Talk:Afghan Civil War (1996–2001)

Map

Hmm. Good. Where has the map gone?--TheFEARgod 23:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It still exists, it just doesnt really fit anywhere right now since there are pictures, which are usually preferable to maps. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What about CIA

Nice article... But what about the idea that the CIA covertly supported the Taliban in the Russian killings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.196.40 (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Poor article

Sorry, but this sounds like a fairytale and has very few sources. The war was fought to liberate women from unjust and sadistic oppression? That is the full story of its causes? It has narrative structure more consistent with a work of fiction (i.e. orientation, complication, resolution, coda, clearly predetermined heroes and villains) than an actual historic account. Either the average mental age of adults in the West has deteriorated to that of a seven year old, or this was written by a complete idiot who needs to be sent to back to primary school, or perhaps be committed to a mental asylum. Please look at other articles for a better template and rewrite this whole article based on their precedent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.205.58 (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan War in Afghanistan

Pakistan Army was heavily involved in the conflict where many of the army's soldier had fought in the battle. The rest can be read in the page. Would it be appropriate to move/or redirect this article as "Pakistan War in Afghanistan"?

File:A bounty leaflect prepared by the USA for use in Afghanistan (front) -c.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:A bounty leaflect prepared by the USA for use in Afghanistan (front) -c.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan's Involvement in this War is not Properly Sourced

The source provided (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpQI6HKV-ZY&feature=related) does not contain any information on this allegation. Also, it is from National Geographic, which itself does not provide citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.79.126 (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The source provided DOES contain information on this fact. It says: "Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf was responsible for sending scores of Pakistanis to fight alongside Bin Laden and the Taliban. Musharraf wanted his troops to gain combat experience in Afghanistan before being deployed against India ..." (see here) National Geographic is considered a reliable source here on wikipedia like the New York Times or others. JCAla (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any direct confirmation from Musharraf on this or is this some individual's claim made in a national geographic article?69.165.246.181 (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Russia and Turkey supported the northern alliance

[1] there are several sources claiming this. Russia even had a northern alliance embassy in moscow. As for Turkey, Uzbekistan and tajikistan they too supported the northern alliance. Turkey was allied to the Uzbek members of the northern allaince whom are also turkic speaking [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.246.181 (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Then add the freakin sources... *g* To the article. Sigh 213.100.108.117 (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Beginning of article screwed up

The beginning of this article is totally screwed up. I don't have the skills to fix it. LastDodo (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 12 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Civil war in Afghanistan (1996–2001) → Afghan Civil War (1996–2001) – Must be consistent with other Civil War pages. George Ho (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Seems uncontroversial. Dimadick (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Most important word belongs at the front. This article is more about Afganistan than about civil wars. The current title implies it is part of a series of articles on civil wars and should contain a lot of cross-references to other civil wars. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Afghan Civil War (1996–2001). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.orient.uw.edu.pl/balcerowicz/texts/Ahmad_Shah_Masood_en.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/massacre.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9610/19/afghanistan/index.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9808/31/iran.games/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9810/08/iran.afghan.01/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Supported by, for Islamic state

There are no sources provided to support the assertion that Russia, India, United States, Iran, Tajikistan supported Islamic State. You can put them back to sidebar but only after including reliable sources. Capitals00 (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Afghan Civil War (1996–2001). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140707130613/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA11/015/1995/en/6d874caa-eb2a-11dd-92ac-295bdf97101f/asa110151995en.html to https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA11/015/1995/en/6d874caa-eb2a-11dd-92ac-295bdf97101f/asa110151995en.html

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) 15:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

explain that thing

why there is two Uzbekistan in Afghan Civil War(1996–2001) main article here

'Northern Alliance victory'?

Changing front lines from 1992 to late 2001.

If the scope of this article is to be limited to the period before the U.S.-led intervention of 7 October 2001, then we cannot claim this conflict was 'won' by the Northern Alliance. Before the intervention, they had their backs against the wall, being forced into guerrilla warfare from the sparsely populated mountains in the northeast. After the fall of Kabul in September 1996, which this article takes as its starting position, the Alliance lost huge swaths of terrain (mainly those controlled by Junbish and Hezbe Wahdat) until October 2001, with some temporary recoverings here and there and only some small gains to the north of Kabul. At best, the conflict should be described as a stalemate on the eve of the intervention. Although the Northern Alliance successfully petitioned the U.S. and allies to intervene in its favour in the weeks leading up to the invasion, which one may consider a significant diplomatic victory, "Fall of the Taliban government", "Northern Alliance enter Kabul" and "Destruction of al-Qaeda training camps" are all events that happened after 7 October. I propose we more strictly separate the two. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw: I agree with your statement in principle and yes the situation as of when the US invaded Afghanistan could be described as a stalemate between the Taliban and Northern Alliance. However, I think we should collect some WP:RS in support of this (should not be hard to do) and then proceed. Thoughts? Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Afghan Civil War (1996–2001)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Afghan Civil War (1996–2001)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "afghanistan":

• From Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict: Mir, Haroun (6 April 2015). "Afghanistan stuck between Iran and Saudi Arabia". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 21 September 2016.
• From Abdul Rashid Dostum: "Abdul Rashid Dostum". Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Archived from the original on 10 March 2009. Retrieved 18 March 2009.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Baluch/Baloch Part and Nimruz Front

I think all the afghan conflict from 1979 to 2001 lack critical information on the Baluch/Baloch Involement in Afghanistan as they formed a sizeable community in the country having some 600,000-2 Million people. Some baluch were involed in the herat uprising such as Rasul Baloch and sardar jagran as baluchs formed like 40,000-60,000 people in Herat in 70s or 80s which were displaced in the afghan conflict and forced to migrate.

Other Key thing I would add is the Pakistani Baloch exailes in Afghanistan including I think It was taliban or other Islamist militia backed by Pakistan which shelled Baloch Refugee camps in Afghanistan during the period.

Other thing is that I read on Nimruz Front (Baluch Faction) securing most of the southern area with pakistan and Iran like Nimruz,Farah and Helmand provinces due to the rough fighting there focused on light artillery and mobile warfare with Pickups and that they managed to fight off the taliban and win till americans arrived and that even Iran backed them in 1999-2001 also to not mention they declared Independence just one month after 9/11 from Taliban.

@Nederlandse Leeuw @Capitals00 @Rangeley GamerHashaam (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)