Jump to content

Talk:Turkistan Islamic Party

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 89.173.227.64 (talk) at 19:32, 4 April 2016 (Signing the comment made by me.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Arabic

Untitled

Um, why does Uighur Separatist Movement redirect here? Surely this is not the only expression of Uyghur separatism... --MC MasterChef 00:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Admitted to training by Al Qaeda?

The article asserts that several Uighurs admitted to being trained by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

I've read the transcripts of the 18 Uighurs, held in Guantanamo, who attended their Combatant Status Review Tribunal. All of those Uighurs denied being trained by Al Qaeda. All of them denied knowing of any ties between their training and Al Qaeda or the Taliban. See Uighur detainees in Guantanamo. -- Geo Swan 15:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, what else were they supposed to say?! "They had connection with AQ and they spend the rest of their lives behind bars & dropping soaps in showers everyday?!" Plz~ In fact, I have also read the VERY transcripts that you have just linked above, 1 also guarded an AQ Safehouse. I don't recall AQ asks civilian to guard their safehouses, hm. TheAsianGURU (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You assert this as if it were a proven fact. It is merely an allegation -- one the Bush administration finally admitted it could not prove. If you think you can prove this allegation I encourage you to contact the AG. Geo Swan (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, please don't put stuff in my mouth and statements that I did NOT make. As far as I can tell, YOU also made assumptions. If you want to talk about if Gitmo's existence is right or not, you are talking at the wrong place, for I do not know and I do not care. However, as you may already know, there have been many prisoner releases from Gitmo. (One recently being to Palau, as you just added to the main article) So, as far as I am concerned, whoever is still left in Gitmo is in deep suspicion with connections to various TO. There has been convictions came out of Gitmo, so there is no need to pop that bottle of champagne, shouting “innocent men are being held at Gitmo” just yet. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You write: "So, as far as I am concerned, whoever is still left in Gitmo is in deep suspicion with connections to various TO."
  • This is a personal opinion. One you are entitled to hold. You and I are not WP:RS, so our personal opinions don't belong in article space. Now some commentators, who are WP:RS share this view. Those RS can be quoted, summarized , paraphrased -- provided they are properly cited and attributed. What shouldn't happen is for this one position to be represented as an established fact.
You write: "There has been convictions came out of Gitmo, so there is no need to pop that bottle of champagne, shouting “innocent men are being held at Gitmo” just yet."
  • No one here has suggested we call for the popping of champagne corks in article space -- just that we don't describe the ones who haven't been tried and convicted as "guilty".
  • You might find it worthwhile to look into how many convictions there have been Hicks, Hamdan, Bahlul, and one other recent guy, a cook, whose name escapes me at the moment. Hicks, the first conviction is arguably the most questionable. He had a team of lawyers he trusted, including several Australians, and at least one American civilian lawyer. At the last moment, like a day or two before his plea bargain the Presiding Officer stripped away all but his official military lawyer. One of those Australians wrote about what happened. The Presiding Officer told the non-military lawywers they had to sign a contract to abide by the rules and procedures for the Commissions -- including the security rules. The contract laid out serious consequences for lawyers who didn't abide by the rules. However, when Hicks's lawyers asked for a copy of the rules they were being told they would have to comply with -- they were told that the rules hadn't been written yet. Geo Swan (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section is still very biased

This section is still very biased.

current wording errors
The United States captured 22 Uyghur militants from combat zones in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2006 on information that they were linked to Al-Qaeda.
  • When the Supreme Court restored access to habeas corpus the DoD and Doj acknowledged they had no proof that any of the Uyghur men and boys were involved in hostilities.
  • The men were taken into custody in 2001, not 2006.
  • The men were turned in as part of the USA's infamous bounty program -- not due to any specific claim that they were associated with al Qaeda.
  • 21 of these men described themselves as refugees, not militants, from Turkestan. The 22nd man was born and raised in Saudi Arabia, to Uyghur guest workers. He became a drug addict who travelled to Afghanistan searching for cheap drugs. Once there he fell under suspicion by the Taliban, for being a spy. When the Taliban fell, the political prison where the Taliban held him was opened, and all the Afghan political prisoners went home. Left behind were a half dozen foreign prisoners, including Turkistani. Western reporters found them first, and these men who had been subjected to a year or more of brutal detention by the Taliban told reporters they were very grateful to the USA for overthrowing the Taliban. They clearly thought the Americans would send them home. So did the Western reporters. The USA accepted the praise for freeing these men, but then sent them all to Guantanamo, as they sent all foreigners to Guantanamo. No, I am not making this up.
They were imprisoned for five to seven years, where they testified that they were trained by ETIM leader Abdul Haq, at an ETIM training camp.
  • Turkistani was sent back to Saudi Arabia in 2005 -- that is four years.
  • Five other men deemed to not be combatants in 2005 were transferred to Albania in 2006 -- that is five years.
  • Most of the rest of the men were transferred in 2009 -- that is eight years, not seven years.
  • Half a dozen Uyghurs remain in Guantanamo -- obviously not seven years.
  • Most of them men testified. Only half the men testified that they received anything that could be described as military training. The other half of the men, did testify that another Uyghur at the camp had taken the camp's sole rifle, and had spent a couple of hours showing them how to use that rifle. Three of the men testified that the Uyghur who showed them how to use the rifle was the camp leader and was named Abdul Haq. Other men either didn't say the name of the man who showed them, or offered a different name.
  • The men who mentioned a camp leader testified he was killed when the USA bombed their camp.
  • There is nothing in the unclassified record to back up the claim the camp was an ETIM camp, that the camp leader was an ETIM leader. On the contrary, unless we are going to allow the USA to cherry pick from their testimony, their testimony that Abdul Haq died in the 2001 bombing suggests he was not the Abdul Haq who was then the number 2 in the ETIM, as he didn't die for years later. And, if the number 2 in the ETIM was leading a construction band, armed with a single AK47, that strongly suggests the group was not a real threat.
After being reclassified as No Longer Enemy Combatant, a panel of judges ordered them released into the United States.
  • This is more or less correct.
Despite the alarm of politicians that the release of terrorist camp-trained Uyghurs into the United States was unsafe and illegal, they could not be released back to China because of its human rights record.
  • This is poorly phrased.
Some of the Uyghurs have been transferred to Palau, and some to Bermuda despite objections by the United Kingdom, but the United States is having difficulties finding governments who will accept the rest.
  • This is correct.
  • Four men were transferred to Bermuda -- however Bermuda is not fully independent, the UK retains control over Bermuda's diplomacy. Thus the Prime Minister of Alberta did not have the authority to negotiate the acceptance of refugees.
  • Palau sent a delegation to interview the remaining 13 men, and offered to accept 12 of them as refugees. The 13th man's case was one of the saddest. He travelled to Afghanistan solely to look for his baby brother. He is one of the many captives whose mind broke in Guantanamo. And Palau, a very small country, with no resources to deal with individuals with serious mental health problems would not accept him. His baby brother did not think he could accept refugee status in Palua, and leave his brother to suffer in Cuba. These two men are the two who were sent to a European country.\
  • Neither Palau or Beruda grant citizenship to anyone who wasn't born on the island. So, accepting refugee status in either of these countries is essentially a life sentence, as they can never get a Palua or Bermuda passport.

Given the above I will rewrite this section to remove the bias.

What were the men doing in Nangarhar? Afghanistan is full of ruined villages, abandoned after a Soviet bombardment killed many of the remaining inhabitants. The men testified that most of their days were spent in construction. My own guess is that the men were reconstructing a ruined Afghan village with the intention of turning it into a refugee camp for other Uyghurs.

Why did the US regard the camp as a training camp? Aerial surviellance, can distinguish between a village with domestic animals and women and children, from a village composed entirely of men. But it can't distinguish between a camp full of militants from a village full of refugees.

There are sources who will repeat the US allegations as if they were established fact. But our policies require us to report those views from a neutral point of view, properly attributed. Geo Swan (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clip from a video said to be anonymously released by the East Turkestan Islamic Party.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Clip from a video said to be anonymously released by the East Turkestan Islamic Party.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on East Turkestan Islamic Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Western medias

The content of the French article as presented is completely deformed. I suggest to use the relevant source, please source Global Times or People Daily to present their opinion instead of deforming an article in a language someone obviously can't read. A bit of objectivity won't hurt.

Agreed. I'll add that it is common in French for groups of attackers to be referred to as "commando", without it having noteworthy overtones that the article seems to imply. ie: media reports on the Taliban [1] and Boko Haram [2] use it. Gazkthul (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"L’ETIM, c’est précisément l’organisation jihadiste transfrontalière à laquelle Pékin.... Certains vont même jusqu’à douter de son existence..." = "ETIM is precisely the jihadist organization to which Beijing.... Some go even as far as to doubt its existence..." - I don't see where the author is "writing arguments ETIM is not dangerous" or "suggesting ETIM does not exist"Engilhramn (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STSC
Stop deleting sourced statements and adding your own OR on censors. Sites like Global Times don't censor their comments.
L’ETIM, c’est précisément l’organisation jihadiste transfrontalière à laquelle Pékin aimerait attribuer tous ses ennuis au Xinjiang. Le hic, c’est que de nombreux experts doutent que l’ETIM soit ce groupe cohérent et dangereux décrit par la Chine. Certains vont même jusqu’à douter de son existence. Après les attentats du 11 septembre, George Bush, désireux par dessus tout de nouer une alliance avec Pékin, avait accepté d’inscrire l’ETIM sur sa liste des organisations terroristes. Aujourd’hui, il ne figure plus sur cette liste. Rajmaan (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, your statements are not sourced. Or more precisely: the original source (Nouvel Obs) doesn't reflect your statements. If you would like to present Chinese misreading of the article, please feel free to add it with its correct source, Global Times or People's Daily. But please respect the original source and don't deform it. How funny to consider your statements sourced when you obviously can't read French.

Complete translation of the paragraph: "ETIM is precisely the jihadist organization to which Beijing would like to attribute all its problems in Xinjiang. The issue is that a lot of experts doubt that ETIM would be a group as coherent and dangerous as described by China. Some even go as far as to doubt of its existence. After the 9/11, GWB, willing to make an alliance with Beijing, agreed to add ETIM to his list of terrorist organizations. Today, it has been removed from the list" You see here for example that the author presents a thesis "ETIM doesn't exist" without sharing this opinion "some goes as far". You just can't write the contrary. And it goes identically for the rest of your "sourced statements". Added reference for censorship as requested. Considering Global Times belongs to the official communication organ of CCP, published in China (therefore Chinese's Internet regulations apply), a wiki article should be enough. If however you have some OR showing that of all Chinese internet, the only place not regulated and not submitted to censorship approval and scrutiny can be found specifically in Global Times' comments, please feel free to correct.

Its clear that either you don't understand Wikipedia's rule on original research and synthesis or you do understand and are deliberately violating it. The Washington Post article says nothing about censorship and you are doing original research by adding claims that censors allowed the comments to be posted deliberately. And you complain that the original source doesn't reflect statements when the Washington post does not reflect the claims you inserted. And stop logging out of your account and using your ip like you just did. And this article is about the organization TIP (called ETIM by China). And on your first edit you removed all mention of ETIM from the paragraph and now there is only one mention. Keep removing ETIM from there and the entire section will be deleted since this article is about the organization.Rajmaan (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to remove all non-relevant content. In my first edit, I only removed all allegations of what looked more like a witch-hunt than a section on ETIM. So I do agree the paragraph is not so relevant here, the French article barely mentions ETIM actually and only via third party sources.Engilhramn (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Turkistan Islamic Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Turkistan Islamic Party. 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:

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

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme number of references, unbalanced length of paragraphs, et al.

This article, which is rated as "Mid-importance" on WP:Central Asia, currently cites 1,106 sources in a total of 17 main sections. Especially the sections on al-Qaeda support and media are extremely long, and are to a large extent a mere lists of jihadist videos. However, Wikipedia is neither a newspaper nor an indiscriminate collection of information. In my opinion, more emphasis should be put on its activities offline than online. And we cannot possibly list all websites containing pro-TIP, pro-ISIL, pro-Al-Qaeda, etc., propaganda in an article on this group. This article urgently needs significant cleanup.--89.173.227.64 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkistan_Islamic_Party&oldid=713562966"