Jump to content

Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Darkness Shines (talk | contribs)
31,762 edits
→‎US accusation/description: Go see for yourself
Line 153: Line 153:
::::::::''Barack Obama said in an interview regarding this'' that is attribution. A blockquote is not a copyvio, like I said go ask someone. I have asked for further eyes on the BLP board. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 16:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::''Barack Obama said in an interview regarding this'' that is attribution. A blockquote is not a copyvio, like I said go ask someone. I have asked for further eyes on the BLP board. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 16:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
(out)Look, go read it yourself [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text '''Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used''' to illustrate a point, '''establish context''', or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as '''block quotes'''.] [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 16:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
(out)Look, go read it yourself [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text '''Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used''' to illustrate a point, '''establish context''', or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as '''block quotes'''.] [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 16:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
:No, you have only attributed to the direct statements of Obama... you have not attributed to the ''copied'' statement from the publisher "''Obama added that whether Pakistan's ties with the Haqqani network are active or passive, Pakistan has to deal with it.''"[http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/obama-wont-back-mullens-claim-on-pakistan-137813] which was not a direct quote. Get it now? And even if this ''is'' resolved a full quote about a single event is [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] here. The article is about an organization not that event. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 16:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:33, 4 February 2012


...

2011 Wikileaks Expose: US authorities relist the Interservices Intelligence Directorate As A Terror Org

The US authorities have listed the Pakistani intelligence service (the Interservices Intelligence Directorate) as a terrorist organisation comparable with al Qaeda, Hamas and Hizbollah. — Preceding undated comment added 04:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Addressing the tags

  • Can you tell what exactly do you term as fan point of view? I think you don't call own additions as fan content? So it is balanced just per that.
  • The article is in prose... what is the "list" tag for?
  • Incoherent text? An example please?

Take this (WP:TAGBOMB) into view before tagging an article without addressing the issue, --lTopGunl (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To begin I note the well sourced, concise prose I had added has now been removed and the previous rubbish put back in it's stead. The list tag is obvious, the article has a list format to it. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I put it back, if not; tell me which one (paste it in the above section where it was being discussed - I've created a subsection there for this purpose). the "previous rubbish" you referred to is sourced content needing copy editing. The article is certainly not in list format. There are parts of it in list but that doesn't make the article a list. You've to see list articles and compare them to this. This is nothing like that. You've not addressed other tags. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suppression of criticism is what a fanboy would do, the lede even says they are a premier intel agency. I have decided to rewrite the content in userspace and then add it to the article, fed up of being reverted. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"This article may be written from a fan's point of view" is what the tag says and not about the content allegedly not present. Even though, a lot of criticism is there in the text which actually should be in a dedicated section and not all over the body. You need to check dictionary for the word "premier" [1], it is correct. You can right anyway you like but when you add it to the article, it will still be subject to scrutiny. How is the text incoherent? --lTopGunl (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Already explained, the rubbish you reverted back in and the removal of the well written prose I had added. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not incoherent,or rubbish as you call it, even if not so good at prose. Your content about the Balochistan activities is still there. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support for terrorism

This section which is sourced to academic books was reverted out on the grounds that the information is already present, were exactly in this article is the section for the support of all the terrorist groups in the section I added? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way everything is narrated in this section (Support for domestic terrorists) makes me think that the authors did present some concrete evidence of whatever said not just accused ISI of these wrongdoings. --SMS Talk 15:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In your edit summary you say it needs rewriting. Might I ask why you think this? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This section is a duplication of the Mumbai attacks section already mentioned in "India" section in "reception". Obvious POV. Also note the discussion above where I have explained this to the same user at length. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not, there is mention of several terrorist groups in the new section, not just the Mumbai attacks. It would be better to move the Mumbai section to the new section IMO. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think there should be a little more detail added about this support of domestic terrorists to make it clear whether these accusations do have some background (like they were made after some investigations/probe) or just the rumors that usually are spread against ISI. --SMS Talk 17:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see, as the sources used are of a high quality (academic press) which usually have excellent fact checking I would imagine I got it right. If you are unable to view the sources used do not hesitate to ask and I will provide full quotations for you. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is due to your duplication here and editwarring else where that you just got reported at AN3. Don't try to be neutral here since your content has duplicates and you've Wikipedia:TAGBOMBed the article for your similar reasons. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the Mumbai attacks there is no mention that I can see of the other terrorist groups supported by the ISI. I have merged the sections now so your complaints are hopefully resolved. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've merged the section under a POV title. The correct title will be of accuser as being previously followed. If they are accused (which is mostly the case) by Indian government, that heading should be used. If you have claims from another party that should get, if it is notable at all, its own sub-heading under reception. You've removed content which was not being displayed in the article but was there to be restored on addition of citation. You've also removed cited content along with that. The sections you merged also now do not attribute the claims to the parties which was previously decided and acknowledged by you: "Had not noticed it, however what I have written is superior and all it needs now is the Pakistani denial, the old section can then be removed." It was decided to attribute the claims and keep content under that heading in the "Mumbai Attacks" section above. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a POV title, it is what the sources say. Nothing was "decided" about the Mumbai attacks, in fact I suggested merging that into the new section. I removed uncited content, I got fed up of scrolling past it when editing. My edits adhere to WP:V & WP:NPOV, it is also concise and the prose is better, take your complaints else were, we can do naught on this article for two weeks due to you. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can not make edits to the article after you are reverted. It is protected because you still did that. So that would just mean, you can not editwar on this article (since then I'd disagree and revert) thanks to me. The article can still be edited (and this was the proper way anyway) after gaining consensus and placing an "editprotected" request... so that is not a problem. You've also removed some of the cited content along with your removals. Prose is one thing, changing content to suit your POV does not clearly adhere to NPOV since claims need to be attributed. You're advised to read that section again in that case. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can make edits to an article after being reverted, there is no rule which says I may not. I removed badly written duplicate prose, get over it. Statements of fact do not need attribution. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:EDITWAR then. And you need to stop commenting on me in the edit summaries or other wise. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the last edit to the Taliban article, that is adding new content, not edit warring. Hence, yes, I can still edit an article after being reverted. Take care and toddle pip. Darkness Shines (talk)

You don't understand the policy then. It is editwarring no matter what content you add after being reverted... whether it is a tag or some thing new. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you better go report me then, ta ta for now. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Support for domestic terrorists

The ISI's aid to and creation of terrorist and religious extremist groups is well documented.[1] The ISI have close ties to Lashkar-e-Taiba who carried out the attacks in Mumbai in 2008.[2] Pakistan denies all such claims.[3][4][5] The ISI have also given aid to Hizbul Mujahideen.[6] The ISI has a long history of supporting terrorist groups operating in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir which fight against Indian interests.[7][8] Pakistan claims to give them moral support only.[7]The ISI also helped with the founding of the terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammed.[9] The ISI also founded Al-Badr Mujahideen who were involved in the genocides in Bangladesh in the 1970s.[10]

Which version should be retained in the article? (number 1) This all of which is sourced to the academic press, or (number 2) This one with all the reliably sourced content removed?

Agree that the RFC needs a neutral rephrase to present views of both sides and what is being disputed here. I reverted his additions regarding criticism which were not neutrally phrased, he chose to call an RFC but I guess DS's proposal, the current section and objections need to be added in subsections to this RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So seriously, what is the actual dispute? siafu (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute is that what I have just quoted above in the RFC has been reverted out of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkness Shines (talk • contribs)
The purpose of this RFC should be to fix this in a neutral way and avoid duplication instead of a 'yes/no' one. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until the POV problems in question are solved. The label "domestic terrorists" for Kashmiri pro-freedom groups is also controversial and contentious and should not be used, since WP:Terrorist itself states that the use of "value-laden labels" is best avoided. To maintain WP:NPOV, use in-text attribution to describe who exactly calls Kashmiri groups fighting "against Indian interests" as terrorists/militants. It would be wise to bear in mind the old adage that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Mar4d (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word 'militant' along with attribution is used in such cases to be neutral. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Seperatist groups" would be even better, since it entirely kills off the debate of who is, and who isn't, a terrorist/militant. Mar4d (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. That will then be able to include the non violent or non banned ones. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources call them terrorists as that is what these groups are. We use what the sources use per WP:V Darkness Shines (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, Hizbul Mujahideen "1998 Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and Hizbul Mujahideen terrorists" Chronologies of modern terrorism pp272 "the Kashmiri terrorist organisations, such as the Hizbul Mujahideen" Terrorism: Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow pp3 Combating terrorism: strategies of ten countries pp313 Root causes of suicide terrorism: the globalization of martyrdom pp29 All of these high quality sources call Hizbul Mujahideen a terrorist group. I can do the same with the other groups if needed. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even when external sources (which could be reliable and take bias at the same time and would also have editorializing) are stating non neutral terms, wikipedia still has to be NPOV. Staying neutral is one of the basic concepts here. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, are you now saying academic sources "editorialize"? It is hardly not neutral to call a terrorist group Terrorist. It is not for us to decide which terminology to use, that way lays WP:OR Darkness Shines (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean to say is reliable sources editorialize, as far as I see that is one of the requirement for a source to be reliable. But then wikipedia doesn't straight away uses the same terminology unless being mentioned in that perspective (in which case it is attributed to the source as well). --lTopGunl (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, newspapers editorialize. Academic sources tend not to. I only use academic sources in case you had not noticed. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:USERG and the above section in the link. I guess now I'm clear. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And your point in linking to that was? I have never used a SPS. So no, you are not even remotely clear. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To prove that reliable sources which you claim to use would then have editorial oversight... books or not. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Which I claim to use"? Sorry, please let me know when I have used an unreliable source. And I believe you are confusing editorial oversight with "editorializing", these are very different things. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've not said that you used an unreliable source. I said that a reliable source would have an editorial oversight, it would be phrased per that perspective, while wikipedia observes NPOV. A reliable source is not necessarily a neutral source or does not necessarily presents all points of view. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I endeavor to use only academic sources, as they tend to be Peer reviewed And they also tend to present all points of view. This is why academic sources are considered the best sources on wiki. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your assumption that an academic source will automatically present all points of view. This dispute is a proof against that. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US accusation/description

I recommend you read WP:NPOV, the content is attributed. I have restored it. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Attributed or not.. this has WP:NPOV issues with the wording as well as the tone. You've added the content without consensus. This article was previously protected due your addition of such content. You've resumed your editwar now. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no POV issues that I can see, please explain what is POV about it. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has been mentioned in previous sentences along with the US president's remark in the end... 1) bad usage of English language by using however twice making it look a confused statement. 2) Inconsistency among authorities which should be stated in a manner as before and not in self contradicting way. 3) Repetition of allegations is WP:UNDUE. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has been mentioned in previous sentences No, it has not. Were is the Inconsistency? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Already been mentioned: "However in 2011 The top U.S. military officer Adm. Mike Mullen publicly accused ISI, for giving aid to the terrorists who attacked the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan". Inconsistency: "However such claims where later rejected by U.S. President Barack Obama who said it was more complicated and a question of Pakistan could do more". The solution here is to simply add these references along with Mullen's allegations instead of restating what is already done in NPOV way. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Learn to read. There is a world of difference between giving aid to the terrorists and being called a terrorist group. These are not the same thing. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the personal attacks. You've been persistantly commenting on me in every discussion. There's disagreement among the US authorities of this. And it is not the same thing.. but repetition of same matter. This can be added in the same sentence. "ISI is accused by U.S. authorities like Adm. Mike Mullen, for giving aid to the terrorists who attacked the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan and being as dangerous as those organizations invovled." --lTopGunl (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are two different things, try reading it a little slower. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion covers both regardless. What do you have to say about that? --lTopGunl (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it is a BLP violation so remove it. Mullen never called the ISI a terrorist group. Again, these are two different things. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BLP? Where did I attribute Mullen to be making that accusation? I said 'authorities' like him so that his accusation can be inclusive. In short Mullen and his accusation are being given as an example of the greater accusation. Recheck the sentence. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, read the sources. [2] Mullen has not said what you are attributing to him above. He spoke only of one group. He did not call the ISI a terrorist group. You are conflating two different things and creating a BLP issue were none need exist. The content is reliably sourced and verified. There is no reason within policy to remove it. So it shall stay. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no BLP issue here (you also need to confirm what that means). Mullen is not being attributed to having said that. I'll modify it again to make it clearer: "ISI is accused by U.S. authorities of terrorism, Adm. Mike Mullen accused ISI in 2011 for giving aid to the terrorists who attacked the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. However such claims where later rejected by U.S. President Barack Obama who said it was more complicated and a question of Pakistan could do more. Pakistan categorically denies all the allegations.(cited denial of BBC report which had such allegations)" --lTopGunl (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed the content in question from your proposal. Which is US authorities describe the ISI as a terrorist organization They do not accuse, they have described. As I said, the content is fine. I have also separated this from the RFC as it is a different issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That amounts to an accusation. It has been fully attributed here. Their description is their view. Accusation stands well in this case. "Describes" brings WP:WEIGHT issues along with it. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of sources which describe this particular incident. Weight is not an issue, there is of course that Pakistan cannot deny US authorities describe the ISI as a terrorist organization as it would, well be stupid of them to do so. So I will not bother with this nay further, the edit is attributed, is is reliably sourced, it has been verified. There are no policy reasons at all for removing it, so it shall stay. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The description is an accusation. Simple now? Pakistan denies the accusation not that they described it at all. That was obvious. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sick of this also, you may not use a denial of Pakistani support for terrorism as a denial for the US government calling the ISI a terrorist group. Pakistan cannot deny it Why do I have to explain the same thing over and over and over and over to you? Is it a WP:COMPETENCE issue? Or perhaps you are going deaf? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Come back when you can base your argument on something not a personal attack. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? You have used that WP:HEAR on me quite a few times. There are no personal attacks in anything I have written, once again you go block shopping and deflect from the issues at hand with spurious allegations of personal attacks. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You mean to go around calling people deaf and link it to a legit policy to white wash it? This page is for content dispute anyway. What US authorities describe is an accusation or their view (which amounts to a claim). Pakistan denies terrorism claims. Pakistan certainly has rebutted this. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with it? How many times do you want to use "however" in a paragraph? The block quote is giving undue weight to Obama, it should be rewritten inline. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obama's quote was grossly misrepresented, the full quote is better for those reading the article to see what he actually meant, instead on someone sherry picking certain parts out. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not add that quote. You should better watch your edit summaries when you revert. The full quote is not even attributed to the paper published in or to the interviewer or whatever. It is a copyvio. And even if it is fixed, it has WP:UNDUE issues. The article is about ISI. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quote is not a copyvio, you did not revert to the last standing version, you reverted to your preferred version. A gross misrepresentation of a source attributing something to a BLP has to be fixed, which is what I did. You have reverted 4 times since 09:07, 3 February 2012‎ so stop now please. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From BLP to copyvio version, really? You should have fixed the issue inline. See my above comment. And don't tell me about the reverts, you're far ahear of that (I don't think reverting some one who removed the translation counts to any editwar). Reverting copyvios is not editwar either. Your current quote has copied text attributed to no one. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quote is not a copyvio, go ask someone if you do not believe me. If you are going to attribute statements to a BLP they have to be accurate, the source was grossly misrepresented on what Obama actually said. Do you honestly think it is OK to misrepresent what people have said? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not defending the previous version which was quoting Obama, I didn't add that sentence. But my revert was for your copyvio version. If you think there were issues you should have fixed them... not introduce more. Adding quotes is not a copyvio, but not telling where they are from is. Currently it is simply chunks of copied text with no attribution to the interviewer or the publisher. Better to rephrase it inline (since adding a complete quote even in attribution is undue here). --lTopGunl (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Barack Obama said in an interview regarding this that is attribution. A blockquote is not a copyvio, like I said go ask someone. I have asked for further eyes on the BLP board. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(out)Look, go read it yourself Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have only attributed to the direct statements of Obama... you have not attributed to the copied statement from the publisher "Obama added that whether Pakistan's ties with the Haqqani network are active or passive, Pakistan has to deal with it."[4] which was not a direct quote. Get it now? And even if this is resolved a full quote about a single event is undue here. The article is about an organization not that event. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Wilson, John (2005). Terrorism in Southeast Asia: implications for South Asia Countering the financing of terrorism. Pearson. p. 80. ISBN 978-8129709981.
  2. ^ Green, M. Christian (2011). Religion and Human Rights. Chapter 21: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-973345-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  3. ^ The Independent. London http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/diplomat-denies-pakistan-role-in-mumbai-attacks-1521700.html. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/01/pakistan-denies-governmen_n_147395.html
  5. ^ King, Laura (2009-01-07). "Pakistan denies official involvement in Mumbai attacks". Los Angeles Times.
  6. ^ Sisk, Timothy D. (2008). International mediation in civil wars: bargaining with bullets. Routledge. p. 172. ISBN 978-0415477055.
  7. ^ a b Martin, Gus (2009). Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. Sage. p. 189. ISBN 978-1412970594.
  8. ^ Palmer, Monte (2007). At the Heart of Terror: Islam, Jihadists, and America's War on Terrorism. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 196. ISBN 978-0742536036.
  9. ^ Wilson, John (2005). Terrorism in Southeast Asia: implications for South Asia Countering the financing of terrorism. Pearson. p. 84. ISBN 978-8129709981.
  10. ^ Schmid, Alex (2011). The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research. Routledge. p. 540. ISBN 978-0-415-41157-8.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inter-Services_Intelligence&oldid=474976726"