Talk:Taliban/Archive 1

message: This line ~ Osama Bin Laden still hasn't been on trial for the September 11th attacks, as such stating his involvement is potential slander. Although generally accepted propaganda, it is not legally the case. Factually it is erroneous to support the premise, and it is unethical to support that veiw.
A clearer line would be
"Osama bin Laden for his potential involvement in the September 11 attacks,"
:Are you high? He's released tapes claiming responsibility. Did you get your legal knowledge from "Law & Order" reruns?
(User not given for this comment.)
Claiming responsibility does not prove responsibility. People can make claims for things that other people actually did. Only a well-organised trial with evidence could prove whether Bin Laden was responsible. abdullahazzam
Actually, a 'clearer line' would read: "Osama bin Laden for his claimed involvement in the September 11 attacks," Also, whoever said this potential slander needs to get their head fixed. Abdullahazzam, was that you? --Skwurlled 17:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Osama bin Laden for his involvement in the September 11 attacks,"

message: in section Life Under the Taliban: Drugs: First paragraph:last line
"No other regime in recent times has come as close as the Taliban to rid the country of this vice." - I do not believe the statement "rid this country of this vice" is NPOV as opium is not factually a vice, it is a poppy and a crop that gropws well in afganistan and stops many of its people going hungry and keeps a roof over their heads. I think a more correct statment would be "No other regime in recent times has come as close as the Taliban to rid the country of what some people believe to be a vice" or ommit the statement altogether Speerross 22:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been edited Protiek 22:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Dispute

message: Ok, this dicussion is obviously pretty damn old. But the point is this, and it hasnt really been mentioned all these years that this debate has been here. The only government of Afghanistan to have had any kind of basic respect for women in recent times was the communist government. After that, it's been pretty much down hill. Sure, we dont like the Taliban. They were oppressive by our standards. But their stance to women was *common practice* in Afghanistan. They did not introduce it, they did not make the situation worse. The same generally applies to most aspects of Afghan life. What they did do was bring stability, end the civil war for a few years (and the civil war did re-ignite the moment they lost the government), and make trade and entreprise possible by providing basic safety. They baned opium production, and hugely restricted its levels. Their oppression of women was in no way greater than the oppression in, say, Saudi Arabia, a traditional US ally. And yes, the US is viewed as oppressive by billions of people, and millions of Americans. Yet no one mentions this in the article on the US. I should try and put it into that article just to see the reactions I'd get. Overall, the Taliban were no worse, and probably better, from what preceded them, and no worse from what followed them. And it seems evident they neither banned, nor even hindered, female education. They simply enforced segregation. The fact that about 3% of girls were enrolled in primary education is misleading. What is the figure on boys? Maybe 30%? The point to be made is rather that war and poverty had ravaged the country's education as a whole. The fact that women's education suffered the most is not due to the Taliban. It is due to the fact that your average Afghan family, having 10 kids, could prolly afford to educate only 1 of those 10 kids. And they would typically choose a son. They did that before the Taliban, and by gum, they still do it. They prolly will for decades to come, if not longer. Afghanistan was a bad place to live in, sure. But that was not due to the Taliban. Under the Taliban, it was just as bad a place to live in, but at least it was safer, and had some prospects of improvement. Which I doubt it still does, seeing as the present government's attempts to exert its control over the warlords are more of a joke than anything else. Druworos 02:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think that this article is pretty fair to the Taliban. We give both the criticisms and the Taliban response on a number of issues including the treatment of women. I think you're right that we don't talk about how the country became relatively stable under the Taliban after years of war. I believe this is true but I don't have any sources at hand to work from. In any case, this article hasn't had much work for a while and could use more input.--Lee Hunter 02:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree the article is surprisingly fair. My comment above was more of a somewhat angry reaction to the discussion above. I still feel, however, that while history has always been written by the winners of wars, there is no reason why *we* should also embrace the winners' propaganda. It is simply wrong to have double standards. What if I went to the article on the US, and edited in views by minorities on how oppressed they feel in the States? Or views by Cubans, on how oppressed they feel that they cant get decent healthcare because of the US sanctions? Or the people of any number of countries that have, over the past 50 years, been invaded by the US, or had imposed on them US-backed dictatorships? Or maybe I should edit in the views of Serbians, who just a few years ago had their country bombed with depleted uranium bombs in a unilateral US-lead NATO action? How long *would* such edits survive, I wonder? Yet it seems perfectly agreeable to write about how oppressive the Taliban were, when in fact they did nothing but continue an age-old tradition. (not that I agree with that tradition) Either you treat the US on equal terms with the Taliban, or you dont. And sadly, it seems a lot of people here do subscribe to the 'rogue state'-'axis of evil' type of propaganda the US are using to back their role as the 'world police'. Now if the US feel that they want to police the world, that's just fine. Some power or the other has always been oppressing the rest, ever since the first city-state was founded. But I dont see why we should propagate its propaganda. Druworos 22:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisiting women 

message: I use the term 'taliban' in a general sense, to describe deocentric governments, political parties, and organizations, regardless of particular flavor of religion.  Basically, it's a much more concise term than 'religious conservative'.  Can we add this generalized use to the article?
:Only if you can show that it's widely used and understood. Gazpacho
::As far as I have seen, this usage is getting more and more widespread. Google 'American Taliban' for a few examples. I think it deserves a mention in the article. Mundilfare
:::Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Articles are therefore about topics, not words. This article should just be about the Afghan Taliban movement. Any other meanings should go into the disambig. Ashmoo 03:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taliban, in the general sense? 

message: 209.36.39.2 has made three attempts to sabotage the page, so far. How do we go about warning people about this guy/IP, so something can be done about it? Kaz 18:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabotage... 

message: This line bothers me "Following this incident, Omar fled to the neighboring Balochistan province of Pakistan, from where he emerged in the fall of 1994,"
My problem is that it's not clear what he was fleeing from. Was he fleeing from the chaos in general or from one or more warlords? Or did he just move there to regroup? I'm just wondering if the word 'fled' without context is someone's spin on the story. --Lee Hunter 14:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why did Omar "flee" in 1994

message: "Taliban" is not Arabic. It comes from the Arabic word for students but the word itself is, I believe, as the user Abid akmal edited, Pashto. The Arabic word "taliban" means "two students". There should be some citation for this, but in any case "Arabic" is incorrect. --Yodakii 10:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic 

message: "despite having diplomatic recognition from only four countries: the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria"
Chechnya is not a country, I'm going to rewrite this. --Horses In The Sky 22:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article Chechen Republic of Ichkeria says that ChRI "was recognized by the Taliban, but the ChRI never recognised the Taliban in turn." -- so which is it? heqs 19:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st Paragraph - Diplomatic Recognition 

message: You are comparing Afghanistan under Communism versus Afghanistan today - the Commies had increased the number of schools, health care, eetc, etc. We got a war going to beat the dastardly Commies and guess what - Afghanistan dropped in all categories, gee whiz who would have guessed ( a ten year drought didn't help ). The Taliban was organized by the warloards to stop the endless fighting - that must have really pissed the US off. The Taliban pretty well stopped the heroin trade - now that really pissed the US off ( can you imagine the suburbs without H and coke on Friday night - shudder, shudder...). Just a question - Utah is pretty well run by Mormons - Do Mormons mind? Texas is a little goofy ( to nonTexans that is )- Do Texans mind? —This unsigned comment is by 159.105.80.224 (talk • contribs) .
:* "The Taliban was organized by the warloards to stop the endless fighting - that must have really pissed the US off." Where does this information of yours come from, Mr 159.105.80.224? Any new reference? If one reads the books in the articles, the Talibans were partially funded, trained and equipped by the US and the Talibans held the Warlords in check, which helped Afghani to accept the Talibans. DanielDemaret 11:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The Taliban were supported by traders and some of the Afghan people because they stopped the random violence. Source Ahmed Rashid's book. Andries 14:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. So why does "unsigned" in the comment by 159.105.80.224 write that they were supported by Warlords?DanielDemaret 15:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * By the way, I am not very interested in the Talibans as such, but I am trying to read all the background material to try and trace their and other groups ideas. If there is an article that does this in wikipedia, please direct me to it.DanielDemaret 11:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I think it would be a good idea if one were to include some more background such as Influences on thought, finances, training and arms.
On thoughts: By reading this article, one gets the ideas of the Taliban seem to have come out of nowhere, or even worse, that the strange militant ideas should be interpreted as mainstream islam interpretation. The first interpretation is so strange, that many might chose the second interpretation. If one reads the books and references, clearly there are influences in steps from many different sources, among them perhaps the Madrasas teaching extreme Saudi teachings.
On finances, training and arms: The external references suggest training by ISI, finances and arms from the US, China, Saudi, and even  state of the art AA Missiles from the US. That US had even a small hand in creating the Taliban should be in the article, but put in perspective.DanielDemaret 17:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be intererested in the book by Ahmed Rashid. Rashid wrote that they were basically the products of war (no education was possible, except in Pakistani madrassas). Here are some excerpts that you could use. They were posted by me  Andries 17:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you Andries. I have read much from that book, but not the entire book yet. From what I can tell, I need more information from other places to get at what I want. Who knows - I may get lazy before I finish the book. :)  DanielDemaret 18:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  THank you again. Among those entries you sent me, Andries were some that suggested one could stop reading there. "Taliban's interpretation of the creed has no parallel in the Muslim world." I am interested in the history of ideas, but this seems to stop further investigation, doesn't it? DanielDemaret 18:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I do not understand your question. I did not find it difficult to understand the emergence and proliferation of the Taliban after reading Rashid's book. Some boys grew up in the madrassas and all they heard was that the people who took care of them said that Afghanistan was doomed unless a radical form of Islam was enforced. (This is how I think it went often in practice). Andries 18:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then I was unclear. I shall rephrase it later :) DanielDemaret 19:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences on thought, finances, training and arms 

message: I'm going to post this on the talk pages for all three articles in question to try and get some consensus.
* From the Taliban article: despite having diplomatic recognition from only three countries: the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, as well as the unrecognized government of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria.
* From the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan article: Only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates ever recognized the Taliban government.
* From the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria article: There are no countries that officially recognize Chechen independence... it was recognized by the Taliban, but the ChRI never recognised the Taliban in turn
So did they recognise the Taliban or not? --Horses In The Sky 20:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chechen Republic of Ichkeria recognition

message: 3 citations requested, 27 May 06. Tom Harrison Talk 02:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  memo 

message: Both forks. Lapaz 02:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. --Horses In The Sky 17:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Merge em. Amibidhrohi 19:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: oppose merge these topics are all too large Joan-of-arc 03:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge They are less than a page, check the links. Mrdthree 13:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Merge There could easily be two sections here entitled "Taliban treatment of women" and "Taliban treatment of children".--SomeStranger(t) 18:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and merged the articles in. There was already a section on women so I just added the picture.--SomeStranger(t) 18:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Taliban treatment of children]] and [[Taliban treatment of women]] here 

message: The article is very poor in providing footnotes and references. It is hard to separate rumors from fact. It would worth time to research issues and delete stuff that has no refernces. Mrdthree 22:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References and Citations omitted