User talk:FreedomFromIgnorance&Tyranny

While your work on Fall of Mazar-i-Sharif is significant, you unfortunately confuse readers introducing terms not familiar to laymen, such as "Special Operators" instead of "Special Forces" (subsequently breaking inline links), and demonstrate a fair amount of biased writing, such as "a rapid liberation of the Afghan population" and "with Mazar-i-Sharif clearly on the brink of liberation from a common oppressor". Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 02:27, 29 March 2009

It hasn't been my goal to confuse the readers in any way, merely enlighten them as to what actually transpired. All I did was utilize the very articles that you referenced and restructured your article to reflect what the references were actually stating. In doing so I was in effect being unbiased. The whole purpose of this format is to allow the public to have access to what the actual facts are, not what one person's opinion or speculations are. (User_talk:FreedomFromIgnorance&Tyrany) 02:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We can find sources that call it a "liberation" or a "brutal occupation", so to compromise, we don't use either term. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm fine with that. But, you wrote in your article "On November 7, New York University Director of Studies on International Cooperation Barnett Rubin appeared before the American Committee on International Relations hearing on The Future of Afghanistan, and warned that with Mazar-i-Sharif clearly on the brink of invasion, there was a responsibility to ensure that there were no reprisal killings of Taliban members by the Northern Alliance; noting that the last two times the city had been overrun, thousands had been killed." But, no where in the article that you reference was he referring to Mazar being on the brink of invasion. He was simply concerned that there wasn’t a repeat of reprisal attacks. This was a sentiment that was echoed by a Northern Alliance Commander days prior to the directors comment. Yet you left that fact out. Who's being biased? Mazar-i-Sharif wasn’t being invaded “or occupied” either. The object in Mazar was to take control of the northern most airfield, the land bridge into Uzbekistan, to route the Taliban and shut down the Al-Qaeda network. Also, the term “Special Forces” refer to the soldiers within the U.S. Army Special Forces Command. Were as Special Operators cover the entire community of soldier, sailors, airmen and marines within the within U.S. Special Operations Command. During the time frame of which the battle for Mazar-i-Sharif transpired, the operations were carried out, not only in a combined effort (i.e. with Northern Alliance) but as a joint effort (i.e. soldiers and airmen with special operations). I am not in any way intrested in butchering your work or placing you on the defensive. In fact, I am pleased that you have taken the time to write what you did. I am simply desirous that it is one that is true and historically factual. (User_talk:FreedomFromIgnorance&Tyrany) 02:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

...remove all mention of guided munitionSherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually throughout the initial part of the war and even through today, Guided munitions were used extensively. The term "Aerial Bombardment" would imply that the aircraft conducted bombing raids reminiscent of WWII over Europe or even the "Carpet Bombing" of cities in Vietnam such as Linebacker I and II. This just did not happen in Afghanistan. "Smart" bombs or guided munitions such as the GBU-24 a laser-guided bomb that was guided to the target by a ground controller utilizing a SOFLAM or the JDAM that engaged a target after the controller obtained menstruated coordinates via a GPS and range finders then passed them to the pilot were used. These were the weapons of choice, primarily, because they would reduce collateral damage. I also went ahead and omitted and references to the liberation of the Afghanis, as per your request. --FreedomFromIgnorance&amp;Tyranny (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(revert to more NPOV version, remove redundant (repeated) sections, claims like "Taliban stronghold")Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 07:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it quite odd that you are requesting that the article "revert to more NPOV version" when the one that you are presenting is replete (full of, or gorged with) pro-Taliban sentiments (POV). Also the "claim" of a "Taliban Stronghold" is upheld by fact. Please take the time to read the very articles that you presented as references and do a bit more research on the subject. Those positions were baricaded, sandbagged, and reinforced fighting positions. Anyone who approached the building, peace envoy or civilian father walking by was killed. --FreedomFromIgnorance&amp;Tyranny (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of partial reversion
I have been partially reverting this article, keeping the additions which are NPOV and do not give undue weight to any topic (We don't need three paragraphs discussing how "smart" "smart bombs" are, for example)
 * Undid the renaming of the Fall to "The Battle for Mazar-i-Sharif", since one force fled and there was no battle
 * Undid the moniker "pro-Taliban occupied stronghold" before "Sultan Razia school", there is controversy in published sources whether it held prisoners of war who had negotiated a surrender, or militants, so it is better than the image caption not give the wrong idea.
 * Changed "handbills" back to "propaganda", but I recognise this is not an absolute improvement - either one is disingenuous in my opinion, for that image. So arguments can be made and I'll abide by consensus.
 * Removed the introduction "Considered the most important city in northern Afghanistan, Mazar-i-Sharif is not only the home of the Shrine of Hazrat Ali or "Blue Mosque", a sacred Muslim site" because it is not only a terrible way to open the article, but irrelevant to the fall of the city - I kept in the part about its importance due to the road to Uzbekistan and the two airports. Those seem militarily relevant.
 * Undid the change of "aerial bombardment" to " Close Air Support platforms" which seems jargony, and unfamiliar to laymen. If it can be better explained, the term can be changed.
 * removed the insertion of "precision air strikes on key command and control centers" because the only source for that kind of wording is blatantly POV. We can try and find better wording if we want.
 * removed the insertion of "It made it possible, at last, to draw a cross on a map to show where the Taliban had been pushed back" because it seems crufty, and we already mention in plain prose how it is was the first major victory.
 * removed discussion which suggested the airport was only used for "deliveries by relief organizations to hungry people in the countryside. This aid alleviated Afghanistan's looming food crisis, which had threatened more than six million people with starvation." as it seems disingenuous, given that six million people did starve in Afghanistan the week/month/year/decade before the bombing.
 * Kept the removal of "American propaganda" to simply "American authorities", fair NPOV
 * Removed the addition of "Al-Qaeda-backed" to the name Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami, there is a wikilink if we want to learn who aids which groups.
 * Removed the addition of " manned by over 200 mounted Taliban and Al-Qaeda personnel" since no credible source suggests AQ held MiS.
 * Undid the change of "while there were fears that they were massing for a counter-offensive" to "in an attempt to mass for a counter-offensive" since the United States cannot speak with authority as to the intentions of the Taliban.
 * Removed the moniker "Young female" from in front of "students", since it is unnecessary.
 * Undid the change from "bombardment" to "Air Interdiction missions" since we the date is not 1984.

Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 22:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is where you err-

-Quote: "I have been partially reverting this article, keeping the additions which are NPOV and do not give undue weight to any topic (We don't need three paragraphs discussing how "smart" "smart bombs" are, for example)"


 * Actually you haven't been "partially reverting this article", instead you've been replacing the whole article with what you deem as appropriate. Since, I've expalined to you in the past, I will not go into it at length. There is a marked difference in what a smart bomb is capable of versus carpet bombing or aerial bombardment of an area. At no time were targets "Carpet bombed" they were all engaged with precision munitions guided by individuals with mensurated (enhanced meathod) coordinates.

-Quote: removed the insertion of "precision air strikes on key command and control centers" because the only source for that kind of wording is blatantly POV. We can try and find better wording if we want.


 * Since it is about the battle for Mazar that we are speaking, "precision air strikes on key command and control centers" is exactly what transpired. No where in that area of operations during that time period were there and errant bombs. All precautions were made to prevent collateral damage to the infrastructure and civilians. Please refer to the official government and non-governmental archives. The bombing of the Mirwais Mina hospital that you continue to put in the article happened in Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, not Mazar-i Sharif.

-Quote: Undid the change of "aerial bombardment" to " Close Air Support platforms" which seems jargony, and unfamiliar to laymen. If it can be better explained, the term can be changed.


 * All targets were engaged by Close Air Support platforms (aircraft). "Close Air Support" is the proper term and very familiar to the "layman". If it is, by any stretch of the imagination, too difficult of a term to grasp, it can be Googled. In fact, there is a well written article within Wikipedia that covers that term.

-Quote: Undid the change from "bombardment" to "Air Interdiction missions" since we the date is not 1984.


 * Let's not omit or changed "Air Interdiction missions" just because you aren't familiar with the term. The above mentioned article covers "Air Interdiction missions" as well, if you would like to take the time to read it. No, this is not 1984, but I guarantee that "AI" missions were carried out during that timeframe.

-Quote: "Undid the renaming of the Fall to "The Battle for Mazar-i-Sharif", since one force fled and there was no battle"


 * In all actuality a battle did take place for the city, it wasn't until the pro-Taliban forces realized that it was futile that they "fled" in order to regroup in Konduz were they subsequently surrendered after negotiations with General Dostum.

-Quote: "Removed the introduction "Considered the most important city in northern Afghanistan, Mazar-i-Sharif is not only the home of the Shrine of Hazrat Ali or "Blue Mosque", a sacred Muslim site" because it is not only a terrible way to open the article, but irrelevant to the fall of the city - I kept in the part about its importance due to the road to Uzbekistan and the two airports. Those seem militarily relevant."


 * The relevance of the "Blue Mosque" and its religious significance was not lost on the military leadership, in that, they saw that they would hold hugh psychological advantage in being in control of that area. I am glad that you saw it fit to keep the part about the airports and road into Uzbek and feel that they are relevant militarily. Since, I am sure, with your background you are an experienced Military Tactician and Historian.

-Quote: "Undid the moniker "pro-Taliban occupied stronghold" before "Sultan Razia school", there is controversy in published sources whether it held prisoners of war who had negotiated a surrender, or militants, so it is better than the image caption not give the wrong idea."{


 * If one would take time to read the article and references, they would find that the "Sultan Razia school" was held by Pro-Taliban fighters (Arabs, Chechens, as well as Pakistanis) and not "prisoners of war who had negotiated a surrender". Two peace envoys attempting negotiations for surrender as well as civilians simply passing by the building were gunned down by the occupants of the building. It wasn't until exhaustive negotiation attempts were made by city Mullahs, U.S. and Northern Alliance commanders that the decision to strike was carried out. At no time during these negotiation attempts were they willing to surrender.

-Quote: Changed "handbills" back to "propaganda", but I recognise this is not an absolute improvement - either one is disingenuous in my opinion, for that image. So arguments can be made and I'll abide by consensus.


 * The term "Handbills" is what the Psycological Operations commuity uses. It is what the piece of paper is, nothing less, nothing more. Call it what it is. What it is used for is a different story and by calling it "propaganda" is in essence being opinionated.

-Quote: removed the insertion of "It made it possible, at last, to draw a cross on a map to show where the Taliban had been pushed back" because it seems crufty, and we already mention in plain prose how it is was the first major victory


 * Funny that you would remove this, since it's a direct quote from one of the very articles that you placed in the reference section.

-Quote: removed discussion which suggested the airport was only used for "deliveries by relief organizations to hungry people in the countryside. This aid alleviated Afghanistan's looming food crisis, which had threatened more than six million people with starvation." as it seems disingenuous, given that six million people did starve in Afghanistan the week/month/year/decade before the bombing.


 * At no time was it suggested that the airport was "only" used for humanitarian aid. It also stated, in two seperate places, that it was used for "resupply routes" and resupply missions" implying military use. But, never did any combat sorties (i.e. F/A 18's) or "aerial bombardment" missions as you like to call them, ever depart from those airfields during that time period. Yes, millions did die from starvation prior to the opening of the airport and land bridge. Hence the "deliveries by relief organizations" not just U.S. Which, by the way, were not permitted under Taliban rule.

-Quote: Removed the addition of " manned by over 200 mounted Taliban and Al-Qaeda personnel" since no credible source suggests AQ held MiS.


 * There are numerous reports both government and otherwise that Al-Qaeda foreign fighters - including Arabs, Chechens, Pakistanis, Uzbeks and Chinese Uyghurs were manning those positions. Official documents were found not only on those captured but the deceased as well.

-Quote: Undid the change of "while there were fears that they were massing for a counter-offensive" to "in an attempt to mass for a counter-offensive" since the United States cannot speak with authority as to the intentions of the Taliban.


 * Once again this was a direct quote from one of the very articles that you placed in the reference section. This was not a speculation by the U.S. but came from what Mullah Dadullah actully said his intentions were. Later, when his fighters surrendered in Knoduz, this was verified during interrogation.

-Quote: Removed the moniker "Young female" from in front of "students", since it is unnecessary.


 * Why is it "unnecessary"? It was a school for young girls prior to the Taliban banning them from having an education and it was rededicated as one. Not as a school for young Men. After all we don't want the layman to get confused.--FreedomFromIgnorance&amp;Tyranny (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

New direction
Do you have an eMail address? I've thought of a way we might resolve this. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 14:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to contact me at: deoppressoliber@rome.com--FreedomFromIgnorance&amp;Tyranny (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've sent you an eMail. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 22:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Note
Please note that an edit war seems to be brewing over Fall of Mazar-i-Sharif, I would encourage you to use the talkpage of the article to achieve consensus, before applying your wide-ranging changes which seem to use overly technical jargon, pro-American revisionism of sources and a general "mashing" of the article's (seeming) neutrality. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 21:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)