Talk:Bajaur Campaign

Stop edit warring

@Khan Bababa Stop trying to edit war to get your way, the US and soviet union both sent support. You are also ignoring WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX and edit warring to get your way. The sources state both countries were supplied and supported in the conflict, but you ignore this. Noorullah21 (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Claims from source [1] also show that "1,000 Afghan troops had infiltrated into Pakistan". Support was also sent to both sides, with Support from the USSR to Afghanistan, and the U.S to Pakistan. You can read through source [2] yourself. It shows clearly that you were just reverting these edits without checking yourself. Noorullah21 (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Khan Bababa I linked you where it says 1,000. Noorullah21 (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Noorullah21 your source does not mention that. stop vandalizing the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khan Bababa (talk • contribs) 14:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC) 

it clearly says 1,000, I don't know if you are checking properly, but you can open the source, and then press CTRL (Control) + F so CTRL + F and there will be a search bar that pops up, you can type in "1,000" in it, and it will directly show you where it is. If you haven't checked properly then stop accusing me of vandalism. Noorullah21 (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Amortias Hey, could you revert the changes back to my version? I have clearly explained and provided the source where it says 1,000, and the "70,000", is just a claim, as also shown in the source, not only that, but both sides were supported by foreign powers, IE the Ussr and USA. You can check in the source yourself. Noorullah21 (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Noorullah21 again its says Over which is also approx same as 70,000. if we go by your own logic then 1,000 claim itself is also nullified. 2ndly U.S never sent any fresh weapons or helped PAK but USSR helped AFG with fresh droppings of weapons. Being neutral observer i still gave you margin about this point and removed vandalism on both sides. Kindly read again.So kindly stop this and we both should continue on as friends and fellow wikis.

Hi ::@Amortias you can check the source and my points too and decide. This nothing but Subtle Vandalism. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khan Bababa (talk • contribs) 18:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It says that an agent claimed 70,000, an unreliable claim, while the actual estimated number of troops confirmed was 1,000. I don't know why you keep saying 70,000 as if its a fact when it says itself that the 70,000 was just a claim to the source your pointing toward. The US and USSR both supported each side, as said in the source. Noorullah21 (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Noorullah21 If the number 70,000 is a claim then the exact 1,000 is also a claim as in the same source it says that it was over 1,000 not 1,000 and it is also unrealible as it was given by captured prisoners. The USSR actually provided fresh ammunation to one side unlike U.S. U.S never played any active role while USSR did. Again this spinning is called vandalizing and i request you to stop it. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khan Bababa (talk • contribs) 17:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean? 70,000 is a claim by an agent, while it is confirmed that ~1000 Afghan troops were present. "it is also unreliable as it was given by captured prisoners.", that literally applies to the claim of 70,000, the source says that the 70,000 claim came from a Pakistani broadcast claim, which was heavily exhaggerated. And Again, the USSR and US did support either sides. Noorullah21 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

On the infobox, we can write that Qadir claimed there was 70,000, while there was also another claim of 1,000, you can never be certain, and I believe this is the appropriate and neutral way to move into this. However, abiding by WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX, we should remove the (routed) and severing of diplomatic relations part. The US and USSR still did support each side, the Pakistani army used US guns, while the USSR affirmed their support for the afghan government diplomatically and possibly supplying them. I believe it is appropriate to put the USSR as (alleged) support, since it was likely as stated in the source, that they were supported by a foreign power, likely being the USSR, especially since it refers to the USSR. Noorullah21 (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Noorullah21 we can mention both 70,000 and 1000+ and mention it as (Claimed). The routed and severing/ending of diplomatic relations are literally what happened. they are facts with sources attached too so they are fine. Again while USSR supported afghanistan extensively with fresh new weapons , with media as soviet Pravda propaganda newspaper also supporter Afg with propaganda posts, also Daud Khan went to USSR, so USSR actually played major role supporting Afghanistan not like U.S so we can write supported by USSR with Afghanistan, otherwise we need to remove both as neutral. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khan Bababa (talk • contribs) 19:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, you aren't reading what I'm saying, you have to remove " The routed and severing/ending of diplomatic relations " because of WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. Daoud Khan went to the USSR and the USSR affirmed DIPLOMATIC support for Afghanistan, while also (POSSIBLY NOT CONFIRMED AS STATED IN THE SOURCE) that they were POSSIBLY supplied by a foreign power ie the USSR. The same applies for Pakistan, with the US affirming the USAGE of their weapons and diplomatic support for Pakistan in the conflict. (Quoting where the USSR supported them diplomatically:)

"The article reaffirmed the Soviet Government's support for the Afghan demand for Pathan selfdetermination, and declared that “the situation emerging in the direct proximity of our frontiers is not a matter of indifference to us.” Sardar Mohammed Daud Khan arrived in Moscow onApril 4 for talks with Mr. Khrushchev."

Quoting the U.S part where the US asked and affirmed Pakistani use of American weapons:

"The President (regarding to the U.S) subsequently disclosed in an interview to the New York Times that U.S. representatives had asked the Government of Pakistan whether the latter had used “Americanequipment” in ejecting Afghan elements from her territory; he had replied that “if our territory is violated we would spend our time dealing with the enemy rather than putting the American weapons in cotton wool.” Lieut.- General Sheikh repeated on June 11 that Pakistan would use not only jet bombers but all types of weapons in her possession to repulse any aggression from across the Durand Line, adding that if there were any “fresh machinations from across the border” the AfghanGovernment would have to “face the consequences.” It was reported by Pakistani military sources that a heavy concentration of Afghan troops had taken place along the Durand Line after the lastPakistani air action." Noorullah21 (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Noorullah21 Two things. First as i was away i could not see this and when i saw the changes which were made without being discussed, so we are on it again.

2ndly as explained many times while USSR actively supported Afghanistan with a fresh supply of weapons and diplomatic support, The U.S did not do the same nor does the article say it does w.r.t to "actively" supporting Pakistan nor provided any fresh weapons. The weapons Pakistan had was already in its stash. For Example Go view Israeli wars, in that page where though Israelis fought with U.S, Biritsh and French weapons it does not come in WikiWAAR area, having said that i still, to maintain a neutrality preffered either remove supported by both USSR and U.S or remove supported by U.S with Pakistan.Another thing is that its says Afghans had 1000+ infiltrators not just 1000. so we have to "+" sign with 1000. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khan Bababa (talk • contribs) 19:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The number for 1,000 has a tally next to it (~) meaning around ~1,000, which is what is appropriate to use. Also, it is said in the source that the U.S diplomatically affirmed the Use of American Weapons by Pakistan, and allegedly possibly sending some as well via equipment. The same is for the USSR essentially, as they affirmed diplomatic support, and allegedly also sent weapons. (this is also further proven as it says in the source that they were likely supplied by a foreign power). Noorullah21 (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Noorullah21 No. These statemetns dont prove anything. look at other wars pages. this The support of both the US and USSR are different. US never sent any fresh weapons. assuming/allegedly is not facts. USSR sent fresh weapons which is a fact as mentioned so we will not write that in pakistan section. that is done 2ndly it lt clearly says that " prisoners had confessed that over 1,000 Afghan troops had infiltrated into Pakistan" so we will add the + or write "over" with it. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khan Bababa (talk • contribs) 19:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Look at pages like Taliban, you can scroll to see terms like “alleged” for terms of support, the United States diplomatically affirmed support of Pakistan for using its weapons, and also possibly sent weapons to them, hence why it is ALLEGED.

The USSR didn’t send weapons as a “fact”, it is unknown who sent weapons to Afghanistan, the USSR just affirmed diplomatic support for Afghanistan after talks in Moscow.

Wikipedia isn’t based off of facts, we are supposed to write off different claims. Noorullah21 (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Noorullah21 Taliban were regarded as a proxy and militant organization, not a state, and check Israel wars. What diplomatic role did U.S play solidly? not everything can be based on "allegedly". we can either follow the source or not. Afghanistan did not manfucatured weapons as mentioned and later it was said that the weapons given by soviets mostly beacuse it was thier ally and closest also Afghanistan's claims were openly supported by Khrushchev in March 960 where USSR was giving full support to Afghanistan. US weapons were given before the war not during the war and it has vaguly mentioned "did you used it" implying the weapons were probably in stock not fresh like Afghanistan which in article says it received including diplomatic support from USSR and its media. Pakistan recived F-86 in 1950s not 1961 the same planes used in the war also Did Pakistani President or Minister specially met any U.S President or visited U.S unlike Afghan President who went to USSR? we can't repeat the same thing again and again. we can either remove this from both sides or mention just with afghanistan to maintain neutrality. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khan Bababa (talk • contribs) 17:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The source itself does not state the soviets gave them weapons, it just says it is believed to be/allegedly. "Taliban were regarded as a proxy and militant organization, not a state, and check Israel wars", What I am referring to is, for example, states that had supported the Taliban during their conflicts: Saudi Arabia (alleged, but denied by Saudi Arabia), This can also be seen on War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) in the show section, where it shows states that supported, and allegedly supported them. That was the example I was referring to.

"t also Afghanistan's claims were openly supported by Khrushchev in March 960 where USSR was giving full support to Afghanistan.", yes, this affirms that the USSR diplomatically supported Afghanistan in this conflict.

"US weapons were given before the war not during the war and it has vaguly mentioned "did you used it" implying the weapons were probably in stock not fresh like Afghanistan which in article says it received including diplomatic support from USSR and its media. Pakistan recived F-86 in 1950s not 1961 the same planes used in the war also Did Pakistani President or Minister specially met any U.S President or visited U.S unlike Afghan President who went to USSR?" Yes actually, the Pakistani president did infact go to the United states, link here. [3] [4], etc.

Pakistan was supported diplomatically by the United States, however their weaponized support is alleged. Noorullah21 (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

In fact, the Pakistani president met the US president multiple times, likely to grow diplomatic relations, and also see U.S stance on the issue. [5] Not only this, on page Pakistan–United States relations, it can be seen that the U.S had sent military aid through a pact that was upheld, even to today.

"American military aide was concentrated in West Pakistan, with economic benefits were controlled by and almost exclusively used by West Pakistan. East Pakistani anger towards an absence of economic development was directed towards the United States, as well as West Pakistan. The East-Pakistan parliament passed a resolution denouncing the 1954 military pact with the United States." [6] Noorullah21 (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

(east pakistan referring to modern Bangaladesh, and west Pakistan, of course, now modern Pakistan. Noorullah21 (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Noorullah21 The sources quotes story from the 1950s not specifically at the time of conflict. Ayub visited U.S in July 1961 at the end of the conflict while the conflict itself started a year back in 1960 and Pakistan was already using weapons it got in 50s. infact Afghanistan's leader made visit to U.S and U.S president also came to Afghanistan. U.S also gave afghanistan around 500 Million$ grants, loans, grants, and agricultural commodities to develop transportation facilities etc during the 50s and 60s so this make U.S partner/ally/supporter of Afghanistan. Diplomatic support means giving active support to Pakistan openly, on media and forums which U.S did not w.r.t Pak. Afghanistan also had some german equipment in inventory which it got many years back which does not nesscary mean that germany was "allegedly" supporting Afghanistan in this conflict . we are repeating the same things again. so either we remove supported by with both or just with afghanistan saying just to maintain the neutrallity otherwise it should be just with AFG and not with PAK. check Israel's War tabs for reference. Also the number is more than 1000 so we will add + with "1000". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khan Bababa (talk • contribs) 23:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Nothing of what you are saying is corroborating to the main point, neither are your sources pointing this out, none of your sources are pointing out your claim of U.S support at around 500 million, the US did support Afghanistan in its development, but not on such a high level. This was in the phase of the cold war between the soviet union and U.S fighting over for influence in afghanistan during the cold war itself. You quoting the german equipment was from over 20 years ago, literally after WW2 ended, germany was not a supporter of them..because this equipment was used for the purposes they didn't send it for, nor was german equipment actually used. Yes, you just said it yourself that this does not mean germany was supporting Afghanistan in this conflict, because this was over 2 decades ago..?

Following up, Ayub visited between the times of 1960-1961, July 1961 was not the end of the conflict either, it would be months later until it does end.

The US did diplomatically support Pakistan..openly, it literally even said in the first source that they affirmed the use of U.S guns against Afghanistan. Allegedly also sending equipment themselves. Noorullah21 (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Noorullah21 everything i said does makes sense and none of it is based on "suppositions or allegedly" Ayub visited during 1961 July which was mentioned in your own sources, not 1960-1961 that is almost one year since the war started and Pakistan was using american weapons before that. That 500 million $ was mentioned in wikipedia US-Afghan relations so we cant accpet iteven we dont that "alledly" still applies. other than that US was still given aid and helping afghanistan as it wanted to influence it so US help to afghanistan remain true. we are repeating the same thing and we cant do that anymore. german example was literally used to explain your own point of "allegdly theory". U.S never came out openly in support of Pakistan against Afghanistan. U.S might acknowldged Paksitan using its weapons but it did not said that Pakistan was doing the right thing and it should while USSR literally supported Afghanistan interference with support of Pathanistan. USSR planes used to fly over Pakistan during 50s-60s its mentioned in your source too. those 2 are not equal. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khan Bababa (talk • contribs) 00:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I would ask that you refrain from editing the page until after this discussion has finished, you keep repeating your points, yet the US diplomatically affirmed Pakistans stance to use American weapons, its literally still quoted in the first source that you still continue to use, your "german example" makes no sense and is going off topic, the US openly diplomatically affirmed the use of their guns against Afghanistan. You literally even said it yourself. " U.S might acknowldged Paksitan using its weapons but it did not said that Pakistan was doing the right thing", you literally just admit it yourself, that the United States diplomatically supported Pakistan via the use of American Weapons in Afghanistan, even allegedly supporting them with equipment. The USSR supported the foreign policy of Afghanistan, and supported/staked their claim. Noorullah21 (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You can even read through [7] to see different stances from foreign nations during the conflict. Noorullah21 (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Noorullah21 you are repeating the same thing. I explained the same thing 1000 times but you dont want to understand. Its a waste of time. Check 1965 indo-pak wars or Israeli wars where USSR and U.S clearly took sides yet are not mentioned and in this regard where they never even played any major role like U.S, we can't add it just beacuse our "heart" wants it based on some supposition. i even gave oppurtunity to remove either both to main neutrality but you just want everything your way based on some hypothetical "Allegedly". it does not work this way. Thanks. End — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khan Bababa (talk • contribs) 22:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not pushing POV, I am showing you what is shown here, Pakistan was diplomatically affirmed by the U.S in support, if you keep edit warring, I will report you to an admin noticeboard. Noorullah21 (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

All you do is repeat yourself. there is no substance to this conversation anymore. everything is "supposition" or "alleged". Go see waar of Israel or 65,71 wars. Diplomatics support is when you openly take side of someone on international level or condemn the other side. This does not work like this. this is not a personal space but space for facts or alreast close to facts not just beacuse of "if this then that" supposition. this conversation ends.thanks you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khan Bababa (talk • contribs) 22:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I just showed you new sources, but you are still ignoring them, I don't know why you are claiming it as alleged, I am writing that the US diplomatically affirmed pakistans position against Afghanistan, and allegedly sent them equipment as well, especially including how they had a military pact since 1956. Noorullah21 (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Role Of Pakistan Airforce in this war

Pakistan Airforce also participated in this conflict by their bombing missions with F-86 sabres https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-heroes-of-bajaur.528252/ Xtreme o7 (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2022

Make "Local Pashthun Tribesmen" in the combatants list link to the "Pashtun" ethnic group wikipedia article by replacing it with "Local Pashtun Tribesmen" instead of "Local Pashtun Tribesmen" PreserveOurHistory (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done, though I added the link only to the word "Pashtun" for simplicity. ComplexRational (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Main article picture

I found a picture of Musa khan Inspecting captured afghan soldiers

Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

upload to wikimedia, provide source. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=General+Musa+khan+Inspecting+&title=Special:MediaSearch&type=image Xtreme o7 (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@PreserveOurHistory done Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

terrible article, dont take that as a full story

No mention of the civilian deaths that came from the campaign?? The refugees it caused? https://web.stanford.edu/group/tomzgroup/pmwiki/uploads/1303-1961-06-KS-AJG.pdf PreserveOurHistory (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2022

at a point in the text it says "heavily shelled" what is written in the source is that Afghan Army were equipped with artillery, thats it. Please remove "heavily shelled" and replace it with "equipped with artillery" PreserveOurHistory (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done as per cited source. Thanks for the request. P1221 (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2022

The source of the image in the wikipedia article for the Bajaur Campaign is from a twitter post, it should be removed. (WP:RS) Wikipedia Policy Hutterx (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Images from Twitter are allowed here and on Commons. The image was only removed because of the factual connection is not supported by a RS. SWinxy (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

honestly not that far fetched, it does appear to look like General Musa Khan, The Soldiers are also wearing the german style helmets and a mountain is visible in the image. To me it does pass as Afghan Army. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they are the Afghan Army and that is indeed General Musa Khan. If you look closer into the photo, there is an Afghan officer standing right behind Musa. I’ve heard people claim that this photo is not from the Bajaur Campaign, but rather from a simple inspection of the Royal Afghan Guard by General Musa Khan way way before the Bajaur Campaign. AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2022

Article is attempting to pursue an unsourced narrative that the Tribesmen were not fighting for their own land but rather for Pakistan. The Sources of the Article do not claim such a thing. If Pakistan was the one that moved its military to Bajaur then a war would happen (which is exactly what happened back in the 2000s when US pressured Pakistan to do so). This Article is written by people who are either non-pakistanis that have no knowledge on FATA or intentional liars. This is a Wikipedia article with a PERSONAL AGENDA and must be removed. EDIT REQUEST: At a certain point in the article it says "in support of Pakistani forces", remove it since that is not sourced, the source mentions that only Tribesmen fought Afghans, thats it. Replace it with "to defend their land" or something like that PreserveOurHistory (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: "to defend their land" would also be unsourced. Removed statement entirely and wrote only that the tribespeople fought. TGHL ↗ 🍁 19:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2023

false information there was no such war don't spread false 103.209.125.19 (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

More information?

Idk i think this article is a bit light on info about the the whole conflict DrWineBerry (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

500-1,000 Afghan soldiers

Can somebody add another source which mentions 500 Afghan soldiers?

https://archive.org/details/dli.pahar.3556/page/540/mode/2up?q=underestimated Shinwari93 (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Add Image

The image of the Bajaur campaign, between Pakistani soldiers and Afghans should be added. Titan2456 (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It’s from 1950s so no AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Wrong flag used for the Royal Afghan Army in the infobox

The blue flag you see for the Afghan Army is the flag of the Royal Afghan Army Band, not the Royal Afghan Army.

Please use “File:Flag of the Afghan Army (1931-1973).svg” AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Done Ukiyology1 (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Remember the “captured” Afghan soldiers picture?

I finally found what is really is about! The truth is, it was not captured Afghan soldiers… it was Musa Khan inspecting the Afghan Royal Guard in the 1950s! I’m glad we could finally discover the truth of the photo. It has nothing to do with the Bajaur campaign AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@AfghanParatrooper19891, someone has re-added the pic, I presume you're talking about Waleed (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s fine. I will try to find the refutation thread shortly. AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Batmalai raid

As far as I know, there was an article named 1961 batmalai raid, don't know what happened of it and I think if someone finds that it should probably be merged here Waleed (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It was merged with into this Afghan-Pak skrimishes, it should also be mentioned in this article, also this article nowhere mentions that the campaign consisted of two invasions by afghanistan first undercover with the support of Khan of Dir and jandol and posed as tribesmen dressed as locals and second with official afghan military

sources:-

[8],[9],3,Ibid,[10]

note:- these books mention both invasions Rahim231 (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay thanks brother I was anyways thinking of expanding this article, and I will expand it Waleed (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Rahim231, assalamualaikum brother, is there a redirect to that page from where I can see revision history and probably copy paste some stuff Waleed (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Walikum-Musalam. Yes, you can find it in the articles history, Link :- [11] also i wouldnt say it is quite accurate so i just moved important info in the skrimishes page. Rahim231 (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks brother, also brother move some important info in this article as well Waleed (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2024

I want to add a picture of the Bajaur campaign to this page Xenomire (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done You need to specify what picture you would like to add. It will need to be one that's in the public domain or licensed for public use. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Reason why I removed the image – updated refutation

When the image is reverse-image searched, the source of it seems to come from a Facebook page named “Pakistan and Afghanistan archives”. The post is titled “ Lieutenant General Muhammad Musa Khan Inspecting An Afghan Guard Of Honor At Torkham Border In Khyber Pass, Circa 1950's.” and was published on 28 January 2021. I subsequently messaged the poster, who told me word for word that it isn’t related to the Bajaur Campaign and that the Afghan troops are being inspected at the Torkham Khyber Pass. Musa Khan was additionally a Major General in 1950 and was later promoted to Lieutenant General in 1957, 3 years before the Bajaur Campaign took place. Not only that, further inspection has proven that in 2020 and 2021, there was no mention that the Afghan soldiers in the photo were captured and both posts claimed that General Musa Khan was inspecting Afghan troops at Torkham.

1. https://x.com/leftofthepincer/status/1329862405434839040?s=46

Posted on 20 November 2020, the post’s caption states “commander-in-chief of the Pakistan Army, General Musa Khan Hazara inspects Afghan troops at Torkham - love the good old Stahlhelm.”

2. https://www.facebook.com/share/1XchyYZJCZ/?mibextid=WC7FNe

Posted on 28 January 2021, the caption of the post states “Lieutenant General Muhammad Musa Khan Inspecting An Afghan Guard Of Honor At Torkham Border In Khyber Pass, Circa 1950's.”

Neither of the posts from both 2020 or 2021 mention that the Afghan soldiers are captured. However, this image was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in 2022 with the claim that the image depicted General Musa Khan with captured Afghan soldiers during the 1961 Bajaur Campaign. Not only that, the original uploader of the image provided post Number 1. (The Twitter post) as a source, despite the post not mentioning the Bajaur campaign or the Afghan soldiers being captured troops. This could elude to the initial description of the image as fabricated. The notion of “Royal Afghan Army troops captured at Bajaur in 1961” only gained traction after this image was uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons in 2022. The original photo doesn’t include the sepia filter, as it’s originally grey. Here is proof that the notion of the Afghan troops being captured only gained traction in 2022 (despite posts with the photo before 2022 not mentioning anything about the Bajaur Campaign)

1. https://www.reddit.com/r/chutyapa/s/KIAP3ACUC8

Posted in 2022, after the image was uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons

2. https://x.com/zeus_psf/status/1770170020544557490?s=46

Posted on 19 March 2024, claiming the photo is related to the Bajaur Campaign

3. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMiddleEast/s/WsiZG8UiOu

Posted in 2023, also claiming the photo is related to the Bajaur Campaign

4. https://x.com/zeus_psf/status/1723702236394475926?s=46

Posted on 12 November 2023, also claiming the photo is related to the Bajaur Campaign

ADDITIONALLY, this Pakistani thread (from 2021) detailing the Bajaur incursion in 1961 does not use the well-known image of the “captured Afghan Army troops at Bajaur”.

1. https://x.com/indusland_/status/1419731433183133705?s=46

This is my final refutation. If anyone wants the video of my conversation with the original Facebook poster “Pakistan & Afghan Archives”, message my Twitter account “Afghan Military Archives”. AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)