Talk:Ahmad Shah Massoud

Date of birth

Massoud was born on September 2, 1953[1] and died in Khwaja bahauddin disrtict in Takhar provience in Afghanistan.[2]

Fair use image

File:Ahmad Shah Massoud.jpg is now fair use and the lead image. We dont know anything about the photo, it appears to be a 'known' portrait because it was used in the event File:Abdul Rahim Wardak in Kabul April 2010.jpg, if the photo is unknown they will not use it. Thats however all we know. [:File:Ahmad Shah Massoud.jpg]] was an attempt to find a free image, our search for free images often leads to 'bad but free images', under fair use we can have a little more focus on quality in our search for images. If we decide to use a fair use photo we should use the best we can use inside the restrictions of fair use policy. Thats possibly the portraits by Reza Deghati of 1985 or later portraits by him who highly influenced the public image of Massoud in the western hemisphere. All portraits have been published in Massoud, des Russes aux talibans, 20 ans de résistance afghane (the 1985 portrait is the cover image). The 1985 portrait was first published in France and/or National Geographic in the U.S., so it is not free but should be ok under fair use with an appropriate image caption.
Aditionally I removed File:Cmdt massoud ill artlibre jn.png from the article. That scribbling is trash, even no image in the article is better than that. --Martin H. (talk)

Photographs/Interview

I have a number of photographs that I took of Ahmad Shah Massoud in 1991 that you would be welcome to use for your site, if you'd like to. You can see the photos at asmassoudphotos.redbubble.com. I also have an interview with Massoud that has never been translated into English; I'm hoping to have something available in time for the 10th anniversry of his martyrdom. Do you speak Dari? Interested in taking a listen? You can reach me at benjaminpendleton@gmail.com. Thanks, Ben Pendleton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Pendleton (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A belated thankyou, Ben. – Question: has anybody ever followed up on this offer to see if the photographer would be willing to grant an actual CC license? These are great photos. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of 13,000 bytes of content by Fut.Perf.

Please discuss the points of your removal on the talk page as I have to reject several points of your unilateral BOLD edits. First and foremost stands your source falsifications with regards to the 1992-1996 period, then comes your terming of what was an alliance as "negotiations". There are several other points. You may want to discuss your proposals here first. Thanks. JCAla (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No. The article was in such a horrible state that no reasonable observer could entertain even a moment's doubt that the tightening I attempted here was an improvement. I am not going to discuss such changes in advance, certainly not with you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, well, you need not discuss them in advance. But you need to discuss them when they were rejected based on WP:BRD, so much I learned on another article on which I made major adjustments. So. Please tell me your proposals. Actually, I wanted to improve this article for a very long time now, so I propose we can work together on it. JCAla (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

My proposal is in the diff; I don't need to "tell you" about it again. The reason for my proposal is also obvious: the old version was a hugely overblown quotefarm, with cherrypicked sources obviously selected to promote a tendentious agenda. So, now, you go and tell me why you think that quotefarm was a better article than the abridged version. You might also want to explain where and how my abridgment misrepresented the sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to collaborate: demonstrate your good will by rewriting one paragraph, let's say on Massoud's role in the war, in such a way that it does not reek of your point of view in every sentence. Like, you know, in such a way that an outside observer couldn't tell from the writing what your own opinions are. Because, you know, that's what we are supposed to be doing here. From what I have seen of your writing so far, I very much doubt you could achieve this even if you wanted to. But I also doubt you want to do it in the first place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You are breaking one wikipedia policy after another here. The first being civility, the second being assuming good faith. Third being representing sources correctly. I obviously reject your bold proposal as in the diff as the "quotefarm" was at least factually correct as opposed to your proposal. Why there are several source falsifications you can read on my talk where I thoroughly analyzed the sources. I am not going to copy paste them here, least I be again accused of wallsoftext. Still, I think we can work together in a civil manner on this article and I have already started reducing the "quotefarm" without removing the very important contents of the sources. We can go point by point. I suggest we start with something not too controversial as a start. JCAla (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Where did you analyse this [3] edit of mine, which I only made this morning? You didn't. Tell me which source it misrepresents. That's a strong accusation you are making there, so consider well what you're saying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

C´mon. Parts of that edit this morning were already introduced by you to this article several days ago (and rejected by me). JCAla (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Which doesn't answer my question: which of my summarizing abridgments was wrong? You have not made such a case. You have one more chance of doing so now; otherwise I'll reinstate my edit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I can only repeat my very answer to that very question, please see here where I explained in detail why you are not representing the sources correctly a) on "Massoud's forces" and b) on "civilian targets". This is for the content you re-introduced. For the other part of your edit today, I don't agree with you to generally remove all quotes. We should discuss which quotes are truly valuable to keep such as Roy Gutman's. As for earlier edits by you which I haven't yet reverted. You wrongly call an alliance "cross-factional negotiations" although the sources clearly describe it as an alliance. That needs to be fixed. And there are several other things which I suggest we discuss one after another. If you are truly interested in improving this article, I suggest we start with something less controversial, i. e. refill the "early life" sections with contents after the copyvio had to be removed. That way you can also show that you are not just here to pick a fight after that failed deletion discussion which this edit of yours suggests, as regions (especially that region) is indeed known for exactly that person (and that sentence was not added by me). JCAla (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

With regards to your most recent edit, I for example don't agree. It is valuable information to know who exactly Robin Raphel is. Maybe not in that detail, but as a sidenote for sure. JCAla (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This is getting more and more bizarre. My summary said, correctly, that the Afghanistan Justice Project report assigns personal responsibility to Massoud both for ordering indiscriminate shelling of civilian quarters, and for not preventing the Afshar massacre. This is correct, because the report very explicitly does precisely this. Your discussion here merely explains why you believe the Afghanistan Justice Project is wrong in its assessment, but that is irrelevant to the question whether it was correctly summarized. It obviously was.

This discussion is now over, as JCAla has clearly demonstrated, yet again, that he is unable or unwilling to uphold a reasoned discussion. His WP:SOUP tactics will not longer be tolerated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed getting more and more bizarre. You are blatantly lying. You wrote the Afghanistan Justice Project says "Massoud's forces" committed mass rape in Afshar, which the source does not say. It says Ittihad did so. And you wrote the AJP says, Massoud intentionally targeted "civilian targets" which it does not say. It says "unproportional use of force" in residential areas (obviously Kabul is a capital city) which resulted in civilian casualties. You are edit warring and pushing a version rejected per WP:BRD. You also seem unable to engage in a constructive, topic-based discussion as you seem to think you own the truth. JCAla (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This is what the AJP report says (p.82):

lengthy quote

"The forces that launched the [Afshar operation] all formally belonged to the ministry of defense of the ISA. The minister of defense and de facto commander-in-chief of the ISA at the time of the Afshar operation was Ahmad Shah Massoud. He had overall responsibility for planning and command of military operations. He directly controlled the Jamiat-i Islami units and indirectly controlled the Ittihad-i Islami unit. […] Both Massoud, together with his senior commanders, and Sayyaf failed to take effective measures to prevent abuses before the operation commenced, or to stop them once the operation was underway. […] Testimony indicates that both Jamiat and Ittihad troops committed abuses".

So, yes, it clearly describes the forces involved as being under Massoud's command, and it explicitly describes Massoud as being at least indirectly responsible for what they did. I don't care whether you think that's correct, and in fact I don't care much whether it actually is correct, but this is what this source says. – About the shelling, here's what the source says:

lengthy quote

"The bombardment of Kabul [...] All of the major armed factions who were contending for control of the city were responsible for the indiscriminate use of a full range of heavy weapons […] under international humanitarian law (the laws of war), indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are defined as those that are not directed at a specific military objective, or that employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective. Indiscriminate attacks include bombardment by any means which treat as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and attacks “which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.” This last is known as the rule of proportionality.148 All of the factions involved in the conflict in Kabul engaged in indiscriminate attacks. […] Shura-i Nazar were a particularly deadly fighting force and a significant proportion of the destruction of the Afghan capital was caused by its rockets and artillery. […] Massoud is named repeatedly as directing operations. […] Shura-i Nazar and Junbish fighter planes were under separate chains of command. According to a former Shura-i Nazar artillery commander, Massoud himself gave the orders for all bombing raids.".

I am summarizing this as: "assigns personal responsibility to Massoud for some part of the indiscriminate bombardment of civilian targets with heavy weapons in Kabul, which it describes as a war crime". This is a perfectly adequate, correct summary of what this source says. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

(On reflection, I'm prepared to change "civilian targets" against "civilian areas", to avoid the impression the damage to civilians was the prime military objective as such.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This is what you tend to leave out:

lengthy quote

"Ittihad forces played a major role in the assault, working directly under Sayyaf and receiving pay from him. The Ittihad forces were not fully absorbed into the ministry of defense, but were operating in coordination with it." "Although the Ittihad units had been given Afghan Army formation numbers, commanders in the field took their orders from senior Ittihad commanders and Sayyaf himself. Sayyaf acted as the de facto general commander of Ittihad forces during the operation" "Rape by Ittihad Forces" "Massoud convened a meeting in the Hotel Intercontinental which, belatedly, discussed arrangements for security in the newly captured areas. ... The meeting ordered a halt to the massacre and looting ... too late to prevent the main abuses. The meeting also seems to have been ineffective in halting the looting of the area, as the destruction of housing in Afshar happened largely after the meeting."

So, no, the Ittihad forces (which were the ones who committed mass rape in Afshar according to this source) were not under Massoud's command, as war crimes expert Roy Gutman also analyzes the same source, "But according to witnesses located by the Afghanistan Justice Project, the force that entered Afshar and committed summary executions, disappearances and rape was Sayyaf's Ittihad, which was not under Massoud's command. Massoud ordered a halt to the massacres and looting on February 12, but they continued." As such you writing "mass rape ... committed by Massoud's forces" is a falsification of the source. Ittihad are not and were never "Massoud's forces". They just worked in coordination with the Ministry of Defense in the legitimate part of the military operation against Hekmatyar's alliance. Massoud ordered a halt to the abuses but they continued, obviously as Ittihad was not under his command.

The same goes for the massacre ("summary executions and kidnapping")

lengthy quote

"Witnesses interviewed by the Afghanistan Justice Project stated that a group of Hizb-i Wahdat soldiers was taken prisoner from Wahdat headquarters at the Social Science Institute by Ittihad-i Islami forces on February 11. In addition to these, a large number of civilian men and suspected Wahdat militants were arrested from the Afshar area after Ittihad captured it. The number taken is not known. One group of Hazara prisoners held by Ittihad-i Islami was subsequently used by the Ittihad commanders to undertake burial of the dead from the Afshar operation, after one week. This group of witnesses has reported that their relatives were among the civilian and military prisoners taken by Ittihad who subsequently disappeared and are believed to have been summarily executed by Ittihad forces. The Afghanistan Justice Project has been able to obtain only a few of the names of the victims. Some other men were taken from their homes. Witness A told the Afghanistan Justice Project ... armed men – who were from Sayyaf and from Jamiat – were looting all the houses. Sayyaf’s people spoke Pushto; Jamiat spoke Dari. I sent my family to another place and I stayed at the house. At about 11:00 a.m. a commander named Izatullah (from Ittihad) came to the house ... Witness B told the Afghanistan Justice Project that Ittihad-i Islami troops had beaten her and arrested her unarmed husband ... Witness C told the Afghanistan Justice Project that the soldiers searched the houses looking for men. “I was taken to Paghman. [base of Ittihad] ... Witness M. told the Afghanistan Justice Project that at 7:.00 in the morning, when Ittihad-i Islami captured Afshar, a group of armed men entered her residential compound, and detained S., her husband. ... After he was detained, a second group of 10-15 Ittihad soldiers came to the house between ... Witness K, 75 years old, stated that troops affiliated to Sayyaf abducted him from Sar-i Jui ... The Ittihad troops then took him to Company (a Sayyaf-controlled area) on that day and held him there for two months. The commander who captured him was Ghulam Rasool, affiliated to Sayyaf. ... Witness G was briefly arrested and beaten unconscious by Ittehad troops ... Abdullah Khan, of Ghazni Province, 67 years old, was arrested from Afshar by Commander Aziz Banjar, a Sayyaf commander. The rest of the family had fled to Taimani during the main military operation. ... Witness Sh. told the Afghanistan Justice Project that when Ittihad forces entered her house ..."

Do you see any of "Massoud's forces" with regards to summary executions in there?

About the shelling, here's what you always tend to leave out:

lengthy quote

"While the armed factions responsible may have had military targets in mind, those targets were based or were moving in primarily civilian areas. While they were still legitimate military targets, the scale of the bombardments and kinds of weapons used represented disproportionate use of force" "He said the second type of rocket was middle-range, able to target locations from 15 to 20 kilometres away. He said orders to fire these were given by division commanders, for example, Ahmadi, commander of Qargha Division, Panah Khan, commander of Jihadi army, Gada Mohammed Khan, commander of Tapa Sorkh Division and Bismillah Khan. “They launched rockets at Hizb-i Islami bases, such as military zones, military centers like Bagrami, Shah Shahid, and Kart-i Nau, Chilsiton and Wahdat areas like Afshar, Social Science Institute, and Silo and indeed any area in west Kabul that was under the control of Hizb-i Wahdat.

Middle range artillery as used in Afshar, according to this source, was not ordered directly by Massoud. And your earlier formulation about "civilian targets" completely falsified the sources as you now reflected yourself. JCAla (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think war crimes expert and Pulitzer Price winner Roy Gutman summarizes the source in a very balanced, factually correct way. Therefore I suggest that neither you nor me write a summary, but that we take his summary. JCAla (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The Ittihad forces are very clearly described in the report as being under Massoud's command – if only indirectly –, and he is very clearly said to be at least partly responsible for what they did. Again, I don't care whether that's correct or not, but that's what the source says. Your quotations regarding the shelling do nothing to dispel what I said above. Gutman isn't "summarizing" the report; he is discussing it and contradicting its interpretation. What Gutman says is Gutman's opinion, not that of the AJP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the Ittihad forces are very clearly described as being under the command of Sayyaf, taking orders from Sayyaf, receiving pay from him and only working in coordination (which is the "indirectly") in the legitimate military operation with the Ministry of Defense. There is nothing in that source linking Massoud to the abuses by Ittihad (except that the Ittihad forces in Afshar which committed abuses were part of a legitimate military operation against the Wahdat/Hekmatyar alliance), to the contrary he is described as ordering a halt to their massacre. The only thing that is in there, is that he had overall responsibility for military operations, and that all the troops "formally" belonged to the Ministry of Defense. That says nothing about abuses. Roy Gutman very well captures all points about Afshar. He does not contradict the AJP's interpretation, he contradicts your interpretation. Also, Ittihad-i Islami was not "Massoud's force", that is one of the most terrible source falsifications. And, my quotations regarding the shelling did very much dispel what you claimed all the time, but now reflected upon yourself and changed. JCAla (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You understand German, right? Getretner Quark / wird breit, nicht stark. This discussion is over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ja, schon klar, Sommerkom. JCAla (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Procedural note: Given this thread and the next subthread below, I consider it self-evident to any intelligent outside observer that JCAla's conduct is an extreme case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and as such sanctionable disruption, and that further rational content debate with this person would be a hopeless waste of time at this point. JCAla: I am giving you one more chance of doing something to resolve this in a reasonable way. Choose one sensible forum where you can ask outside observers for a judgment on whether my summary of the source is correct or not – let's say, the content dispute noticeboard or something of the sort. I will otherwise no longer be available to discuss directly with you in any related content matter. I may cite this incident as an example of your disruptive conduct on some future occasion, to administrators, an RfC/U or Arbcom, asking for sanctions against you, which will inevitably come some day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have filed this at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Procedural note: I consider it self-evident to any intelligent outside observer that Fut.Perf.'s conduct is an extreme case of "I own the ultimate truth". He considers any rational content debate with other people a waste of time because he already owns the truth. I may cite this incident as an example of your extremely uncivil and disruptive conduct on some future occasion. In two cases you already had to concede that what you were proclaiming was simply wrong (1) Massoud not being part of the Rome process and (2) "civilian areas". Yet, you still cannot see that other editors whether they are able to get a consensus behind them in this very case or not, might have valid discussion points. Even if you would be able to create a consensus for your favourite version (as I was several times in other content debates), doesn't mean the other editor is disruptive, just because he has a different opinion. You citing a difference in opinion as disruptive behavior is the very essence of your own conduct problems. JCAla (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

What needs to be fixed

• (1) Fut.Perf. has described Ittihad-i Islami as "Massoud's forces". Ittihad-i Islami is the force of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf not Ahmad Shah Massoud. In the source there is no "mass rape" nor "massacre" in Afshar by "Massoud's forces" which would have been Shura-e Nazar. There is a "Rape by Ittihad forces" and dozens of witness testimonial which describe summary executions by Ittihad forces.

lengthy quote

"In June 1992, conflict broke out between Sayyaf’s Ittihad-i Islami, headquartered in Paghman, west of Kabul, and Hizb-i Wahdat. ... Responsibility for the abuses rests with the senior leadership of both parties who were aware of the hostage taking and disappearances: Sayyaf and his top commanders [for Ittihad], and Mazari (who died in 1995 (see below), and his deputy, Karim Khalili, along with other senior Wahdat commanders. [for Wahdat]" "Ittihad forces played a major role in the assault [Afshar operation], working directly under Sayyaf and receiving pay from him. The Ittihad forces were not fully absorbed into the ministry of defense, but were operating in coordination with it." "Although the Ittihad units had been given Afghan Army formation numbers, commanders in the field took their orders from senior Ittihad commanders and Sayyaf himself. Sayyaf acted as the de facto general commander of Ittihad forces during the operation" "Rape by Ittihad forces" "Summary executions" "Witnesses interviewed by the Afghanistan Justice Project stated that a group of Hizb-i Wahdat soldiers was taken prisoner from Wahdat headquarters at the Social Science Institute by Ittihad-i Islami forces on February 11. In addition to these, a large number of civilian men and suspected Wahdat militants were arrested from the Afshar area after Ittihad captured it. The number taken is not known. One group of Hazara prisoners held by Ittihad-i Islami was subsequently used by the Ittihad commanders to undertake burial of the dead from the Afshar operation, after one week. This group of witnesses has reported that their relatives were among the civilian and military prisoners taken by Ittihad who subsequently disappeared and are believed to have been summarily executed by Ittihad forces. The Afghanistan Justice Project has been able to obtain only a few of the names of the victims. Some other men were taken from their homes. Witness A told the Afghanistan Justice Project ... armed men – who were from Sayyaf and from Jamiat – were looting all the houses. Sayyaf’s people spoke Pushto; Jamiat spoke Dari. I sent my family to another place and I stayed at the house. At about 11:00 a.m. a commander named Izatullah (from Ittihad) came to the house ... Witness B told the Afghanistan Justice Project that Ittihad-i Islami troops had beaten her and arrested her unarmed husband ... Witness C told the Afghanistan Justice Project that the soldiers searched the houses looking for men. “I was taken to Paghman. [base of Ittihad] ... Witness M. told the Afghanistan Justice Project that at 7:.00 in the morning, when Ittihad-i Islami captured Afshar, a group of armed men entered her residential compound, and detained S., her husband. ... After he was detained, a second group of 10-15 Ittihad soldiers came to the house between ... Witness K, 75 years old, stated that troops affiliated to Sayyaf abducted him from Sar-i Jui ... The Ittihad troops then took him to Company (a Sayyaf-controlled area) on that day and held him there for two months. The commander who captured him was Ghulam Rasool, affiliated to Sayyaf. ... Witness G was briefly arrested and beaten unconscious by Ittehad troops ... Abdullah Khan, of Ghazni Province, 67 years old, was arrested from Afshar by Commander Aziz Banjar, a Sayyaf commander. The rest of the family had fled to Taimani during the main military operation. ... Witness Sh. told the Afghanistan Justice Project that when Ittihad forces entered her house ..."

Here is how Pulitzer Price-winning author and expert on war crimes Roy Gutman summarized the same source and issue (Roy Gutman, How we missed the story, p. 222):

"But according to witnesses located by the Afghanistan Justice Project, the force that entered Afshar and committed summary executions, disappearances and rape was Sayyaf's Ittihad, which was not under Massoud's command. Massoud ordered a halt to the massacres and looting on February 12, but they continued."

This source falsification:

"an ethnically motivated massacre and mass rape committed by his forces on taking the suburb of Afshar in February 1993 ..."

needs to be removed until a proper replacement is discussed on this talk that rightly represents the source.

JCAla (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously not a consensus change, so no chance an admin is going to implement this change during the protection period that was put in force over exactly this point. Once more: it doesn't matter if the Ittihad sources really were Massoud's in any sense that you or I might agree on; what matters is that the source that is being summarized in that sentence explicitly treats them as such, saying they were under his command and he was responsible for their conduct. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The source states no such things. The source does not state he was responsible for the conduct of Ittihad troops but it explicitly states that Ittihad troops were under immediate command of Sayyaf, took Sayyaf's orders and received pay from Sayyaf. Anyone familiar with Afghanistan-related issues will find it ridiculous to see that you termed Ittihad as "Massoud's forces". I think an administrator should act because you introduced a completely controversial sentence based on obvious source falsification by means of edit warring without any consensus. JCAla (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"The source states no such things"? What exactly do you not understand about He directly controlled the Jamiat-i Islami units and indirectly controlled the Ittihad-i Islami unit. […] Both Massoud, together with his senior commanders, and Sayyaf failed to take effective measures to prevent abuses? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, would you accept the summary if "by his forces" were to be changed to "by forces under his command"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you not understand about "Ittihad forces played a major role in the assault [Afshar operation], working directly under Sayyaf and receiving pay from him. The Ittihad forces were not fully absorbed into the ministry of defense [of Massoud], but were operating in coordination with it." "Although the Ittihad units had been given Afghan Army formation numbers, commanders in the field took their orders from senior Ittihad commanders and Sayyaf himself. Sayyaf acted as the de facto general commander of Ittihad forces during the operation"? and "Massoud convened a meeting in the Hotel Intercontinental which, belatedly, discussed arrangements for security in the newly captured areas. ... The meeting ordered a halt to the massacre and looting ... too late to prevent the main abuses. The meeting also seems to have been ineffective in halting the looting of the area, as the destruction of housing in Afshar happened largely after the meeting."? JCAla (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I perfectly understand that. But it doesn't change the fact that the authors of the report still, despite these statements, considered the one I pointed out above an adequate summary of the whole affair. The authors of the report thought Massoud was responsible; no matter how much you wiggle there is no way of denying this basic thing. You also conveniently overlook the sentence that comes right after the passage you quoted: In this sense, Sayyaf shares equal command and control responsibility with the top Jamiat military leadership. [i.e. Massoud] Conclusion: Sayyaf was also responsible, but the report says clearly he was just as responsible as Massoud, not more responsible, let alone alone responsible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"[E]qual command and control responsibility" refers to the military operation not the abuses. Both committed their respective troops in the operation. It means Massoud had responsibility to control and command his troops during the legitimate military operation, while Sayyaf had responsibility to control and command his Ittihad troops during the operation. The authors say only two things 1) "The forces that launched the offensive in west Kabul on February 10-11, 1993 all formally belonged to the ministry of defense of the ISA. The minister of defense and de facto commander-in-chief of the ISA at the time of the Afshar operation was Ahmad Shah Massoud. He had overall responsibility for planning and command of military operations." (this says nothing about being responsible for the abuses during an otherwise legitimate military operation) and 2) he failed to take effective measures, but he did order "an immediate halt to the massacre and looting", which Ittihad did not follow because "The Ittihad forces were not fully absorbed into the ministry of defense [of Massoud], but were operating in coordination with it.""Ittihad forces played a major role in the assault [Afshar operation], working directly under Sayyaf and receiving pay from him.""Although the Ittihad units had been given Afghan Army formation numbers, commanders in the field took their orders from senior Ittihad commanders and Sayyaf himself. Sayyaf acted as the de facto general commander of Ittihad forces during the operation" So, you terming Ittihad as "Massoud's forces" (besides constituting a falsification of the source) is highly misleading as "Massoud's forces" were Shura-e Nazar which according to this source did not commit "mass rape" and "massacre".

Again, neither me nor you should summarize the source. Let's leave that to an expert like Pulitzer Price winner Roy Gutman who did it in fair and balanced way showing that Islamic State defense minister Massoud conducted a military operation which, however, was escalated by forces allied to the Islamic State (Ittihad) under the direct command of Sayyaf committing abuses which Massoud ordered halted, without result. The following summary by Roy Gutman should replace you personal interpretation:

lengthy quote

"The major criticism of Massoud's human rights record centers on the 1993 killing of Hazara civilians in the Afshar neighborhood of Kabul. This was Massoud's operation, while defense minister, to capture the military and political headquarters of the Shia Hezbi Wahdat in west Kabul after Wahdat leader Abdul Ali Mazari withdrew from the government and began secret talks with Hekmatyar's Hezbi Islami. Massoud's Jamiat forces and Abdul Rasul Sayyaf's Ittihad-i-Islami sent in troops at five o'clock in the morning on February 11, 1993. Mazari and his commanders fled the University Social Science Institute, where they had their headquarters, by about one o'clock in the afternoon. Troops of both Jamiat and Ittihad undertook a search operation that investigators later described as "a mass exercise in abuse and looting." But according to witnesses located by the Afghanistan Justice Project, the force that entered Afshar and committed summary executions, disappearances and rape was Sayyaf's Ittihad, which was not under Massoud's command. Massoud ordered a halt to the massacres and looting on February 12, but they continued." (Roy Gutman, How we missed the story, p. 222)

JCAla (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Besides that you wrongly want to term Ittihad-i Islami "Massoud's forces", this is also a discussion about the meaning of responsibility. Here responsibility is clearly defined as not taking effective measures to prevent although taking measures (which just didn't prove effective). If we change "Massoud's forces" to "Ittihad-i Islami forces under the command of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf allied to Massoud's Islamic State forces" and clearly define what responsibility means in this case ... something like "It describes him as failing to take effective measures to prevent ethnically motivated atrocities committed by Ittihad forces under the command of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf allied to the Islamic State upon taking the suburb of Afshar in February 1993. Massoud ordered the massacre halted but without success." JCAla (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Procedural note: please do not use the {{editprotect}} template unless you have specific and noncontroversial edits to propose. Thanks. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 06:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

Would FPS please explain his issues with the article one at a time so we may work through them. JcaLa would you refrain from overly long posts, keep the mas short and to the point as is possible. I am sure we can all reach an accord here. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The issues with this article are obvious from the article itself and from my edits; they do not need yet more explanation. Anybody with half a brain can see what's wrong with the article; anybody who needs an explanation to understand it ought not to be editing Wikipedia in the first place. And no, as I said above, I am no longer available for any discussion that involves JCAla, and I am not interested in reaching any "accord" with him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I seem to recall telling you on ANI why one of those edits were wrong, if you do not wish to edit in a collaborative manner then do not edit the article. And I do hope you are not inferring I have half a brain nor should I edit Wiki. One of the issues here FP is you know little of the subject, or you know a great deal of it but dislike the subject matter, which is it? Now you can explain exactly what you feel is wrong with this article or I will wholesale revert your changes as soon as the article is unprotected. This is how it works here remember. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's not how it works here; threatening to start an edit war is a big no-no, as is failing to read the discussion above. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

DS: you have not explained why any part of my rewritten passages was wrong. If you have an objection to any part of the rewrite, it's up to you to state it here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The objections were already stated to you plain and simple, yet, you restored them in an edit war. You are the proposer of new content. Therefore, you are the one who needs to establish consensus for your addition and changes according to wikipedia policy. I recommend you to self rv so editors can work in a collaborative effort on the article. I agree with above, that you either know very little about the issue (in which case your uncivil attacks on the competence of other editors would be misplaced) or you have a horse in this race so to speak (in which case your blatant attacks on the integrity of others would be highly misplaced). JCAla (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Akhilleus, sorry but you are wrong, so go fuck yourself. I am not threatening an edit war, I am telling FP what will happen if he does not explain his actions. I have already pointed out in once instance were he was wrong, I think it necessary he makes his issues known so I may let him know were else he is wrong Darkness Shines (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)