Jump to content

Talk:Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

selective qouting

maybe use one qoute for section and say the other book inply same infoMughalnz (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Mughalnz (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

== is rediff a reliable resource==Mughalnz (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Domestic conerns

[1]Lihaas (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

International Character

I am not experienced with writing wikipedia articles, but an important aspect of terrorism in Pakistan is that it provides a kind of hub for aspirants from around the world. Foreign fighters are a common phenomenon in the operations against the Taliban as well as many people have been arrested in various countries for going and getting training in Pakistan. The Kargil war, which was a kind of hybrid attack with terrorists and Army operating in tandem was openly flaunted as an attack by terrorists from various nationalities in the Pakistani media. It is also why many countries are very worried because it enables their citizens or residents to become terrorists by taking a perfectly legal trip to Pakistan.

There are other open alliances with terrorist organizations with politicians idolizing the terrorists, warning them of upcoming actions against them, forming political alliances with their front organizations and openly requesting for their areas to be excluded from terrorist attacks happening in the country.

Recently, members of the LeT/JuD (banned in theory) held massive rallies out in the open where they advocated attacks against India and asked the government to provide weapons for their jihad. This call to arms was made to ordinary civilians and included nuclear war if needed. These were extremely public and well advertized and attended events - tens of thousands of people. They were reported widely in the media post event. They were organized by known terrorist organizations that were banned. There was absolutely no objection from the government or any other entity. No one was arrested or even warned. The state is well aware of these happenings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.19.86 (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

CNN reports OBL killed in Pakistan

Add to this article now or wait a few minutes? Hcobb (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

well it is not clear whether Pakistan was involved and in what way. clearly he was living the grand life in a huge mansion close to the capital Islamabad while awaiting his 72 virgins not in a cave somewhere in FATA. Did he survive a 10 year manhunt because somebody was protecting him ( ISI immediately comes to mind). was he given up because US squeezed Pasha's bollocks on his recent visit to US??? we will have to wait and see what comes out.--Wikireader41 (talk) 04:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not like a bunch of other senior AQ leaders were caught in Pakistan. Hcobb (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request by VonBismarck

Pakistan did not help in tracking Osama, so I request that the section titled, 'Role of Pakistan in Osama bin Laden's tracking', be changed to 'The protection (or shielding) of Osama bin Laden by Pakistan'.-VonBismarck (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because Pakistan did not help track Osama, one cannot conclude that they protected him. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
If he was housed in Abbottabad, there was some sort of 'protection'. Anyway, Pakistan did not play a role in tracking him, so that title ought to be changed (you can change it to something more NPOV).-VonBismarck (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
CanadianLinuxUser, I don't want to get into an edit war with you. Kashmir isn't a separate entity. Most of Kashmir is administered by India and some parts of it are occupied by Pakistan. When anyone says Kashmir, it means the Kashmir administered by India, while the parts occupied by Pakistan are called, 'Pakistan administered Kashmir', so I hope you can restore my last edit or else I will take this matter to one of the noticeboards or RfC.-VonBismarck (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Kashmir is defined as follows: "Today Kashmir denotes a larger area that includes the Indian-administered state of Jammu and Kashmir (the Kashmir valley, Jammu and Ladakh), the Pakistani-administered Gilgit-Baltistan and the Azad Kashmir provinces, and the Chinese-administered regions of Aksai Chin and Trans-Karakoram Tract." Therefore, it is a separate entity as well and part of India. So we are both correct and/or both incorrect. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
If you look at the article on Kashmir, it says, 'Until the mid-19th century, the term Kashmir geographically denoted only the valley between the Great Himalayas and the Pir Panjal mountain range.' and that is what I meant. You are quoting the next sentence, which is not the traditional, 'Kashmir', so I hope you restore the rest of India sentence. Thanks.-VonBismarck (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Once again, this article is about Kasmir "today", not as how it is perceived "traditionally". CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
You forget that the parts occupied by China and Pakistan aren't being terrorized, so it is necessary to have a, 'rest of India' after 'terrorism in Kashmir'.-VonBismarck (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The image File:Herald.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


"WITH NO DOUBT THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY AN INDIAN" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.20.148.11 (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jhfjdhfjhsdfkd, 21 September 2011

bangladesh is not a neighbour of pakistan

Jhfjdhfjhsdfkd (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: I think in this case it just means they're in the same part of the world, not that they literally share a border. — Bility (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
That editor later did the edit anyway; I have undone it. Graham87 10:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

I have read the ref link and nowhere in the link does it say, London 7/7 Bombers were aided by the ISI, it only states that they met a Pakistani Engineer, it does not state if this person was ISI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.133.46 (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed, the ISI is only mentioned as they caught Naeem Noor Khan who is affiliated with al Qaeda. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Revert, why

Lot of content removed, calling terrorists freedom fighters is a bit POV. Am onobile currently, shall go onto detail tommorow Darkness Shines (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The next time you do a similiar blanket revert on my edit or become the first one to turn up on a template I create, I will have to report you for hounding and disruption. For a start, you could explain what was removed. As for the latter part, that's what the academic source says. While you're at it, also take some time to read WP:BRD-NOT. Mar4d (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
That is what one source says. And I wll edit that template if I see fit to, given you just slapped it on a bunch of articles I watch good luck with your hounding allegation. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a tendency for Pakistani editors to be passive aggressive regarding the state of the article. This article seems to cite neutral sources and yet the incidents portray Pakistan in a bad light. But this reality is derived from the facts in the sources and cannot be sugar coated. Keeping this article in constant unreliable mode does not sound very NPOV.

    This article does not seem to have issues any more. If there are specific sections that need clean up, please state those when a clean request is made. Else untag. 67.171.10.156 (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  • @Mar4d, for the umpteenth time, please do not assume bad faith; nobody is wikihounding you. However, if you still think someone is, do not threaten them, just go ahead and report them.

    @Darkness shines, you are right calling terrorists as "freedom fighters" when all they do is indiscriminately blow people up or behead them (including innocent children, and other adult civilians) is a tad POV. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 09:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

POV

User Chandu15: Dont think the neutrality flag is needed for this article. I think a user finds it "bashing" because of the nature of facts stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandu15 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please list reasons for the neutrality dispute. I believe the content is well referenced and correct in all aspects.Nshuks7 (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. dont see any POV issues here as per WP:DUE all viewpoints need to be given proportional weight and views of minority generally should not get equal weight as majority. The neutrality tag needs to go.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed neutrality tag since no objections have been raised. 59.95.77.221 (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Article is a prefect example of Pakistan-bashing. Many of the sources references include non-credible media outlets while the article is also peppered with Op-Ed articles used as citations when they are merely 'opinions' to begin with. I can bet a million dollars, no Pakistani was consulted on this article; hence, the result is a highly biased article that violates quite a few WP policies.Ron Pitz (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The intent of this article is not to determine the truth - it is to cite the opinions of reliable published sources and to allow readers to come to their own conclusions. Hence, if all the claims have been published, it has a NPOV and should be untaggedTommrtnTalk 03:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Ron Pitza-99.226.242.202 (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Pervez Hoodbhoy

Reverted twice by Darkness Shines, but no reason given for the reverts. Mar4d (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You are referring to this. I think it is OK to be included as Tribune, being a well-received news organisation will not publish views of someone until they find that person's views to be notable. Also, Pervez Hoodbhoy says that apart from being a leading physicist, he is also a reputed commentator and analyst. Clearly, Tribune agrees with that. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 18:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Alright, the quote can stay but I've taken out the quote box as it unnecessarily seems to stress or emphasise the opinion of the person. He may self-identify as an analyst, but clearly his qualifications are in another academic field so he cannot be quoted as an authoritative figure. Hoodbhoy's quote can suffice without the quotation box. Mar4d (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree, the block quote was a little too much. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 19:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for Consensus - For Deletion of Redundant Article

I would like to request WP:CONSENSUS from all authors for deletion of this article due to redundancy WP:REDUNDANTFORK [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugby9090 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


Please visit "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism" for your comments [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugby9090 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism
  2. ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pakistan_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

Diplomatic row, not terror

This section is about a diplomatic row between Pakistan and the UK. Cameron didn't provide any details on his statement, nor offer any evidence. Hence this belongs more in Pakistan–United Kingdom relations than here.VR talk 04:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Allegations on pakistan for sponsorship of terrorists

Pakistan is the land most effected by terrorism in the world. Pakistan paid a lot in the form of lives against terrorism. It is all about american desire, one who obeys america blindly is the best. Pakistan has been the largest Alie to America against terrorism, it was Pakistan which provided armed and moral support against terrorism in Afghanistan, but now when America is failed against terrorists, the American officials blame Pakistan for sponsorship of terrorists in Afghanistan. Moreover, India has no moral right to blame Pakistan for sponsorship of terrorists, because there is a long list of proofs against india for the support of terrorists in Pakistan like kulbhushan yadev is the main proof and no doubt kulbhushan yadev can be called a book of proofs against india for sponsorship of terrorists in Pakistan. Now come to the second and main point, many terrorist activists operate from Pakistan and are supported by Pakistan, that's not the fact and other humor is that border areas of pakistan with Afghanistan are safe Havens of terrorists, that areas were safe but now these are not, i believe. Afghanistan is an independent country but its 40% area is not in the jurisdiction of afghan government, it is controlled by the extremists and other tribal rebels and the intrusting fact is that afghan government has been trying for a peaceful agreement with that cruel extremists for the years and foreign reports and surveys has proved that afghan government is the supporter of terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan also but still afghan government blames Pakistan. I want everyone​ in the world to be interested in the fact that why are the border areas of pakistan most effected by terrorism. The reason is that now the province Balochistan is developing many progressive projects have been started in Balochistan and Afghanistan, india and america does not want to see the progress in that area of pakistan specially because it will be against their blames on pakistan. Pakistan is now much more safe than it was 5 to 10 years ago. Now the people of pakistan feel safe, infact foreigners​ also come to Pakistan without any fear for tourism and other purposes. Ali khan dhudi (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Sky is the limit to the number of lies you folks will tell to advance your cause, whether a five year old or eighty year old, whether a gun-totter in Yemen or a clean-shaven Harvard fellow. Where are the sources for all your statements? Only then we can make any changes to the article.Swingoswingo (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I m a local of Pakistan and i know everything better than you about my country. If you want proof, this is not the right forum, infact you will not find anything in favor of pakistan on internet, world media or any other world level forum. If you really want to know about the source of my information you should read the reports of secret agencies, former US officials of white house and Pentagon and MI6. The reports which have been pressed before coming on air, if you are an Indian then that's not your fault, you are on the same mindset on which most of indians and pakistanis are. Our governments only show us the the things they want. So be clever and open minded and search something​ from that reports and secrets. Honestly you will know everything about Pakistan every fact and figure. Ali khan dhudi (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Pakistan is supporting Islamic State

My members of IS are influence by Pakistan to group terrorist group Nittin Das (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

FATF blacklist

This article is locked for editing, so please add an appropriate sentence citing this as a reference: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pakistan-put-in-enhanced-blacklist-by-terror-watchdog-fatfs-asia-pacific-group-report-2089242?amp=1&akamai-rum=off — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.76.12.131 (talk)

What is it exactly that you want to say(or cite)? Feel free to propose a sentence that you want to see here. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Pakistan has been put in an "enhanced blacklist" by global financial watchdog Financial Action Task Force's Asia-Pacific division for its failure to meet global standards, for not curbing terror funding

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:2828:7D39:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. We need verifiable information before we can do such things. Newsmedia are not good enough in cases like this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Please add

Please add the following to the "See also" section. Thanks.

58.182.172.95 (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Unclear if "the establishment" is a significant enough topic and unclear if the book is a notable one and that knowing the book exists is important for a deeper understanding of Pakistan. (In other words, you need to provide reliable sources that verify that these are important topics/books re Pakistan.) --regentspark (comment) 10:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

why "alleged support"?

In the article, there is a section "Alleged Pakistani Army support of terrorists". Within the article, and the section itself, there are evidences, and confirmations by PMs/presidents of Pakistan. I propose the section to be renamed to "Pakistani Army support of terrorists". —usernamekiran (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

Please add this to this article in the, "International isolation" section (please add what FATF means also): Pakistan is likely to remain on the grey list of the FATF till June 2021.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Pakistan may stay on FATF's grey list until June: Report". Mint. 17 February 2021. Retrieved 23 February 2021.
 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Ganbaruby, please add that they can not get any financial help from the IMF, Asian Development Bank etc. also (with the links).
 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Ganbaruby, please change, "Pakistan is listed on the FATF greylist for alleged money laundering and terrorism financing, which makes it difficult for the country to gain....." to "Pakistan is listed on the FATF greylist for alleged money laundering and terrorism financing, which makes it difficult for the country to get....." - it is grammatically better. Please also add World Bank to the list of financial institutions as the source mentions it.
 Done P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2022

narendra modi jindabad , pakistan murdabad , hindustan jindabad pakistan me OLA hu UBER boom boom 💣💣💣💣 202.168.86.36 (talk) 07:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistan_and_state-sponsored_terrorism/Archive_1&oldid=1139197184"