This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand
Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on
terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Should this be called a 'massacre'? I agree it was dreadful, but NPOV applies: if ten Afghanis had been killed, would it have been called a 'massacre'?
Aa42john (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
13:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC).reply
Came here solely to point that out. Should be renamed to "2010 Badakhshan incident". It's not necessarily a POV to claim it was a massacre, however; I believe there is a threshold for what is deemed what. EricLeb01 (
Page |
Talk)13:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Some of the RS are calling it a 'massacre'.
[1] and yes if 10 afghan , unarmed civilian aid workers had been lined up and shot in cold blood it should be called a massacre. 2 of the victims were Afghan. any thresholds anybody has would necessarily be arbitrary.see
Munich massacre for example and precedent.--
Wikireader41 (
talk)
14:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I also find "massacre" to be rather provocatively POV, as well as inaccurate and support changing the title to "2010 Badakhshan incident".
Doc Tropics17:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I feel that "massacre" is the correct terminology in this instance. Massacre is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "the indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people", which seems to accurately describe what took place, regardless of political perspective. The problem with "incident" is that the term implies a relative insignificant occurrence, and could be perceived as minimising the importance of what took place. CityofDestruction18:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)reply
NATO kills civilians accidently not on purpose, but these guys killed on purpose.. And you are accually POV. NATO is not there to kill civilians.. Is it difficult to understand? In which world do you live? But I understand you because your holy book Quran says :"Muslims and Christians can not be friend." —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
217.131.183.218 (
talk)
19:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Doesnt seem to be indiscriminate ("2.Random; haphazard") if the Taliban explicitly said why it was a target. Why not call the Iraq and Afghan wars massacres then?
Lihaas (
talk)
20:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)reply
does look haphazard/ indiscriminate. why kill 2 Afghans if motive was to kill proselytizing Christians. Besides New York Times
[2] describes it as a massacre.--
Wikireader41 (
talk)
21:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Well you're asking the Taliban to be logical by demanding why they killed two of their own in addition to killing 8 Christians; the fact that they're justifying 9/11, attempting to kill or maim fleeing women (
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1299799/Mutilated-Taliban-The-girl-18-nose-ears-hacked-trying-flee-cruel-laws.html) and so forth means we can expect at least a little illogic on their part. But just a little! Furthermore, it's been made very explicit by the Taliban, such as this recent release: (
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/07/mullah_omar_orders_t.php) that the Taliban consider any collaborating Afghani to be a traitor. And Islam demands the death of Apostates (Qur'an (4:89)) (Qur'an (9:11-12)) So to answer all of your politically correct attempts to cover up the Islamic and discriminatory nature of the attack, here is my final piece of evidence:
Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said bibles translated into Dari had been found. "Yesterday at around 0800 (0330 GMT), one of our patrols confronted a group of foreigners. They were Christian missionaries and we killed them all," he told the AFP news agency.
And on another point, the Iraq war and the Afghan wars are not called massacres, because equating the military performance of the US (where at least soldiers have orders not to harm civilians as the rules of war dictate) with the performance of the Taliban, who as I have already shown above, are not above killing women for fleeing their husbands or offering medical aid is ridiculous.
68.42.250.113 (
talk)
22:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)reply
If you want to use that logic, then i suppose raping and killing girls (that doesnt include women, or even premeditated murder of men) is the mandate of the usa govt/military too as per the
Rules of war?
Lihaas (
talk)
22:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)reply
No because those aren't the actions of US soldiers or by any within the rules of war. You're not referring to any logic I have used there buddy. The US army does not rape anyone. It also has orders not to kill civilians. A massacre and a war are two different things, that was the only logic implied.
68.42.250.113 (
talk)
00:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)reply
She is becoming the focus of separate and extensive attention. I think based on other articles, she should get her own page.
Proven81 (
talk)
15:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)reply
She is getting far, far more coverage than anyone else. Maybe it's her looks. Paris Hilton gets far more coverage than her acting career would suggest and Anna Chapman got far more coverage than the other Russian spies.
Suomi Finland 2009 (
talk)
18:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)reply
or maybe the fact she is a young woman surgeon who gave up a lucrative career to work for the poor in a dangerous country and was to marry in 2 weeks. regardless of the reason she is getting a lot of coverage in the RS's and would merit her own article.--
Wikireader41 (
talk)
21:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Should every piece of news really be turned into an encyclopedia article? The word massacre as was stated before: "the indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people." It wasn't indiscriminate from the accounts of what happened that appear in the news. FYI: indiscriminate: Done at random or without careful judgment
The reaction section is just there for emotional effect. Remember to include reaction statements from the belligerents. Unless you enjoy bias.
The statement from Taliban spokesman was part of the article from the beginning. i doubt very much that we will get many statements sympathetic to the Taliban here. but if we do they should be included as long as they come from prominent sources. --
Wikireader41 (
talk)
21:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)reply
the "Victoms" section and documentation of each victim is completely memorialising and does not further this article. The list at the top of the 10 victims is brief and notable to this, but the lifestory of some such as "engaged to be married in two weeks" is complete nonsense for an encyclopaedia
Lihaas (
talk)
23:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)reply
nothing is nonsense here. People reading about this incident would be interested in some detail about the victims and this info is very useful. especially so if we are not going to have separate articles for the victim especially Woo. The RS's are replete with details of her life. if we do end up having separate articles for the victims then maybe we can move some info there. Till then we need to add further detail about the victims and expand the section. this is all very encyclopedic info which definitely belongs.--
Wikireader41 (
talk)
00:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I have just modified one external link on
2010 Badakhshan massacre. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.