Talk:Taliban/Archive 3

message: 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)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: 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)
thread_title:  So much hate 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: But any edit anyone else makes it almost instantly reverted by you, Marshall. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Then quit the mindless reverting. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted one piece of blanking since yesterday? How does that qualify as "mindless reverting"? Marshall 23:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  About Pashtuns 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, Leroy. I thought I had done that; I certainly intended to. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganizing the ideology section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Too much execution pictures! 

message: Especially from the the time of their government. --HanzoHattori 21:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, can one list some LEADERS please? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reorganization please! 

message: 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)
thread_title: The Kite Runner

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Ahmad Shah Massoud

message: 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)
thread_title: One source

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Fascist ?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ground Reality 

message: 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)
thread_title:  just a Thought for us 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mullah bob 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Iraq? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Taliban orgins 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citation for 12, 000 figure 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Terrorism? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Infobox

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oil pipeline through Afghanistan