 | This is an archive of past discussions about War in Afghanistan (2001–2021). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Naming
I'm sympathetic to changing the name to U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. The initial title was 2001 Coalition Attack on Afghanistan, then 2001 U.S. Attack on Afghanistan (to reflect the U.S. lead), primarily referring to the initial attacks. Now that there has been an extended campaign, "invasion" seems more appropriate. --The Cunctator
- I am amazed and humbled by your gentle attitude, and once again I apologize for my ad hominem remark. I am probably getting too close to this issue and need to get a grip... --Ed Poor 11:47 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)
Opinion on the article
U.S. Military Response to the September 11 Terrorist Attack
Note: the Wikipedia neither opposes nor supports the US campaign against the Taliban. The title of this article is the result of compromise and negotiation among many contributors, not an endorsement of any point of view.
Although the phrase attack on Afghanistan carries a connotation suggestive of unilateral aggression to some readers, be advised that this is not the offical view of this encyclopedia and is not meant to demean the U.S. campaign in any way.
On the issue of terrorism and how civilized nations should respond to it, as on all controversial issues, the Wikipedia remains entirely neutral (see NPOV).
--- --- some of the wording is in present tense - should it be changed to past tense?
Though I am certainly sympathetic to the motive behind it, I think that the vague and non-NPOV term of "rogue" to refer to the Taliban government should be explained in a better way. --Daniel C. Boyer
"Al-Qaeda, furthermore, are suspected of conducting previous attacks against United States interests in East Africa and Arabia that killed over 400 people" -- It is more than suspected; it should be mentioned indictments have been issued.Daniel C. Boyer
There's really no place for the meta-commentary on the article title. See the earlier Talk for discussion. --The Cunctator
- The only thing I see wrong with it is that "Attack" is capitalized; the only comment on that note that I see in the previous talk appears to agree with me. That, and the periods in "U.S.". --Brion
No doubt this will be contentious, so I should ask first: The article says that the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden - this is false. The Taliban actually offered to hand over bin Laden if presented with evidence of his guilt, but the U.S. declined. (found a reference here after a quickie search: http://wwa.rte.ie/news/2001/0921/usreax.html) Granted, this doesn't mean they WOULD have complied if the U.S. had accepted their offer; I am more inclined to believe they would have found the evidence lacking. However, as it stands the article is misleading - the U.S. did not take all avenues offered to head off the attack. Graft 11:14 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)
- I read the article and come to a completely different conclusion: "The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan is reported to have said that his government could not force Osama bin Laden to leave Afghanistan. According to a news agency report, the ambassador said a council of the county's senior clerics had ruled that bin Laden should be persuaded to leave Afghanistan, not forcibly removed." The only offer I remember the Taliban making was that the would turn over bin Laden to a trial of Muslim clerics in a Muslim country. Rmhermen 11:25 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)