Talk:United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] various talks
Well I've updated the page and moved the quote to make it more balanced, but I think it needs some quotes from other people to give more perspectives.Romtobbi 13:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
No mention of the horendous human rights abuses by the Northern Alliance?
On the origins of the name Northern Alliance, it is generally known that this name was given to disparate Afghan forces and mojahidin by NATO - and was not really used by the Taliban, so I have changed the intro to this article to reflect that. There seems to be a unidentified contributer who believes the contrary. However this is done without supporting references or acreditation and anonymously...? Paki.tv 15:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Does something seem wrong with the following passage? It just seems a bit... urgh - especially the first bit.
The Western Media preferred to use NA because they did not want their people to know that the US/UK governments were siding with the Former Mujahedin who were also Moslem fundamentalists. To date the US backed government has not been able to get rid of these former Mujahedin from the government. It was the influence of these Fundamentalist Mujahedin that shaped the Afghan constitution into a modern Islamic constitution with Sharia Law as the central pillar of it. --195.93.21.97 01:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's more than a bit wrong-- the "Western Media" had been trumpeting Western support of the mujahedin for years (think of Dan Rather's and others' visits to the front), not hiding it from "their people" (whoever they are). That "Northern Alliance" is intended to be a pejorative seems unlikely to me: I'd like to see some citation to evidence here. Parts of the article are anachronistic, referring in the present tense to conditions prior to the defeat of the Taliban. The whole article is badly in need of a rewrite. 24.209.173.129 06:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I might be wrong, but I believe the sentence, in regards to Pakistans support of the Taliban, is incorrect. "Pakistan backed off due to pressure and the hope of debt relief." My understanding is that President Bush told Pakistan that they must either be a full ally of ours in our war against the Taliban, or we will consider them our enemy. They will not be viewed as neutral. Can anybody show that debt relief was a primary factor, enough to justify its mention in the article? --66.82.9.61 01:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
From user dargay: I think the Pakistanis themselves decided that the Taliban were no longer a viable group after the Sept 11 attacks and offered to assist the US in taking them out. The US then offered debt relief to Pakistan.
I could have sworn that the USA's support was the real reason for the taking of kabul, it is well known that the NA had been on the back foot for years
Shouldn't the second line read "Before" and not "After the overthrow of the Taliban government by the USA"? --Bsfairman 04:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Arhidistan?
This must be a typo? James Frankcom (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite
This articles been in desperate need of it for a long, long time and I've finally worked up the courage to do so. Wish me luck fellow wikipedians --RaiderAspect 07:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that's better... --RaiderAspect 08:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I think this is worth reading
This article puts the multi-billion dollar opium-herion industry into scope in regards to Afghanistan. It deals with the Northern Alliance and the Taliban too and paints a clearer picture. If you want to learn more about this aspect of Afghansitan and how it ties in with Kosovo, the KLA, and the rest of the world and the world economy read this article.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061017&articleId=3516
The "RAWA" istself is a revolutionary anti-democratic organisation who also faught against the russians in the 80´s. There only interest is it to destabilze Afghanistans goverment, by any means nececary. And doesnt matter who´s on power right now. Bye bringing up pieces of examples about human-rights violations, they put all peaces together as it was a huge puzzle and as if all of the mujaheddin trups were seeking for the one thing; power and blood.
The RAWA can not be trusted!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.14.205.33 (talk) 17:51, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering why there is no mention of their opium trade in the main article? That's why these people exist. That was their business. That is why they opposed the Taliban. I think this article is heavily biased. Probably some Bushy wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.48.25 (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] they did not named themselves "Northern Alliance"
The page should be United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan. (Just like, for example, Vietcong will redirect you to the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam.)
Right now, some smarty did exactly the opposite. --HanzoHattori 14:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Right. i'll move that now.
- moved it.. oh, srry bout forgeting the sig. Is it Steak?<Xiaden's Homepage> 15:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV Dispute
There are numerous problems in the tone and content in this article with opinion masquerarding as fact. There are also no citations to back up statements made. I have no reason to believe the info here to be blatantly false as I'm not an expert in the area, but this conversational style used is not useful info. 72.78.110.141 (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)