuals were also abused because of what they were inherently and unchangeably, and those of other religious denominations are pretty committed to their faith, and were abused for it. The Taliban were not only known for their treatment of women before 9/11; their destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan made international news, as did their banning of music. However once again my point is not to unilaterally decide which they were more famous for, only to point out that making any attempt to do so would be a fool's errand; their symbol is something that takes the choice out of our hands and therefore has the benefit of being somewhat more nonpartisan and disinterested in its implications. I hope this clarifies my position. Thank you. Marshall 19:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that men were abused because they were gay, rather than because they engaged in homosexual acts. I'm not excusing the abuse, mind you, so don't misunderstand me. My point is that women were abused no matter what they did. No education if you're a woman, no matter how you behave. No other group was treated that way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's wrong for you to edit war, why did you restore the logo and remove the image? The logo is not non-partisan and disinterested, particularly when it's disputed, obviously. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:06, 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)

[edit] Thought experiment

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)

Hello? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, didn't see this. And, in short, if the roles were reversed, I wouldn't object to the article. You object to there being 72 words in the lead about the abuse of women. But that's a third of the lead, would you want more? If you object to the amount of information about the Taliban's treatment of women in this article, then feel free to expand the section, while maintaining the majority of the content in the article of its own that it so rightly deserves. I hope this helps you see my point of view. Marshall 19:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Marshall, I'm asking you to be very honest here. If an all-female regime had started to treat men like that in the U.S. or the UK, or anywhere in Europe, you are honestly telling me that you'd support a Wikipedia article about that regime that only briefly mentioned what it did to men in passing at the end of the lead? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The Taliban's treatment of women was grotesque, appalling and comprehensive enough that it warrants an article of its own examining it in detail, in addition to its more succinct examination here. I don't believe however that it was somehow the single defining feature of the regime after which all others should be relegated. I'm not opposed to, and never objected to, expanding the discussion of the Taliban's treatment of women in this article and indeed in the lead, as long as this is done appropriately and it doesn't become the main focus of the article. Cheers. Marshall 01:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You say you're not opposed to expanding the discussion of the treatment of women in the lead, and I'm glad to hear it, but you are the one who removed the image and later reverted to a version with very little text about women in the lead. Also, we go with the views of reliable sources, not our own opinions. For the overwhelming majority of published sources, the Taliban's treatment of women was very definitely the single defining feature; it was the only reason most people had heard of the Taliban before 9/11. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway... I want to have more detail about the treatment of women in the lead. My objection is the way it's written at the moment, not how much is written. It reads just like a list of things the Taliban banned women from doing, but there doesn't seem to be a logical rationale for what should be included in the intro and what should be later in the article. For example, forcing women to wear the burqa was the symbol for many of the Taliban regime worldwide. Yet that is said in a couple of words and then loads of space is taken up explaining that the Taliban punished people harshly if they disobeyed their edicts about the education for women. The harshness of the Taliban's punishments is an issue all of its own and distracts from the point you're making. If a mention was made of purdah when talking about the burqa then you could create a synthesis that dealt with the veiling and segregation of women, including their banning from work, and therefore could cover the closing of girls schools and abandoning of orphanages. Rather than a list of nasty things the Taliban did to women, which could become endless, the intro should, in my opinion, aim to at least mention why they were mistreating women and then use this as a springboard to cover the issue in a more logical way. I hope this makes sense and you can maybe see where I'm coming from more now. p.s. Is there still a problem with the photo being where it is? Marshall 16:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts? Marshall 22:20, 14 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)

Brilliant, you've managed to garner absolutely nothing from what I wrote. I'm really trying to improve the article here, yet you're steadfastly clinging to your version of the article and are making no attempt to compromise. Where did I say I wanted to offer "apologetics"? I said I wanted the article to offer some kind of analysis, rather than just a list. If you had any interest in improving the quality of the article you could find mainstream sources in seconds to describe how the Taliban's insistance on purdah led to the burqa, how it meant they were banned from work and how that led to the closing of girls schools and orphanages. That's what I mean by synthesis; by just mentioning purdah, the narrative makes more sense. It becomes a reasoned piece of prose rather than just a list. Marshall 22:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Then find a reliable, mainstream source that gives an analysis. As you're the one who wants it, why do I have to be the one to find it?

As for compromise, I've conceded your removal of the image. I've conceded your removal of the dab link to the other article. I've given it to your insistence that the paragraph refer to human rights abuses in general, and not just women You in the meantime have violated 3RR more than once, even after being warned, and have reverted pretty much anything that any other editor has done, until I said I was reporting it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. You only accepted the infobox because everyone else did. I didn't remove the image.

I've had enough of your revisionism. You have no idea why I decided to accept the infobox, and you did remove the image several times, just as you reverted many times. I've had enough of you to be frank. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realise you had a problem with any dab link, but looking at the article I notice the template, which is all I was bothered with changing is gone. The paragraph was rewritten by you to essentially return it to your version with the addition of the words 'human rights', once. I stopped reverting after being warned with the exception of undoing the blanking of the assertion that the Taliban are mostly Pashtun, an assertion that I referenced and is the consensus. And if you'd checked that reference you would also find this text:

"The Taliban strongly enforced the ancient custom of purdah, the veiling and seclusion of women from men. Women were ordered to cover themselves from head to toe in burkas (long, tentlike veils). Girls’ schools were closed, and women were forbidden to work outside their homes. As a result, hospitals lost almost all their staffs and children in orphanages were abandoned. In a country where hundreds of thousands of men had been killed in warfare, widows found themselves unable to work to provide basic necessities for their families.

"The Taliban religious police enforced the new rules and punished anyone found disobeying. They inflicted many of the punishments on the spot, usually ruthlessly, without offering the offender any sort of judicial hearing. The Taliban allowed public beatings and stonings, sometimes fatal, of women who violated the dress code or were escorted by men not related to them. Any person found not praying at the required times was imprisoned. The Taliban leaders also mandated specific punishments for other types of crimes. They made murder, adultery, and drug dealing punishable by death, and theft punishable by amputation of the hand. Many of the Taliban laws and punishments alarmed human-rights groups and provoked worldwide condemnation."

Which I think sums it all up quite well. Don't you? Marshall 23:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You're making it up as you go along. Find me a reliable source showing that a woman was publicly beaten or stoned, perhaps fatally, for being escorted by a man not related to her. Show me a source that someone was imprisoned for not praying at the right time. And that children in orphanages were abandoned. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Show me the diff. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

I don't get it. Someone posts a request for a third opinion on a thought experiment? In my opinion:

• This thought experiment serves no useful purpose that I can fathom, especially now that it has degraded into bickering.
• The proposed "SlimVirginban" is built around a single aspect. The Taliban isn't so one-dimensional. Therefore, the analogy isn't valid.
• The word count concerning the Taliban's treatment of women isn't indicative of a non-neutral point of view. There is more to the Taliban than that one aspect, and the ratio described by SlimVirgin seems appropriate.
• I don't know about the validity of citing another encyclopedia as a source, although for the purpose of this conversation it does make a valid point.
• Both of you need to back off and edit something else. Which it seems you have done, based on looking at the edit history.

=Axlq 02:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I wonder if any one of you have been to Afghanistan and know what the culture is like there. Most of Afghanistan follows the traditional ways clothing styles and such. Kabul is the only exception to the Afghan custom. If you have only been to Kabul than you don't know Afghanistan.

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)

[edit] Execution of a murderer

Come on folks women have been executed by the millions globally for murders that they committed.

Perhaps what makes the photo significant and signifies something unique about the Taliban is that the woman was executed before a huge crowd. Most Westerners may think the execution terrible and you make think it completely justified, but the reason the photo is in the article is because it's significant. Few if any other regimes executed offenders in football stadiums before an audience of thousands. --Leroy65X 19:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition to which, it was a football stadium that was paid for by the European Union, as I recall. The Taliban minister of sport was interviewed about its use as a public execution site, and responded that perhaps Europe could buy them another dedicated stadium for executions.

And it's a miracle that all men weren't murdered in their beds by their wives given what was going on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

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.

that should be mentioned in the article, but so should the Taliban's rocketing of Kabul, indiscriminate slaughter at Mazar, starving of the Hazara, repression of women, and their dictatorial rule. --Leroy65X 19:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

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 keep in mind that this is not a discussion forum. --Behnam 00:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Next to the article on the very top it says "discussion".--Birdazi 00:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

But "discussion" refers to discussion about the article itself, not the virtues and vices of the subject of the article. --Leroy65X 19:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You are the one making a fool outta yourself by writing nonsense here. If you have nothing helpful or interesting to write, just don't write anything. Who are you to make rules on Wikipedia? You are probably some high school drop-out and presently unemployed. You probably eat fried eggs for breakfast, lunch and dinner everyday. This is how you sound by writing nonsense here. Also, if you have guts to talk negative about Taliban come to Afghanistan and do that here.--Birdazi 20:47, 12 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

[edit] So much hate

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)

[edit] About Pashtuns

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)

It is a fact that the Taliban were a Pashtun movement and that is explained in the article. You, User: NisarKand (your main BANNED account), are on record of saying "I have America as my right hand and the Taliban as my left hand." And the Admins have a record of that so there is no denying it. Wikipedia is no place for ethnic nationalism. For example, if the Nazis were Germans then we won't accept Germans denying it. The same applies here. Also you are supposed to be banned due to your racist and disgusting comments toward many users, so why are you still here? All articles are better off without you. Now please accept your ban otherwise its pointless because every sockpuppet of yours will be banned. --Behnam 00:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

you are a racist Persian speaking, I don't know what ethnic you are. I am already fully aware that you hate Pashtuns with a great passion no need to even argue over that. In fact every Persian hates Pashtuns with a passion. That's between you and God, on what he wants to do with you after you die or he can punish you even while your're still alive. Now about User:NisarKand, why are you worrying about that person so much? Do you fear him? I am an American and I rule the world. This is something you cannot be as nobody respects you. Your leader is Iran's president Ahmadinejad, he is hated 1,000 times more than the Taliban. Besides, the Taliban were removed from power in 2001, they are not controlling the country.I will say again to you, leave me alone and get lost from me as I am not interested in writing to you. I don't like to make friends with Persians, they are not my type of people. You are the same user as the banned user:Tajik. I know many of your other user names also. You may be able to fool the admins but you can't fool me.--Birdazi 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again you are showing your racism and the rest is nonesense. You can look through all my edits and not find a single edit to suggest racism from me. Stating that the Taliban were a Pashtun movement is not racist, the same way that stating that the Nazis were a German movement. Also I am not user:Tajik and he is not banned, he is just busy at the moment. Besides, you are banned and this sockpuppet of yours will be added to the list of the DOZENS of others so you're just wasting your time because your POV pushes will be reverted by Admins anyway. --Behnam 14:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who follows your history on wikipedia can see clearly that you are a racist. You are against Pasthuns because they are Sunni Muslims while you are a Shia and it doesn't take a genius to figure-out how much you hate Sunnis. You are the one wasting time here on spreading lies. As time passes by, information here on wikipedia is updated and upgraded with the truth as more better sources become available. You are in fact user:Tajik, user:Ariana310, user:Mardavich, and many others and IP address from Canada. All these users have the same exact point of views, and they all are anti-Pashtuns. Also, they all place false and misleading information in articles and all are same ethnic of race. There is not a single other person from other country or other ethnic who does the things you do, its only you and your alias names.--Birdazi 01:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all this is NOT a discussion forums! It has already proven I am neither of those users and our IPs are from different countries! While what has been proven, is that you have DOZENS of sockpuppets and have been BANNED! Why are you still here? User:NisarKand, the Admins have said they will let you and your DOZENS of sockuppets back when hell freezes over. I have already reported you again and within a day or two this sockpuppet will be banned also, so please stop wasting my time and your own time. And again, this is NOT a discussion forums. Also stop accusing others, your racism is ON RECORD and the copy of it is saved and the Admins can access it. Not only that, but just right now you said you do not like Persian people. Your opinions have no place in Wiki, and certainly not racism. Regardless, this sockpuppet will be banned in a day or two. --Behnam 05:33, 14 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)

Taliban were never a Pashtun movement, if you believe that then you must also believe the present government of Afghanistan (Hamid Karzai's administration]]) as a Pashtun movement because they are also Pashtuns. Why would you wanna add the 160 million Pakistanis in the article? I just said that majority of Pakistanis support Taliban, I didn't say I was gonna add this in the article. Support and being a member is the same thing. What that means is that Taliban is not a Pashtun movement because the majority of Pakis are non-Pashtuns. If Taliban was a Pashtun movement as you falsely claim, then it would mean that non-Pashtuns would not be able to join. This is not the case because anyone from any ethnic of race can join the movement. Remember John Walker he was a white American and a member of the movement. We know there are many non-Pashtun Taliban so that proves that it is not Pashtun movement. The only reason there was an ethnical problem between the Taliban and the ethnic Hazaras was because of differences on the sects of Islam religion. Hazaras were Shias and Taliban were Sunnis. Again, it was a religion thing not an ethnic issue. Hazaras were supported by Shias of Iran, that also had alot to do with the fighting between the Taliban and the ethnic Hazaras. At the same time the Taliban have been killing Pashtuns left and right, even until today. Hamid Karzai's administration is also made-up of mostly Pashtuns and the Taliban are fighting and killing them. That alone contradicts the Pashtun movement claim.--Birdazi 05:18, 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)

After Soviet withdrew from Afghanistan, they left Pashtuns in power and in control of the country. Learn history before you talk. Najibullah was Pashtun President at the time Soviets were in Afghanistan, and he was also Prsident of the country after Soviet left, until 1992. From 1992 to 1996 Tajik became President, at a time when the country was at civil war and his authority didn't go beyond Kabul. In fact, even Kabul was turned into turfs, Tajik President only had control of one section of Kabul, and the rest of the sections were controlled by Gulbuddin Keckmatyar (Pashtun), and other warlords. In 1996, Taliban came to Kabul and all the Tajiks warlords fled on foot including their President, and the city became in control of Taliban.--Abeezio 17:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

But any edit anyone else makes it almost instantly reverted by you, Marshall. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean because I thought an infobox was a better illustration of the article than a woman's head being blown off? That's hardly the same as blanking information that you don't agree with Slim. Stop taking making everything so personal. Marshall 22:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Then quit the mindless reverting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted one piece of blanking since yesterday? How does that qualify as "mindless reverting"? Marshall 23:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please go and count how often you've undone someone else's work here in the last 48 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:26, 15 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 am Pashtun but not a Taliban member or supporter. Well, since you people labelled Taliban as a Pashtun movement, that means you included all the Pashtuns as Taliban. That gives us pride like never before, because it's an honor to see that this war after 9-11 (world's most advanced and most powerful armies vs. Pashtuns) is something directly attributing to us. I believe we Pashtuns are having the upper hand and winning this war, don't take it from me but take it from your leaders. It makes us Pashtuns feel like the chosen people of God, and that we control the destiny of earth and its people. If my Pashtuns continue to fight against the world's most advanced and most powerful armies, you people will not see calm state of mind in a long time, and you will have depression that will grow. We all are going to die one way or another, so why be afraid of death? You see Pashtuns are fearless men, we Pashtuns are good for 2 things, (1) how to take care of a woman, (2) how to defeat an enemy. So my conculusion is that you are either with us Pashtuns or with the enemies of Pashtuns.--Abeezio 17:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

During their rule, the Taliban government did not have a single non-Pashtun in power. In addition, they persecutaded and carried out large scale massacres and human rightes violations against non-Pashtuns. That should be enough indication they are a Pashtun movement. Ofcoarse, this is not saying Pashtuns are Taliban but virtually all Taliban are Pashtun. Many political movements (lets say the Nazis or Black Panthers etc) are ethnic movements. --Behnam 05:47, 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)

[edit] NPOV: RAWA advertising

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)

Jachin, with respect, it's best not to arrive at articles assuming you're the model of NPOV. I found your edits to be POV, and your "snuff footage" reference is offensive. What advertising are you talking about? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a "snuff film" in the traditional sense, just a very high-profile public (stadium-seating) execution. However, the execution seems a lot less discriminatory or sexist than it actually looks when one realizes that she was executed for brutally killing her husband with a hammer while he slept, and apparently that was the first woman the Taliban had ever put to death in the three years since since they had come to power [story here]. I agree with all that you said Jachin, especially "emotions naturally run high on anything political of this nature," and this is why I said that the placement of this pic at the TOP of this article was a subtle (or not so subtle) form of propaganda. I have no objection to this in the Taliban treatment of women article like I said (even there it is still a bit weird, since she is being executed for a capital crime, and that's still the norm in much of the world -- women have been executed in the USA and elsewhere many times before). When I first stumbled across this nonsense though I was shocked that this pic was found AT THE TOP OF A PROMINENT ARTICLE, because that's a very gruesome and extremely bizarre thing to see at the top of a Wiki-article (ANY Wiki-article). Come on now Slim...we expect better from a senior editor and high-level admin. such as yourself -- so why'd you keep reverting this blatantly POV pic numerous times when I tried to take it out? --Wassermann 05:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur, Wassermann. Although I'm too apathetic to bother dealing with Slim and co's constant reverts just to try and enforce wikipedia policy. I wasn't aware Slim was an admin, so I figure the next step is a higher level of arbitration to bring some neutrality and common sense into the matter. It's obvious that the editors incessant of the 'need' for these things that clearly don't assist in understanding something as self-evident as the totalitarian regime of any military or pseudomilitary forces brutality. Thus they're serving a possible political agenda? I'm unaware of the politics behind such, but I'm aware it's uneccesary and very odd, thus, IMHO, something which is certainly worth following up.

I'm not going to volunteer to get the arbitration ball rolling on this matter as I've never really had to go through such, most NPOV removals tend to stay that way due to common sense, and I've never encountered a higher level admin reverting NPOV changes and being so abrasive before; so I don't know where to begin. If you're willing to make the appropriate recommendations I will assist with the progression of NPOVing of this article. Jachin 01:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Slim, RAWA advertising? Look at the images. Look at the history and check out the subtitles that previously went with the images linking to the RAWA website. I consider that advertising. As for the rest of your response, we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not motivated by anything than cleaning up wikipedian articles that're lapsing, you obviously have some vested interest in this matter and would know more about it than I, so arguing the point is moot. Jachin 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison

Anyone wishing to improve this article's NPOV might look to Khmer Rouge for ideas. WAS 4.250 06:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Very good point, brother. Well noted. Khmer Rouge clearly illustrates how POV the Taliban article is, to a tee. Jachin 01:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taliban "successes of 2006"?

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

[edit] Plagiarism

(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)

This is just getting ridiculous. I'm starting to feel like I'm the victim of an increasingly accusatory and abusive tirade from you. For future reference, plagiarism is attempting to pass someone else's work off as one's own.

You said you copied it word for word. It's a copyright violation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You asked for sources to dispute your points. I gave you a 1 and a half paragraph quotation and you accuse me of copyright violation. Marshall 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I quoted a referenced source as a point for discussion on the talk page. That's why it's in quotes.

It wasn't in quotes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is, and it was. Marshall 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That's why I referenced it. The point I was trying to prove was that you could rewrite the lead with some more logic than the list it is currently. You have however consistently, and deliberately, chosen to ignore the points I've made and level a hail of abuse at me. WP:POINT is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand; the point I was making was one about the content of the page; it was not a deliberately provocative action aimed at questioning Wikipedia policies.

Despite the innappropriateness of the way you have acted towards me I am still open to, and am desperately attempting to, bash out a resolution between the two of us, rather than having to advance the dispute resolution process needlessly. This is why I've stepped back, stopped editing the page, and am advancing my point of view on the talk page. I don't, however, need to be accused of crap on my talk page just because you can't handle discussion. If we all relax, calm down and take a step back for a second then resolution will be much easier to find. Marshall 19:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Your editing of this page has been incredibly unhelpful. The other editors and I have almost no other views in common, but we all seem to have had a problem with your edits. You've reverted a lot, violated 3RR more than once, changed the writing in ways that were not improvements, and now you admit to adding material word for word from another encyclopedia or dictionary. Enough of it, please. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Birdazi was engaged in a protracted dispute long before I got here about the make-up of the Taliban. Since many other editors have taken issue with these edits over time, I've not continued with that dispute. I admitted the 3RR violation as it was made in error. You have a problem with me because I moved your execution image, an image that many other editors have expressed much stronger objections to than I. I moved this to add an infobox to the page. An infobox that everyone other than you has welcomed. Can we stop these childish distractions and go back to the content of the article? Marshall 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganizing the ideology section

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)

Thanks, Leroy. I thought I had done that; I certainly intended to. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too much execution pictures!

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 can only see two such images, and it's clearly relevant that, in the 21st century, a country was still performing public executions, and requiring people's children to watch them, almost certainly without what any of us would regard as due process. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is cruel and barbaric, but it is done in North Korea (in XXI century) too. So why there are no execution pictures here? Aminullah 18:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly there is only 2 execution pictures. And, with all due respect, that is very bad reasoning. When an image is available in Wiki to illustrate an important point in article, it should be used. --Behnam 18:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

We can't edit deficiencies into this article because of deficiencies in others. :-) The execution images were frequently published in the media, and the execution image of the woman is very famous, because of the barbarity, and because there was little or no due process. Such images, along with women being beaten in the street, came to be iconic, rightly or wrongly, of the Taliban regime. The fact that football stadium was used, which was paid for by the European Union, makes the situation even more horrific; we should add this to the article at some point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:08, 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)

I don't agree. I agree with SlimVirgin in believing that we must present the verifiable and documented truth, without flinching when that truth is a barbaric one. However I did remove a couple of video links which I felt were going over the top. I also entered a compromise caption to one of the images which it seems has been the subject of some toing and froing recently. --Guinnog 19:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would they be removed? One picture illustrates the Taliban's idealogy with women, and the other illustrates the Taliban's persucution of Shia's and ethnic Hazaras. And both images have been placed in their relevant sections. --Behnam 19:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, can one list some LEADERS please?

Especially from the the time of their government. --HanzoHattori 21:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for yellow patches

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)

This is what I've found so far: from Reuters quoted in the New York Times, May 24, 2001, p.A8

"World Briefing ... Afghanistan: Anger over Hindu `Badges` The Taliban faced condemnation over a proposal that non-Muslims wear yellow badges. The Taliban said the badges would protect the estimated 1700 Sikhs and Hindus in Afghanistan and other minority groups from religious police imposing strict Islamic rules. But United Nations Secretary General Kori Annan said the proposal `recalls some of the most deplorable acts of discrimination in history.`" --Leroy65X 14:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"To be fair to the Taliban, there were no major problems for members of minority religious groups to practice their faith during the Taliban rule, even though the Hindus, for instance, were ordered to wear a yellow patch over their shirt pockets to distinguish them from the Muslims. This tolerance did not spread to religious structures. ..." http://www.afghanpix.com/15.html --Leroy65X 14:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization please!

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)

[edit] Advertising and censorship.

Some images are being removed on various grounds,

• Advertising rawa.org
• Shock value

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)

Addendum to the above, would it be possible to get a non-advertising version of the man crucified on the gibbet inverted for the Crucifixion article where it deals with modern uses of that form of punishment? Jachin 04:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Civil on the "POV pushers" and "random" accusations. My interest in this article based around an edit I did 3 weeks ago [1] in which I went back over 2 weeks of edits to find where the article was damaged by vandals. It isn't "random" as it's now on my watchlist and when I see people claiming "advertising" and "shock value" as reasons to remove content then this raises a redflag and I have explained why this is so above. On the other hand if rawa.org is considered to be an unreliable source or the images have a poor attribution or copyright history then I can live with that. This page, plus Archive1 and 2 don't make this clear. I would have thought that attacking the copyright was the best way of removing an image as it is how I would first try to get rid of an image. Ttiotsw 09:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Jachin please also use edit summaries when reverting content [2]. It's not nice especially given you know others are interested in the subject. You also edit as an IP address Special:Contributions/211.30.73.30 (i.e. [3]) so it would be nice if you did a preview first or checked logon status. If you are editing as a username and a IP address then it stacks consensus to the casual observer. As far as I see consensus so far we have in the past 2 days just 2 people against 2 people. You have done 3 reverts (in 48 hours using username and IP), I have two reverts and we have 2 others with 1 each. ArbCom wouldn't care about this minor dispute resolution where WP:RFC is the next local step. Ttiotsw 09:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have ignored that I said the images have no encyclopedic value - ok, so the taliban executed a woman convicted of murder. What does that have to with the "taliban treatment of women" in general? Was it part of a genocide? Was this the first such kind of execution in history? Was the person who was executed notable? Is it the only time someone was executed for murder? Was this execution controversial? Do I really care if this image is removed or not? No. - But does this pic look unsightly with a URL on it? Is Undue weight given to it in this article? Does it link to a site which has political inclinations?etc. Yes . also see [4] to get an idea about the general consensus about posting pics of executions.

"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)

Please don't remove that image again. It used to be in the lead, and was moved to that section as a compromise. It isn't now going to be moved out entirely. It's a famous image, iconic of the Taliban regime, and speaks directly to the issue of the human rights abuses in general, and the treatment of women in particular, as well as the lack of due process (this is a woman who was executed in front of her children after killing her husband who was beating her). In addition, the executions took place in a sports stadium paid for by the European Union, which adds a touch of something I have no words for. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand - thanks for being rational (unlike some others). thestick 02:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits here seem very odd and this last one borders on uncivil by implying irrationality on others. I was talking to user User:Jachin not you in particular. Your only edit in the past few weeks was a revert without talk and an edit summary of "Image has no encyclopedic value, just shock value)". Thus you did not just claim "no encyclopedic value" but in fact claimed "shock value". As I have stated, my use of the UK law concept was to address the basis of what was deemed "reasonable" i.e. not to unreasonably shock. The US probably has a similar concept given US legal system is derived in part from English law. Basically Jachin got caught out reverting more than others using IPs and own account and yet wanted to run to "ArbCom" and then it all went quiet, you suddenly start replying out of that context. What are we to think about this ? Ttiotsw 06:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ttiotsw, I recommend that if you wish to keep this material included in the page you 1) remove advertising from the images, 2) remove advertising from the descriptions, and now I suggest 3) get a consensus. If the images reappear in the same condition they're in, with adverts to external political aligned POV agenda websites, be they pro or anti Taliban, I will specifically seek a consensus on their inclusion altogether.

On a brief revision of this discussion page, it appears the 'keep' vote will number into the .. ooh, high 2. Maybe 3. So keep it wiki quality, or keep it out thanks. Jachin 06:55, 18 July 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)

[edit] The Kite Runner

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)

[edit] Ahmad Shah Massoud

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)

I don't think there's too much disagreement about Massoud's reputation as an extraordinary insurgent, but I'll try to find time to find the documentation. --Leroy65X 20:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My point is that even if Ahmad Shah Massoud is "legendary", that adjective is unnecessary in this article. This article is about the Taliban. Put the extraordinary nature of the man in his own article. --Bejnar 22:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One source

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:

"This timely work reflects a deep understanding of the background to the tragic events of September 11, 2001 and the latest war in Afghanistan. Its author, Ahmed Rashid, is a correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review and the Daily Telegraph who has been covering Pakistan, Afghanistan, and more recently Central Asia for over twenty years. No reader looking for an informative, detailed, readable account surveying the rise of the "student movement" know as the Taliban in 1994 and events in the region through the year 2000 will be disappointed." -- Schamiloglu, Uli (2002) "Book Reviews: Inner Asia: Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia by Ahmed Rashid" The Journal of Asian studies 61(1): pp. 247-248.

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.

[edit] Fascist ?

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)

Ofcoarse they were fascist. Persecution and massacres of Shias and non-Pashtuns is not fascist? Go read more on the human rights violations the Taliban carried out, the massacres of 10,000 civlians in Mazar-e Sharif, the massacre and genocide in Bamiyan, the burning of Shamali plains, their plans for future massive genocide, etc. Not fascsit? Give me a break. --Behnam 05:50, 19 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)

It is sourced in the article and you can find lots of news article, just do a Google search. --Behnam 06:13, 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)

You are asking the article to be written in a manner that sympathizes with the Taliban. That cannot be done, articles should stay neutral and just state the facts. --Behnam 06:28, 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)

We already have a section on the Taliban's persecutin of non-Pashtun groups. In addition, (it is not mentioned yet but I will add this later) the Taliban served the interests of the Pashtun ethnic group. They displaced non-Pashtuns out of their lands and basically stole their lands and houses and gave it to Pashtuns from the south. They tried to force people to speak Pashto. They had plans for future genocides and mass displacements. etc. I will add all this later. I am from Afghanistan and I know plenty of people who lived there during those times, but I will add the info with sources later. --Behnam 16:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The only conceivable way to categorize the taliban as "fascist" is with a citation of a political scientist calling them that. Proof that they victimized an ethnic group would not mean anything at all. Israel victimized an ethnic group, the US has victimized ethnic groups, Russia has victimized ethnic groups. By this standard just about any government in the world could be categorized as fascist. That's not what fascist means; it's a specific kind of government. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 01:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

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)

[edit] Ground Reality

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 EXPERIMENTSlimVirgin 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)

[edit] just a Thought for us

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)

[edit] Mullah bob

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)

[edit] Iraq?

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)

[edit] Taliban orgins

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)

This article is written by a news source within Afghanistan. Ofcoarse they will not write such things. It would jepordize unity between the ethnic groups. Besides, Pajhwok is not a reliable source. It just came a few years ago and is not reliable since and definitely not scholarly. -- Behnam 09:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for 12, 000 figure

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)

[edit] Terrorism?

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)

My guess is that the Taliban has not been in charge of a government for over 5 years now. Nevertheless, IMHO, the term Terrorism should not be used in most Wikipedia articles. The word is boiling over with POV. Kingturtle 15:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

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)

[edit] Vandalism

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)

[edit] Oil pipeline through Afghanistan

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)