Talk:Northern Alliance/Archive 1

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

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)

Arhidistan?

This must be a typo? James Frankcom (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

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)


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)

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)

What is the reason that "RAWA cannot be trusted"?

"Quote from the Wikipedia entry for RAWA:

"RAWA has so far won 16 awards and certificates from around the world for its work for human rights and democracy, some of the awards include The sixth Asian Human Rights Award - 2001 [7], The French Republic's Liberty, Equality, Fraternity Human Rights Prize, 2000 [8], Emma Humphries Memorial Prize 2001 [9], Glamour Women of the Year 2001 [10], 2001 SAIS-Novartis International Journalism Award from Johns Hopkins University [11], Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition from the U.S. Congress, 2004 [12], Honorary Doctorate from University of Antwerp (Belgium) for outstanding non-academic achievements [13], as well as many other awards."

It seems to me they are just about the only voice of reason in this troubled country.

ooops that should have been in the preceding section. Sorry (but I'm still very much a rookie editing here)

Gatorinvancouver (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

I am concerned with this explanation -- it is just not specific enough to be a useful guide to others who might want to address the concerns sufficiently to feel confident they have been addressed. If, after a reasonable period of time this section is not expanded I am going to remove the {{npov}} tag from the article.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

this article reads like it was written by a conspiracy between the jews, cia, and nibiru. massoud fought the communists because they were doing terrible things like letting women learn to read 71.178.201.4 (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

And you put a POV tag on because you know this how? Sources need to be given to support your view. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan → Northern Alliance — This article's move was counter-policy. The base article name is supposed to be the most common name a topic is known by in English. The contributor who renamed it incorrectly claimed Viet Cong redirected to National Liberation Front as authority for their renaming. One only has to look at the over fifty articles that currently have wikilinks to "Northern Alliance" which should link to this article to see this article should be at that name. Briefly this article was at "Afghan Northern Alliance". But all the other articles that have any kind of claim to "Northern Alliance" are mere stubs. This article should have pride of place. I am going to make a separate request for the current disambiguation page at Northern Alliance to be moved to Northern Alliance (disambiguation). Geo Swan (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

About the new name

I think this is just stupid, it was NOT their real name and it's just an uneducated colloquialism, something someone coined-up for whatever reason - no idea why it should as the official name be at self-declared encyclopedia, or something that aspires to be an encylopedia. (The possibly most retarded example of this policy is regarding Germany 1933-45 - Third Reich at Wikipedia became "Nazi Germany", the NSDAP is suddenly "Nazi Party", National Socialism is "Nazism" and so on). The same thing about "Viet Cong", too, yes (just a derogatory name made by its enemies - and even Wikipedia later uses "Vietcong" in bold font and not "Viet Cong"), I believe it should be under its proper, real, TRUE name. You won't see for example any documents signed in the name of "Northern Alliance" or "Nazi Party" or "Viet Cong" (or "Vietcong"). And the UIF's government of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan even represented Afghanistan in the United Nations! Colloquialist names should go to Simple Wiki (aka wikipedia for simletons) and not to a serious project which I thought aspires to educate. BTW, there is also United National Front (Afghanistan) now. But I say maybe instead let's just shorten this to "United Islamic Front" as the article's title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.160.239.145 (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Opium?

I thought it was well-understood that opium production skyrocked in Afghanistan after 1996 under the warlords and didn't go down until 2001, when the US started paying the Taliban government to eradicate opium. After the Taliban lost Kabul in late 2001 opium skyrocked again and has been going up continuously under the Karzai government. Karzai has publicly encourage Afghanis to grow opium, his brother is the largest opium producer in the country, and US military commanders have publicly stated that they would not interfere with opium production.

Really, this article gives no hint that one of the main sources of conflict between the Taliban and "Northern Alliance" was the fact that the "Northern Alliance" were basically drug lords and the Taliban wanted to ban opium production.70.114.217.117 (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A more correct name for the Northern Alliance is "warlords." The name "Northern Alliance" was the creation of the US government. The US government would have a hard time getting support for arming criminals and thugs. "Northern Alliance" sounds so much better. The Taliban was greeted as liberators by the Afghan people because they put an end to the turf wars between the various warlords. In the West we know those warlords as "freedom fighters." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


Atrocities?

There is also no mention of the widespread rape and robbery committed by members of the "Northern Alliance". Afghan anger about banditry, rape, and murder committed by the "northern Alliance" is the primary reason the Taliban exists. The "Northern Alliance" was really a short-lived military alliance of warlords, bandits, and drug lords backed by Western powers. There is no mention that the "Northern Alliance" was made up of criminal organizations. There should be some mention that this alliance has produced the most corrupt government in the world. 70.114.217.117 (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


Ahmad Shah Massoud?

The article copies huge chunks from the biography of Ahmad Shah Massoud, who was not the only "Northern Alliance" member or even it's most important leader. 70.114.217.117 (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The recent edits (since August)

I'm sorry I had to revert, but the new article of this was very, very unencyclopedic. Please see any of the good articles before you start editing any other articles (this including even such basic stuff like the proper article layout and writing style, POV/NPOV issues, avoiding red links and Random Capitalization, not overlinking and not linking to YouTube). It's supposed to be an encyclopedia article.

I also corrected the last stable version (before the massive unencylopedic changes doubling the article in size) as much as I could, and you may correct after me if I skipped something once you'll know how to edit Wikipedia. Please work on this version, that is correcting and expanding stuff using sources. As of the history of the conflict, write in the articles on the Afghan Civil War (especially Civil war in Afghanistan (1996–2001)), and same regarding details on the parties and commanders and such. Your edits are of course still accessibly through the history option so you could use some of them.

Thank you for your understanding. --212.91.5.20 (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not use YouTube for references

There are at least 10 "references of this kind right now.Biophys (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Globalresearch.ca is not a credible source

That site has:

  • Pro-DPRK material.
  • Pro-Serb fascist articles.

They even deny the Rwanda genocide for more read the article below.

http://chroniclinghate.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/globalresearch-ca-a-collection-of-racist-fantasies/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldritch48 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


I don't know about globalresearch.ca, but you are at the wrong place here. Globalresearch.ca is not used and not listed as a reference in this article. JCAla (talk), 8 March 2011 (UTC)


an entire paragraph about foreign miltiary support to different afghan factions and taliban massacres are not relevant to this page about the northern alliance --Ambelland (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

northern alliance

you cant ignore the fact that during 1995-1999 the Russian had many meeting with senior Northern Alliance leaders, and the Iranians and Indians supported different factions. You also cant ignore that the taliban was made up of afghans, and they took over kandahar without firing a sigle shot. people liked the taliban they brought peace after the mess of the war lords. who keeps changing it is wrong and not following wiki principles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbh123 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


  • First, I do not ignore anything. I dislike you removing everything which you do not seem to like. Obviously you got an agenda. If you got reliable sources concerning India, etc, then just edit the text WITHOUT removing other well-sourced content.
  • Second, the Taliban took Kandahar from local rulers, not from the Islamic State (later United Front/Northern Alliance).
  • Third, the Taliban may have brought calm (not peace!) to Kandahar, but they brought a two-year intensive bombardment and food blockade to Kabul. They brought massacres to central and northern Afghanistan. They followed a "scorched earth" policy.
  • Fourth, the Taliban were able to come back after their defeat (against Massoud in 1995) for only one reason: the support of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
  • Fifth, you can't ignore that the Taliban fighting the United Front were partly Pakistani. Pakistani military planners were planning Taliban operations. Pakistani military airplanes helped with Taliban troop rotations. The Pakistani Frontier Corps was fighting alongside the Afghan Taliban, etc.

JCAla (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


You ignore the indian ,russian and other role all you do cry about pakistan attempt to counter foreign influence. You are the one with agenda, I have kept in the role of pakistan, u keep deleting the role of others . Its clear to me you have an agenda.I "dislike" you not allowing any changes with dont suit your innocent world view. I have given reliable sources, everyone knows india and russia where involved, Ive given crystal clear sources and u still delete the russsian role the taliban brough peace to warring warlords taliban did massacres as did the nothern alliance . taliban defeated massoud because war lords switched loyalties Fifth, yes some taliban fighters where pakistani, just as some of the mujahedeen fighting the soviets where Pakistani. but its a our right MASSIVE MASSIVE MASSIVE lie to pretend somehow that it was just all non afghans in the civil war , which is what the article said before I changed did. there where no pakistani planners or troops involved, the state department cable refers only to the allegation of na but ambassdor rejects them. if u had any credibility you would accept that,instead you continue with your pro northern alliance biased view. not neutral.Pakistan Frontier coprs did not fight, dont get into conspiracy theories .

you can reject my sources,half your utube sources the videos dont even exist

I suggest you stop changing the article to your own POV--Gbh123 (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


Again, I do not ignore anything. You are spinning your own non-existent story. Your version contains massive errors.

  • Hekmatyar attacked Kabul starting April 1992 (long before Burhanuddin Rabbani was named president, at that time Sibghatullah Mojaddedi was president). Hekmatyar even attacked Mojaddedi's airplane trying to kill the president. Mojaddedi (a Pashtun) then asked Massoud (defense minister) to defend the capital from the aggressor Hekmatyar. Hekmatyar was repelled by Massoud for one month BUT Hekmatyar reinitiated his attacks end of May/beginning of June 1992 (again BEFORE Rabbani was president) with thousands of Pakistani-supplied rockets.
  • Hekmatyar's faction was the ONLY faction not to accept the power-sharing agreement when it was signed in early 1992.
  • Your stubborn POV mentality becomes more than obvious by the fact that you keep changing the name of a George Washington University document which is explicitly named "Pakistan: "The Taliban's Godfather"? Documents Detail Years of Pakistani Support for Taliban, Extremists" [1] to the following non-existent name: "Documents Detail of Pakistani,Indian,Russian,Iranian and Saudi Arabian Support of different afghan factions, Extremists".
  • As for your read on these documents: What are you talking about? These documents are NOT United Front (Northern Alliance) allegations, they are US findings. You need the excerpt? Here it is:
Obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive at George Washington University, 
the documents reflect U.S. apprehension about Islamabad's longstanding provision of direct aid and military 
support to the Taliban, including the use of Pakistani troops to train and fight alongside the Taliban inside 
Afghanistan. [...]

Similar to the October 22, 1996 Intelligence Information Report (IIR), this IIR reiterates how "Pakistan's ISI is 
heavily involved in Afghanistan," but also details different roles various ISI officers play in Afghanistan. 
Stating that Pakistan uses sizable numbers of its Pashtun-based Frontier Corps in Taliban-run operations in 
Afghanistan', the document clarifies that, "these Frontier Corps elements are utilized in command and 
control; training; and when necessary - combat."

[2]

  • The United Front may have received weapons and financial support from India, Russia and Iran but never to such an extent as the Pakistani support for the Taliban. There were no Indian, Russian nor Iranian forces fighting in Afghanistan from 1996-2001, etc.
  • When it was only Massoud (no more Dostum) versus Taliban & Al Qaeda & Pakistan, which way were the up to one million internal refugees fleeing? Tell me. Away from the Taliban towards Massoud.

JCAla (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Radom ELs including YouTube

Starving to Death Afghanistan (documentary report March 1995) by Journeyman Pictures/ABC Australia
Massoud's Last Stand - Afghanistan (documentary report 1997) by Journeyman Pictures/ABC Australia
Inside the Taliban (documentary film 2007) by the National Geographic
Other

--Niemti (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Northern Alliance. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 05:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Northern Alliance. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 20:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Northern Alliance. 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, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Northern Alliance. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Links

Freedom2B (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northern_Alliance/Archive_1&oldid=1189169805"