Talk:Operation Janbaz

Article needs to be renamed in an exact way

This was the 2009 Pakistan GHQ siege and this article is titled with a vague military codename and needs to be changed.

Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami and LeJ involvement

User Yousaf465 keeps reverting citations to news sources that report involvement of the militant outfits Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi:

cite news | title = Terrorist attack in Pakistan shows how vulnerable it is | publisher = McClatchy Newspapers | date = 11 October 2009 | url = http://www.mcclatchydc.com/255/story/76825.html | accessdate = 11 October 2009

cite news | title = Car Bomb Kills at Least 41 in Restive Region of Pakistan | publisher = The New York Times | date = 12 October 2009 | url = http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/world/asia/13pstan.html | accessdate = 12 October 2009

Yousaf465, please explain why here, or stop making your edits. bostonbrahmin 17:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I haven't seen the nytimes report, but mcclatchydc doesn't mention it. Also ISPR have clearly said that Amjad Farqooi group has claimed responsibility for the attack. Also as there is a difference between Al-Qadea and Taliban, so there is also a difference between TTP and LJ. So don't confuse yourself.--yousaf465 18:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the first cite yourself carefully ? It doesn't even mention this attack ! It's about attack on Indian Emabssy in Kabul, what it has to do with this ? --yousaf465 18:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the McClatchy citation should be this one: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/76954.html

bostonbrahmin 22:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonbrahmin20 (talk • contribs)

The quotation from the McClatchy report is: "Aqeel is a member of the banned group Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI), according to Amir Rana, director of the Pak Institute for Peace Studies, an independent think tank in Islamabad. Some reports, however, said that he was a member of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, another banned militant group." The NYT and Washington Post, however, both say LeJ. bostonbrahmin 23:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonbrahmin20 (talk • contribs)

Well, the problem is the the according to Police records, he was a member of Punjabi Tahrik-e-Taliban, which had close relations with Baitullah Meshud. This was also be confirmed from the the Video which was released by a private channel, it clearly showed him training in Meshud area. This group is also know as Punjabi Taliban. His profile can be found here Aqeel's Profile. After deserting army he went to Waziristan, Meshud area, this can be confirmed from this report also ‘Dr Usman’: last desperate act. Claiming that he was a member of Lej is just like claiming that Bal Thackeray is a member of BJP. And also nowhere it's mentioned that LEJ has been blamed or claimed this particular attack. --yousaf465 05:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are trying to make the article precise, yousaf465. Just trying to understand your reasoning. I am not familiar with the relationship between LeJ and Tahrik (Tehrik? spelling); just pointing out that the Washington Post and NYT both say LeJ. Are you saying that calling him a member of LeJ is a mistake on their part, or that it is correct but not as descriptive as specifying Tehrik-e-Taliban? I didn't follow your analogy with Bal Thackeray and BJP; I am familiar with those -- do you know that Bal Thackeray is not in fact in the BJP? The Shiv Sena (Thackeray's right-wing party) sometimes forms alliances with the BJP, but it would be a mistake to say he is in the BJP. Are you saying the leader of the attack is not a member of the LeJ? Or that it's not relevant? Sorry for my ignorance about these groups-- just trying to understand so the updates are accurate. bostonbrahmin 14:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonbrahmin20 (talk • contribs)

Well you understood the ref to Bal thackeray correctly. Just like Shiv sena and BJP are two different groups, similarly TTP and LEJ two different groups. Currently I have three more current event to deal with let me check them.--yousaf465 04:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction within the article (9 or 12 soldier casualties)

In the opening paragraph the article claims that "The entire operation killed nine soldiers, nine militants and two civilians." However, box on the right side of the page titled "Casualties and losses" states the total Pakistani casualties as: 7 soldiers killed 5 commandos killed. This would seem to indicate 12 soldiers were killed rather than the 9 stated at the top of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.100.178 (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the box was updated. Also update the article if there is an contradictions. --yousaf465 04:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009 Lahore attacks merge into this article

I have made a post on Talk:October 2009 Lahore attacks asking about whether or not the October 2009 Lahore attacks article should be merged with this one. If anyone has an opinion on the matter please post there so as to keep the discussion centralized. Caleb Jon^talk 04:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

After more than a week there was only one response, and it was against merging, so I will not merge the articles. Caleb Jon^talk 01:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Operation Janbaz. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091012075828/http://www.thenews.com.pk:80/top_story_detail.asp?Id=24948 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=24948
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091218101844/http://www.thenews.com.pk:80/updates.asp?id=88808 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=88808

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Operation Janbaz. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120604001924/http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=88803 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=88803
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120604001930/http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=88804 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=88804
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120604001918/http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=88810 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=88810
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120607004009/http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=88811 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=88811
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120604001937/http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=88802 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=88802
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120604002001/http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=88806 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=88806

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)