Talk:Terrorism in Pakistan/Archive 1

Vandalism
Anyone who reverts the restoration I did on October 30, 2005 will be blocked for 24 hours. I'm tired of the vandalism and undiscussed reverts. I took the time to restore the info-you can take the time to growup. freestylefrappe 23:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Pakistan
This article is not based on facts. There is a need to balance this article.

Here is an example:

"Religious fundamentalism has also believed to have played some role in contributing to the rise of terrorist activity. The 7 July 2005 London bombings was carried out by people who are believed to have visited a Pakistani madrassa at some time in their life"

These terrorists were born and bread in UK. They might have visited Pakistan for few months. But, was it going to change their thinking altogether? What is the percentage of few months say in 28 years?

Are you accusing Pakistan for training these terrorists?

Maakhter 04:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh duh, they were extremist from the start, but terrorists only when they got training.--59.177.17.193 18:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents in Pakistan
Would anyone oppose merging List of terrorist incidents in Pakistan into this article? KazakhPol 22:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I support such a move. It would cater to the well being of this plagued article. Razzsic 05:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Article is extremely Biased sourced from anti-Pakistan sources
It is understandable P.O.V when the writer is getting his/her information from childish anti-Pakistan articles on http://www.khurmi.com/danger.htm or alike.

I would encourage him/her to look out for sane information sources to balance the article out rather than depending on Indian propped-up propaganda sources. Ofcource they are not going to tell you the background of Kashmiri Separatists movement in their interest. They are never going to accept that India supported insurgency in Bangladesh(East-Pakistan) untill 1971, and later invaded with a four times larger force than Pakistan's to detach it.

So, Pakistan becomes a terrorist nation IF independent west-Pakistanis 'tats' for 'tits'. And Pakistan gets accused of hosting terrorism when she has banned such organizations outright and froze all their financial assets as soon as Pakistan found concrete evidence for their involvement in cross boarder activities. I didn't know that giving a moral support to freedom fighters is also considered terrorism. That way, 3/4 of the world should be considered terrorists too when they sympathize with Palestinians.

Obviously, Kashmiri freedom fighters are terrorists for India who resist 700,000 Indian Army occupation of their land, and oppression of Kashmiris under the lame excuse of insurgency from Pakistan. Just think for a second about the large number of military presence in Kashmir, which is not larger than state of New Jersey. Do you think that they need to keep such a huge military presence in that small area when people are willing to live happily with India? They are never going to tell you that India is disregarding Kashmiri's right to decide their fate for last 60 years, and U.N resolutions that calls for plebiscite for Kashmiris. And what excuse they have for that? Oh, because so called insurgents have killed or made Kashmiri 'Hindus & Sikhs' run away from Kashmir in large percentage in order to make Kashmir a 100% Muslim majority state. Well, if they have not re-invented their history, the neutral historians testifies that Kashmir has been a Muslim majority state by 9:1 or more, even before 1947 division of British India. Less than 10% of Kashmiri 'Hindus & Sikhs' didn't prefer the life under the gun point and didn't want to be part of 'collateral damage' of Indian forces as Kashmiri Muslims does, therefore, those 'Hindus & Sikhs' that moved out of Kashmir voluntarily has been a stagnant stand point for India for not upholding the U.N resolutions. Where's Kashmiris fault in there? Why Kashmiris should suffer being Muslims having their Monarch Sikh ruler signing Kashmir's annexation with India in 1948 when according to "Two-nation theory", which implemented separation of Muslim majority lands from British India to Pakistan in 1947, Kashmir was suppose to be Pakistan's part.

Neutral international arbitrators know that Kashmir was supposed to be with Pakistan regardless of their Sikh Monarch's annexation with India. 1947 comes before 1948. Therefore, Maharaja should have showed compliance to division of British India as other princely Indian states did. Indians are not going to deny that State of Hyderabad ruled by The Nizams, Muslim rulers, was dissolved into present state of Karnatica, Andhra Pardesh, and Maharashtra by force when they announced their decision to remain independent from Indian rule. This is called plain hypocricy. The fact of the matter is, India doesn't give a damn to "Two-nation theory" and has not fully accepted Pakistan as a separate sovereign state right from the beginning and has tried to even annex Pakistan back into India by force in 1965. Some don't even shy calling Pakistan as India's 'Atoot Ang'- Broken wing - of India; disregarding Pakistan's claim on Kashmir. India's policies have been very aggressive against Pakistan being the 7 times bigger force untill 1998 Pakistan's nuclear tests, which helped toned down Indians.

So, article should be labeled biased as I don't see it bringing up the reality upfront without putting all the numbers in the equations.

Please do Pakistanis a favor and hang a little 'non-neutrality' sign on this article untill it is corrected. mbutt01@guelphhumber.ca -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.137.145.74 (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

This article is showing totally wrong information.Infact, the reality is that UK is involved in all this processes. In short this is done by command of UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.66.238 (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful piece of research which is well-written.

Is it possible for the author/researcher to find out the costs involved in suicide bombing. Heard C-4 explosive is avilable in the international market for 15 British pounds per kg; add to this the amount paid on "training" the suicide bomber and other logistics involved in moving the bomber to the target and you get a rough estimate.

Calculate the total number of suicide bombing and get the cost of the operation. I bet it is going to be so big that our poor Dadullahs category extremists cannot afford on their own.

Read somewhere tons of RDX/C-4 explosive is missing from US military stores in Iraq. Any clues?

Timegetta (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have went through many articles, but this won simply tells us that Pakistan is killer. Wikipedia has surely lowered its standard or it is listening to anti-Pakistan elements. Either this page be removed or it should be made neutral. Also, I want to have a complete list of terrorist attack in pakistan Spasage (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2010

Attempted Improvement
I have attempted to sumarize and de-POV the lead adding the the old lead to the causes section. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Biased editors not READING facts
A good informative article. It has provided insight of Terrorists groups in Pakistan. After attack on Indian city Mumbai, US govt. has identified few more terrorists groups in Pakistan. A terrorist group called Jama'at-ud-Da'wah, involved in India-Mumbai attack is not included in this article.

San25872 (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Instead of beating it in the comment space I welcome all talk here. The intro words for the paragraph were composed based on a couple of Pakistani authors who were less biased than anon editor is. Also I dont see why all intro articles should be cut and copies from an existing one. The original intro for this article was just used as a placeholder. The current one talks both on diversity and the real underlying issues backed with statistics. The presentation for each articles differs considerably because two nations are not essentially the same. In Terrorism in India, the format is to present it on a state basis whereas in Pakistan the ground reality is different (which someone not in subcontinent wouldn't know). Thus the way the article develops too is different. People can't be like horses with blinders. If anon user does revert this again, I'll have to go for arbitration where his brand of POV without any backed up sources will be cut short.

Note to anon:Please READ the sources before jumping up and down. Your comments too showed that even after me changing the words to "state sponsored terrorism" from "state terrorism" you were still crying in your comments calling others as kids. Don't ignore the log in your eye before pointing the speck in others' eyes. Idleguy 05:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, it was written by one guy, me, and I'm not Pakistani. I copied the basic format for Terrorism in India because I thought it was appropriate. I think we should keep the basic layout with the sections based on geographic location since the article is specific to terrorism of the specific country. This endless reverting has got to stop. Please settle your dispute on the talkpage. freestylefrappe 21:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Time and time again, Idleguy's limited ability to understand the simplest of reasons and the simplest of wikipedia policy has proved that he is interested only to put anti-Pakistan bias into every article possible. What's even funnier are his threats for arbitration, which I see as a futile attempt to get back at me for my initial warning that I will request arbitration if he continues to revert edits, which he has done several times more than me and without any compromise. A simple read of the edit history over the past few days will prove this. Here are several actions he has undertaken within the last few days that prove his ability to act neutral is non-existent:
 * calling all separatist movements "terrorists"


 * giving an Indian source with only 3 lines worth of material and then expecting us to keep this statement: "however some statements made by Kashmiri militants showed the involvement of Pakistan in establishing terror camps." I compromised and still kept his statement despite the poor quality of his source and changed the statement into a more NPOV version: "Some Indian sources claim that statements made by Kashmiri militants indicated involvement of Pakistan in establishing "terror camps"." Even after my compromise, he reverted.


 * later when he gave a better source for the above quote, he still wanted to keep the phrase that "however some statements made by Kashmiri militants showed the involvement of Pakistan in establishing terror camps." whereas I proposed a new sentence saying that "However, recent statements have surfaced which accuse the Pakistani information minister of having supported the separatists in the conflict in the early stages of the war." This was precise and also according to what the source he provided said. It only accused the Pakistan INFORMATION minister of supporting separatist groups when he was young. Idleguy reverted and assumed that one individuals actions should be applied to the whole nation!


 * He also changed the introduction drastically and into a very POV version and then kept reverting when I asked for a reason. The introduction he created attempted to hint that the Bangladesh Liberation war and the Bulochistan tribal conflict was a reason for terrorism and "90% of all reported terrorist activities worldwide were located in Pakistan", which is ridiculous from even an Indian perspective. He did not give a page number for his "source" and it is very likely that he made it up.


 * He also wanted to put "Alleged State Terrorism" as a heading for Pakistan's alleged support of the Kashmiri separatist movements and support for various Anti-Soviet groups during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I repeatedly asked him to learn that monetary support to outside non-governmental organizations is NOT state terrorism. Later "alleged" was added to this, but he still kept reverting the intro with his edits and WITHOUT any discussion. I proposed that we "leave the article like this (the way that is closer to how it was originally) and you discuss what you want to add on the talk page. Then we can review your "sources".)" NO DISCUSSION WAS MADE BY IDLEGUY, BUT OFCOURSE HE REVERTED AS USUAL. This came as no surprise to me and it became clear that he was just here to argue and push Indian pov. He said  "r u obsessed with maintaining the same intro para across all nations? are you afraid of the truth? a person who rubbishes sources should be rubbished.)"

Idleguy, isn't only like this on this article, but also other articles where he sees India as a "magnificent rich cultured country that never harmed anyone in it's history" and Pakistan as the "evil occupiers who kill Indians". He sees kashmiri separatists as "terrorists" and claims that they are "Indians" only when they are not resisting the Indian occupation. He prefers blaming the victims for all the deaths. Unfortunately his POV has drifted over to this article too. Hopefully he will now read wikipedia policy, admit his mistakes and start improving the article in a constructive way. I am glad to see that a couple of new editors are also editing the article now. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Shows that you still want me to spoonfeed you in asking the exact lines where Hasan Abbas quotes that line. Well, I've got some info for you anon and you'll probably eat your own words for "it is very likely that he made it up." on the 90% figure. It's in page 112 of the book but i'd expected that ppl who use these would automatically search on amazon or Google Print but I guess that's a habit only those who READ books would know.


 * As I see it Anon editor is one of the most biased POV pushers I've seen where he deletes statements outright, and against Wikipedia norms marks them as "minor" and constantly accuses others of bias. He also fails to add any sources himself and expects others to follow his rules else everyone is accused. He also fails to differentiat a news article that would anyhow be the same be it Indian or Pakistani from a editorial or opinions. While he eagarly chides others for indulging in personal attacks he uses subtle statements like "limited ability" and assumes ppl would not get wind of his negative dig.


 * His accusation that somewhere I've included "magnificent rich cultured country that never harmed anyone in it's history" & "evil occupiers who kill Indians" (as his quotes suggests) should either be proved or should be taken back with an apology since I was the one who created sections in Terrorism in India as well as in other articles that don't boast of India. au contraire, his obsession with pakistan/islamic topics is now beginning to show that despite a lack of ground knowledge he presumes to know all. I think he's still smarting from his failed attempt to somehow mask facts in Kargil War and his opinions were formed then.


 * He is not even interested in improving any article and taking it forward and uses that "state terrorism" edit as his only straw. If he was really about improving the article he should have atleast changed those words and discussed issues here. Until i started a talk page here, it seems he wouldn't even thrash out the differences. It is the same story across almost all articles where he is either afraid of facing the truth in the talk page or simply like to revert. Even after providing neutral sources for his arguments and making changes to neutralise POV comments in Terrorism in Kashmir he just "feels" it has an Indian bias without providing any more of biased lines to correct. Shows that one is interested in moving things forward while other wants status quo.


 * His accusations of my being POV and mine similarly on him would go nowhere but atleast I always (mostly) quote mine while he refuses to first read them as he feels that fellow muslims don't kill blah blah. then he demands that i babysit and read the exact lines out to him. then the grudgingly accepts, but not before a scene and accuses that just because there's been some edit wars that the instigator is always wrong. Open up your mind and READ anon. Idleguy 04:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Lead
Razzsic has made a lot of major changes, much of it an improvement, but I think the lead is now too long. IMHO it needs more summary less detail.

I propose a shortening the text in the lead on the killing of non-combatants before Islamisation (the partition of India and the independence of bangladesh) into one paragraph and then having a short section on those eras before the Causes section. Maybe called History. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No basis for RAW Sponsership
"RAW is commited to destroy pakistan completelty by propagating against Pakistan. RAW is sponsing various terrorist groups in pakistan for a robust terrorsim inside pakistan. RAW carried out several suicide attacks inside pakistan with the help of so-called Jehadi groups like Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) headed by the Baitullah Mehsud. Pakistan has collected all evidences against RAW involvement in terrorists attacks on official installation. Soon Pakistan will take action against those all."

If the above quotes in articles doesn't look like a rant..then what is. There is absolutely no basis or citations from any (reliable or unreliable) sources to state that Indian Intelligence is behind Tehreek-e-Taliban. The author of this article is evidently a pakistani "patriot", but he/she could have mention it as an allegation by Pakistan Government rather than an absolute universal truth. So I am deleting that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.42.27 (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes Pakistanis seem to react overly sensitively to accusations that their govt. tacitly or actively supports terrorism.However there is enough truth in the fact that Pakistan is a terrorist state and only half heartedly fights terrorism under duress and US pressure while actively keeping the sanctuaries and training camps of terror alive in various parts of Pakistan.--User:Vikramjits (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2009‎ (UTC)

"While Pakistan has a long history of exporting terrorism, terrorism within Pakistan is a more recent phenomenon"
Please give me reference/reason/criteria of fist sentence "While Pakistan has a long history of exporting terrorism, terrorism within Pakistan is a more recent phenomenon". I am removing/replacing this sentence.--User:Spasage (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism is terrorism
Okay, just because our dear benevolent leader has promised us that he is fighting terrorism by bombing a country we are not at war with doesn't mean we have to adhere to that standard on a website that should maintain neutrality. When the U.S bombs Pakistan it is an act of terrorism no matter what way you look at it. Terrorism in the doctrinal sense means things you do to us not things we do to you. In its real neutral definition terrorism is an act of violence committed by anyone, whether its the United States or Al Qaeda, it's still terrorism!PlasticJesus341 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The statement "Terrorism in the doctrinal sense means things you do to us not things we do to you" is incorrect. From Terrorism: "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)." You can debate whether specific U.S. bombings that killed Pakistani civilians were intended to create fear for a political goal or whether they were botched attempts to kill militants, but you cannot change the meaning of a word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.28.16 (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Islam
I think wikipedia should point http://faithfreedom.org to moslems so that all moslems can leave islam for the peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.19.46 (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it should not - faithfreedom.org is a propaganda website that denies the possibility of peaceful islam. If anything, such propaganda is inciting further terrorist activities. Besides, Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a forum for intolerant anti-muslims.

Actually, moon god cult of pagan arabia has affected pakistan which is the core reason why pakistan faces troubles. Be a proud murtad rather than a moon god cult member. Faithfreedom.org helps muslims to leave the cult much easier.In moon god cult, muslim versus kafir always goes through the mind of "pious" musulman, he fails to understand that he IS brainwashed under this cult. Leave islam. Embrace Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism or New age religion to make Pakistan a better place. Enough of target killings.- a murtad pashtun 68.32.3,4.29 (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest the annon read Islam in the United States for an example of an Islamic community with a vanishingly tiny amount of terrorist incidents. Hcobb (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Reverts by Smsarmad
Smsarmad, Osama bin Laden was found and killed in Pakistan and the Govt. of Pakistan has done a deal with the Taliban to allow them to impose the Sharia in NWFP and FATA regions. I have inserted those sentences with the proper citations, so why have you removed them? Please justify or else I will revert your edit.
 * Smsarmad, those edits of mine are needed to show that Terrorism is a big problem in Pakistan (and I've used citations from other wikipedia articles, so that should be O.K.).—Khabboos (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have sources that say that the Pak government recognising so-called Sharia Law is relevant to terrorism? If you do not, then including it in this article is original research.

I suspect that what people are really talking about is Pashtunwali rather than Sharia Law. Though I accept that Western and Indian journalists often refer to it as Sharia Law (even though it is often clear from descriptions of crimes that it is really Pashtunwali - for example there was a case reported by British media where a Pashtun [Pathan] couple who had eloped were shot - eloping is a crime in Pashtunwali that carries the death penalty). If it really is Sharia Law rather than Pashtunwali, then this is interesting. Sharia Law is in some ways more liberal and pro-feminist than Pashtunwali.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Khabboos
Terror buster or should I say Khabboos, do you mind coming to the talk page instead if edit warring? AcidSnow (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Reverted this diff
Hello,

I reverted this diff due to a large claim with only one source. I'm not sure that the source is reliable but I feel like this change in the wording violates both WP:NPOV and WP:OR, possibly WP:RS. Thoughts on this edit?

-- Dane 2007  talk 06:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Insistence on retaining outdated data
So for some reason, an edit to the article to depict the conditions as in 2017 was reverted because the cited references of compiled data of terror incidents in 2017 did not satisfy one editor who said "We need more conclusive evidence on that before you remove content. discuss on talk page". So what kind of more conclusive data do we need other than the compiled data itself? I mean the stats do speak for themselves. Just to be clear, the edit was not about long term impacts of the recent operations by the Pakistani military(Other than the reversion of the word has from had, which I am okay with), it was about the immediate impact which is visible beyond a doubt in a sharp decline in terror attacks, number of fatalities etc. What does pass for being more "Conclusive" than this?
 * Hi, your change was in two parts. First part, you claimed that terrorism "had" from "has" which indicates that terrorism is no longer an issue in Pakistan. Also in this sentence you attributed this to Operation Zarb-e-Azb. Second, you added a sentence which stated numbers correctly(per your source) but did not specify that it was still October and said it was in striking contrast to earlier years. There are issues with both these additions. The very first one is WP:OR that you are arriving on a conclusion which is not stated in your sources. Please provide a source which states what you have stated and attributes the reduction in terrorism(if any) to the a specific Operation. Second, although the numbers are correct you should mention that it is only till October and not use the words stark contrast. That can mean different things for different people and you need to be careful of Peacock. One should clearly state the numbers with the caveats and not add more information then what is not provided by the provided source. Lastly, I would hold off on the 2017 numbers since the year is not over yet. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal
, I propose:-

-Karumari (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Where do you want to insert it?-Snowded TALK 19:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Anywhere you deem fit. I propose we create a sub-section titled, "Religious opinion" and put it under that!-Karumari (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Its not worth a section and I'm not here to do your job for you -Snowded TALK 06:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , Snowded has been reverting this insertion of mine that you can see above, repeatedly. He asked me to propose what I want to do, but has now said that he is not here to do my job for me. Please tell me how we can insert what I have proposed above into this article, according to the rules, so that nobody feels like reverting it. Thanks!&mdash;Karumari (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear Karumari, your problem is that you want everything your own way without listening to helpful advice. Snowded has given you reasonable advice and reverted you for good reasons. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre 08:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm also loosing patience - if this carries on I'll propose a topic ban or similar at ANI -Snowded TALK 09:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The sentences above have been incorporated into three other articles, if you don't want me to have these sentences here, at least let me create a link like the first sentence here.&mdash;Karumari (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Specify the edit you want to make, simply inserting a look up reference doesn't make sense -Snowded TALK 05:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the sentences above and their references should be incorporated or a link like this should: | Fatwas have been issued declaring terrorism as Haraam or forbidden. Thanks!-Karumari (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Make a specific proposal as to the text and its exact location - stop setting tasks for other editors -Snowded <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 11:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the sentences above and their references should be incorporated or a link like this should: | Fatwas have been issued declaring terrorism as Haraam or forbidden. It can be at the beginning of the, "War on terrorism" section or under a sub-section that we create, titled, "Religious opinions" at the bottom of that section. Thanks!-Karumari (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A sub-section is way over the top for this and you can't have a plural title for a single quote. Inserting it the beginning provides no context.  The whole paragraph is problematic so I have removed all incited material.   If you can find reliable sources for the assertion that religious extremism is a cause (that shouldn't be difficult) then a phrase such as "However this has been condemned by ...." with the reference would make sense; but only then.  Seeking out articles to insert text that you favour is generally a bad policy.   You might be better editing some articles in which you are less personally engaged to learn your trade here -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 05:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I wish you had not removed that material. Anyway, I shall try to find and cite references and re-insert that. Can I insert this at least, "However this has been condemned by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) of Pakistan which has issued a collective fatwa against suicide bombings, the killing of innocent people, bomb attacks, and targeted killings declaring them as Haraam or forbidden. Others have also issued fatwas declaring that terrorism is kufr under Islamic law." and cite the above references at the end of the, "War on terrorism section"?-Karumari (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I could find this online, "The US has conveyed to Pakistan that it wants Islamabad to cooperate fully in the war against terrorism as it is a matter of "extraordinary importance" to America, President Donald Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton has said. During his visit to Islamabad last week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had pressed the new Pakistani government led by Prime Minister Imran Khan "to do more" to rein in terror groups operating from the country's soil. The Trump administration has recently cancelled USD 300 million in military aid to Islamabad after it failed to take actions against terror groups. It was done knowing well that Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state, and the risk that the government could fall into the hands of terrorists that would get control of those nuclear weapons was particularly serious," Bolton said. Early this year, Trump had ordered suspension of all military aid to Pakistan arguing that it has failed to take satisfactory actions against terrorist groups." from here.&mdash;Karumari (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Here and here, more of the same can be seen. Can we incorporate this stuff into this article?-Karumari (talk) 09:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This cites some of what we have here already in the lead. Can we cite it here as a reference?-Karumari (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Material not supported by third party reliable sources gets deleted. You can't use Trump's political statements to support a factual statement about the Pakistani government.  Please STOP just randomly putting material up and saying "can we incorporate this"make specific proposals - you might want to use a sandbox on your talk page to try things out and I'll happily comment there.  But the talk page of a serious article is not a training ground for new editors. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 10:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)