Talk:Mujahideen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I removed the sentence about blowback drawing parallels between Afghani mujahideen turning against the US and Germany supporting Bolsheviks who, supposedly, turned against them & went on to occupy East Germany. There is nothing parallel between these two historical situations. In addition, there are better examples of this "blowback" effect (US & Iran, US & Greece, etc.). Red Plum 05:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
This needs some of the less "freedom fighter" aspects added: The mujahideen are well-known to have engaged in brutal war crimes and mass killing, particularly of those from rival tribal groups (Abdullah Shah's massacres of ethnic Hazaras are among the most notorious). This is why the Taliban driving the jihadi commanders out of power was so popular. --Delirium 01:49, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't the same form of the word "mujahideen" used throughout the article? An alternative form is used in the section "Mujahideen in Iraq". I am considering changing it. Doogee 16:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of Osama bin Laden in the section on the Afghani mujahideen? He was certainly an influence.
Contents |
[edit] See also
This has a rather odd "See also" section. Needs sorting out.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:31, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, this article is incorrect. As a supporter of the Afghan resistance, we never worked with Bin Laden or any of his associates. Bin Laden was an enemy of our efforts and this article completely compromises the integrity of the anti-Soviet forces. Whoever wrote it owes the freedom fighters an apology.
- This is true! This paragraph has serious flaws:
- A wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden was a prominent mujahedeen organizer and financier; his Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) (Office of Order) funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the American, Pakistani, and Saudi governments. In 1988, bin Laden broke away from the MAK with some of its more militant members to form Al-Qaida, in order to expand the anti-Soviet resistance effort into a worldwide Islamic fundamentalist movement.
- There needs to be paragraphs of credit to the fighters who fought for years before Osama and Ayman al-Zawahiri decided this was a good place to launch propaganda and train fighters (about 400 at it's height, but that is from a biased source and I believe it. I can't edit articles about that issue...). I have sources, some from the BBC documentary "The Rise of Politics of Fear". I hope that others can use that as a place to start research. There needs to be credit for a man (who's name I can't find) who fought the Soviets for years and was killed by Ayman al-Zawahiri or his associates to plant Osama as a figurehead. They weren't as successful as this article leads you to belive. Osama needs to be put in the timeline. It's a grave error that us Americans don't know more about the real events that took place, and who is really responsible for the Soviets loss (the Soviets themselves, not Osama bin Laden). Sorry I'm ranting. JoeHenzi 05:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And doesn't "Khadamat" mean "Services"--Khidmaath, actually.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:20, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
JoeHenzi is right, The US never funded Bin Laden. I'm getting this from Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars."
I recommend you read "Perfect Soldiers" by Terry McDermott. It is really good and sheds much clarity on the mujahedeen, Islamism, Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and other misunderstood subjects. A-Jay
[edit] title
shouldn't this be at mujahid (the singular)? dab (ᛏ) 8 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)
I attended a lecture at the University of Nebraska Lincoln titled "Afghanistan and Lessons Learned" by Roy Gutman on Monday, November 8, 2004. In this lecture Mr. Gutman did make a distinction between mujahideen and the so called “freedom fighters”. I thought this distinction to be very important to understanding the issue. I hope I have remembered correctly.
A contrast should be drawn between the national and foreign fighters in the Afghan-Soviet conflict. The national Afghan forces should be seen as defenders of their country form outside invasion. These fighters where allied with the mujahideen or the jihadists. These mujahideen where foreign born, and had among their ranks Saudis (Osama Bin Laden) Egyptians and many others who answered the fatwa issued by radical Islamists in their home mosques. These two groups the national and foreign fighters worked together to defeat the Soviet occupation. The groups did however remain distinct through out the war. Conflicts among the groups caused the stratification of the country. I believe the Northern Alliance was composed mostly of “freedom fighters” or nationals. I also believe the Taliban was composed of the international jihadists. These distinctions are not black and white. I think some nationals may have joined the jihad, for instance. However, if I am correct here it would be possible that the United States funded only the national forces and did not give support to the jihadists under Osama Bin Laden. It is unlikely that the jihadists would have accepted support from the United States or that they would have required that support (many rich Saudis supported anti-Soviet forces).
Mr. Gutman spoke of a book to be published on the subject. I am anticipating its release. 7.13.2004
DON'T KID YOUR SELF Pre-collapse of USSR - The Christain God fearing USA called upon God Fearing Muslims to fight against Godless Soviets. It was a natural alliance, belivers in God against Godless people. Post-USSR, The Military-Industrial Complex called the USA, needed a new enemy to sustain itself and came up with the War against Islam / Terror. Something similar happened in WWII, where anti-facist forces, Communist & Democrats united against the Nazi's. As soon as the first war ened the second (Cold War) began. Even now we are being prepared for a War against China, once we win (if thats possible) the war against Islam/Terror.
[edit] Mujahideen in Iraq
-Their goal is to use sharia and set up a theocracy in order to oppose the U.S. backed "democratically elected" President.-
That sentence concerns me enough that I stuck the section-NPOV tag on there. I may just be reading too much into those quotation marks, but that is the way someone would indicate sarcasm about the elections, resulting in a sentence that reads "the U.S.-backed so-called democratically elected President".
Also, I'm leery of "Their goal" at the start of the sentence without a quote to back it up. Surely these Mujahideen have stated what their goal is, in a nice citeable or quotable form. We should cite or quote it, then. Otherwise, ascribing motives to people strikes me as a big no-no for an encyclopedia. The Literate Engineer 04:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- I'm removing the small section entirely, since it is a reference to the Iraqi Insurgency, which is not typically associated with the Mujahadeen - and is not comprised of any of the same people. There are very few groups in Iraq that have even tried to ride the popularity of the Mujahadeen, and none of them have been shown to have any connection with the 'original' Mujahadeen as the term is used. You can't just claim that anybody brown-skinned with a gun is a Mujahadeen >:\ Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 03:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The rise of the Taliban is discussed twice - in the beginning & end - of the Afghan section, and differently each time. They need to be somehow combined. Knotnic 18:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Mujahideen in Bosnia
I removed the statement linking Bosnian mujahideen with "brutality" and "war crimes" against Serbs - as that's beavily POV. To maintain neutrality, we cannot state this as fact but must treat it as an allegation. Perhaps a different NPOV statement should be constructed if anyone wants to keep it in there. I have removed the sentence as I can't find a decent reference from a book/website that isn't heavily POV. -- Buyoof 09:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- So, wait, Mr. Buyoof, stating that someone comitted brutalities and war crimes is heavily POV (well, you actually said beavily, I'm not sure what that means)? This is no allegation, it has been proven, the video is there, just look at it. Did you see the mujahideen telling the bosniaks to let him kill the Serb POWs? I consider that a brutality AND a war crime, and so does the UN war crimes tribunal. --serbiana - talk 23:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spelling of Mujahideen
Further to the comments two years ago, it irks me slightly to see variable spelling throughout the article - while the title is "Mujahideen" and the initial lines refer to it with that spelling, it puzzlingly reverts to "Mujahedeen" for most of the article below that point. I changed it last week but a bot changed it back. Cyril Washbrook 07:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I've corrected mujahedeen to mujahideen in most instances (except those that were intended for illustrative purposes). Cyril Washbrook 02:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I also don't understand why the article resides at the plural form rather than the singular as is general practice on Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 13:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] fighting each other
Does someone want to say why exactly they were fighting each other, after fighting as comrades? It's not merely because of a Sunni/Shia difference, is it? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 07:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tagged article
This article needs some major cleanup. It is chock full of poor grammar and puctuation, unsourced claims, and POV writting. Allah is blushing. L0b0t 13:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Name collision issue
I discovered that "Muja" redirects to here. However, it is also the name of a town in Ethiopia. Just how often is "Muja" used as a shorter form of "Mujahid"? Should I fix this redirect -- or turn it into a disambiguation link? -- llywrch 02:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mujahideen practiced terrorism
This is derived from Colliers Yearbook and from the Russian General Staff's study on the war in Afghanistan[1]
In the border region with Pakistan, the mujahideen would often launch 800 rockets per day. Between April 1985 and Janaury 1987, they carried out over 23,500 shelling attacks on government targets. The mujahideen surveyed firing positions that they normally located near villages within the range of Soviet artillery posts. They put the villagers in danger of death from Soviet retaliation. The mujahideen used mine warfare heavily. Often, they would enlist the services of the local inhabitants and even children.
The Mujahideen leaders paid great attention to sabotage and terrorist activities. The more comon types of sabotage included damaging power lines, knocking out pipelines, radio stations, blowing up government office buildings, air terminals, hotels, cinemas, and so on. From 1985 through 1987, over 1800 terrorist acts were recorded
15-21 March 1979: 200 Soviet civilians and advisers are butchered in Herat
1 January 1980: Soviet citizens are hacked to pieces in Kandahar
March 1982: a bomb exploded at the Ministry of Education, damaging several buildings.
March 1982: a widespread power failure darkened Kabul when a pylon on the transmission line from the Naghlu power station was blown up.
June 1982: a column of about 1,000 young party activists sent out to work in the Panjshir valley were ambushed within 20 miles of Kabul, with heavy loss of life.
4 September 1985: terrorists shot down a domestic Bakhtar Airlines plane as it took off from Kandahar airport, murdering all 52 people aboard.
9 October 1987: 27 people were murdered by a car bomb set off by terrorists in Kabul —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.110.222.33 (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Pakistani/Kashmiri Section
This section seems to have floundered into a POV assertion at the bottom, somewhat ignoring the history of the conflict of Jammu and Kashmir. It should make note of the historical issues of the region, rather than simply ask "What if they had been given their choice in the matter?" The way it is generally understood, Kashmir wished to remain neutral, hence the reason it wanted to be a separate state: to avoid being party to the conflict siding with either India and Pakistan. Yet war was foisted on them by either Pakistan or India, depending on your choice of aggressor in the tale. Or both, if you sympathize with the plight of neutral seperatist natives. --Petercorless 23:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- I tried to edit out some of the POV from this part of the article, but there are still many assertions, which I left intact, but want someone to contribute citations to prove. I did remove some of the speculation regarding peace between the two nations. We should stick to historical and provable assertions, and avoid philosophizing and "What ifs?" At least, in Wikipedia entries. That is more appropriate for a forum. Good thoughts on wishing for peace between the two nations! --Petercorless 00:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Any sympathy to any one is POV --- Skapur 04:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Human compassion for all mankind definitely is POV, but I'd consider it humane and ethical. However, my comments are here on the talk page, not in the article. For the article I remained neutral POV. --Petercorless 06:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Uncorroborated assertion: "As of today the Mujahideen are led by the Abdur Raheem Tribe, Mujahideen General Yassin Abdur Raheem Idbihi has 600,000-750,000 Mujahideen fighters under his command." I'd like to excise this as being rather unsubstantiated. I know that there are allegations that India has 700,000 troops in the area, but are there really this many Mujahideen? It's been marked for citation. I cannot find reference to the mention of the leader, nor a citation of this number of insurrectionist troops in the area. Any thoughts? --Petercorless 19:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Inflation of an uncorroborated assertion? "Only after a few months the Human Rights Watch were told that there are not 3,200 Mujahideen, but instead there are about 800,000 Mujahideen fighter in Pakistan alone and are led by a man known as Mujhaideen General Yassin Abdur Raheem Idbihi." Where is this coming from, and how reliable is this claim? --Petercorless 06:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- After waiting for weeks for someone to source the statements above, and watching the creeping inflation of anonymous claims, I decided to excise the above. I am certainly willing to see some more recent figure than since 1996 for estimated number of mujahideen in Afghanistan/Pakistan, but it needs to be cited properly. Please avoid anonymous unsourced claims. --Petercorless 06:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CIA
I am surprised there is no mention of the CIA. Through the rest of wikipedia, it's hard to find a mention of the Mujahideen without a mention of the CIA. Chuck 04:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Feel free to edit as you feel appropriate; keep it straightforward. --Petercorless 04:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Somalia
I returned a bunch of exised text regarding Somalia. Someone tried to sneak that whole section out. --Petercorless 03:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mujahideen in the Balkans
I'm concerned about the neutrality of this section. The referenced source, the Center for Peace in the Balkans, isn't even slightly impartial. Its "analysis" seems to be diatribes against Bosniak forces, specifically ethnic Muslim or Croats. Can we find some better sources for these claims? Shermozle 03:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not adverse. Pitch in! Feel free to start Google searching for better sources or hit the library. --Petercorless 06:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Saddam Hussein a Mujahidin?
Someone put Saddam Hussein in the list of Famous Mujahidin. Referring to Saddam Hussein as a mujahidin is just outrageous. That is preposterous. If anyone knows the history of the life of Saddam Hussein knows that he and his Iraqi Ba`athist party were strictly secular and even anti-religious. The only time Saddam Hussein started to show any outward displays of religiosity was during the First Gulf War in 1990-1, and he did so to try to use Islam to unify his people and get the Muslim world behind him and against the United States. It was at this time that "Allah Akbar" appeared on the Iraqi flag. Saddam's newfound religiosity in 1990-1 was just a facade and a vain attempt to unify his people and get the Arab and the Muslim worlds on his side. If someone knows how, please remove Saddam Hussein from the "Famous Mujahidin" List or contact Wikipedia to inform them of this highly offensive listing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.150.48.156 (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
