Talk:Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Type of Bomb

The type of explosives used is crucial evidence and needs to be expanded on. A TV presenter quoting a government official is hearsay. I think the article's description of RDX Torpex is pure speculation and need to be referenced. Did Pakistani military investigators use a Geiger Counter? (photo here ) U2r2h (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

American bias in article?

"One American was reported killed in the blast, while several other foreigners were wounded, according to a hospital and security officials."

Erm, don't you think this is a bit biased? OMG, one American was killed! And yes, other "foreigners" were killed, as well. Darkshark0159 (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If we get details on the other persons it should be added, but I don't see how that precludes keeping already gathered info. Joshdboz (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As we get information on all the victims we should summarize it in the article. It is not surprising that an American citizen among the dead is the first such piece of information to become publicized. __meco (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a citation showing that other foreigners (foreign meaning non-Pakistani) were killed? Superm401 - Talk 20:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes 4 British nationals were killed. LOTRrules (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Read above. Do you have a citation? Superm401 - Talk 22:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Images

Too early for this type of image licensing? Image:MariottIslamabad20-9-08.JPG

Why can't Image:MariottIslamabad20-9-08b.JPG be used in the mean time???

..because it doesn't give any information.

Sure, but it is a good piece to hold the page over until better imagery become available. A lack of pictures, whether great or rubbish, drive some casual viewers away from such lacking articles. Darkshark0159 (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

We need an image of a map of the region in which this situation took place, or an image of the destruction with proper licenses.  AcroX  22:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the one[[1]] from WikiNews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkshark0159 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at some of the other terrorist incident articles and see how they have done it. __meco (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have. Virtually all similar bombings use the licensing used in this image I prepared earlier: Image:MariottIslamabad20-9-08.JPG Darkshark0159 (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason a free photo can't be taken at the scene. Recovery and rebuilding will probably take a very long time. Superm401 - Talk 22:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Satellite image

The satellite image you posted is non-free too. Please, if you're not sure you have a free image, don't upload it. Superm401 - Talk 23:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't restore the satellite image without explaining how it is free and adding this info to the image description page. Superm401 - Talk 23:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it is an image from Wikimapia. That good for you? Restoring now. Darkshark0159 (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to add details, including a URL, to the image page. It is also necessary to explain where Wikimapia got the image, because they don't own any satellites either as far as I know. It appears Wikimapia is simply a mash-up. It combines Google Maps, a non-free map service, and Wikipedia, which they illegally use without mentioning the GFDL. Superm401 - Talk 23:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Can you identify any content on Wikimapia that is illegal and uses Wikipedia? Wikimapia itself does not do mass uploads from Wikipedia or any other sources; all illegal content there is uploaded piecemeal by users. If so, it can be removed by any editor in the same fashion - but beware their dispute resolution practice is stone age. 2. Maps on Wikimapia are clearly marked and watermarked as a Google service. Hardly a mashup. NVO (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay Superm401, you are officially a WikiJerk. Darkshark0159 (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words, WTF. Who the hell cares of part of an image is grey-area. Just sod off and let this article be the best it can be. Darkshark0159 (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You are not improving the article by adding non-free images, nor are you improving this discussion by using personal attacks. Superm401 - Talk 00:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. It is only logical that a half-decent picture is better than none at all. Wake up. People like pictures! Darkshark0159 (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Put it this way, virtually all of the other terrorist attacks are represented by non-free media. Why should this article be any different? Stop holding Wikipedia back. Darkshark0159 (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:MariottIslamabad20-9-08.JPG Darkshark0159 (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Other parts of the wikiempire are using non-free for this event. Wikipedia should as well.

An attitude of, We got away with non-free media before. Let's add as much as possible this time is not going to help us create a free encyclopedia. I don't think you can point to a single case where there was consensus to use a non-free satellite images. Some articles use non-free news images, and many of those are actually inappropriate. In this case, the attack's just happened, and it's way premature to add non-free images.

If this is really Pakistan's 9/11, then we should consider that there are hundreds of free 9/11 images. If other projects are using non-free images, they should probably be removed there too. Superm401 - Talk 00:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:INN sort of fits in here. That latest image of yours came directly from CNN (or one of the news sites, I forget which I saw it on), that's against the rules. Now that map of the region was perfect for the article, minus the satellite image? Why can't we use that? Why must we use non-free images?  AcroX  00:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a simple free locator image for consideration. Superm401 - Talk 00:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

open street maps has reasonable coverage of Islamabad so we might be able to get a reasonable map from that.Geni 18:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger discussion?

There's no merger discussion on either page, why didn't you guys follow the process correctly?  AcroX  20:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There should definitely be a merger, but I think we should wait until after the article "cools off" before anyone takes such a large step. This is the official Wikipedia article for this event as it is featured on the front page. And blame Superm401 for not putting up a merge discussion... Darkshark0159 (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge into the geographically specific title. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would we wait for the article to cool off before merging? That would mean that while the most people are working on the article, duplicate work would be done. This should not have been a controversial merge. Clearly, having two articles was inappropriate. If you think something from 2008 Islamabad Marriott Hotel attack is missing, feel free to add it here (all content is still in that page's history). If you would like to rename to 2008 Islamabad Marriott Hotel attack, that's also an option, though I hardly see why it matters (is there another 2008 attack on a Marriott hotel?). Superm401 - Talk

I have merged the other article into this one. This was the more developed version (I left out unreferenced text from the other article) and was also started before the other one. This does not preclude a change of title of this article, if need be into what the title of the other article was. __meco (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the redirect should be the other way. 2008 Marriott Hotel bombing should be redirected to 2008 Islamabad...

It's the first impression and the inter-wiki links that are important here. Lihaas (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Pakistan's 9/11"

Many locals are in fact calling this the 9/11 of Pakistan, but at this point, the only sources I can think of would be the blogs cuurently available on various sites. Does anyone else know of a proper source? ~~`~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkshark0159 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I found that Najam Sethi came up with the name. Darkshark0159 (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You may have found it, but you haven't given a citation. Nor do I think this is a notable nickname. Superm401 - Talk 22:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The newspaper article has not yet been published online, so I cannot quote it. It is your opinion that it is not a notable name, but I know many feel differently. Darkshark0159 (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You haven't even given the name of one newspaper, nor the title of the article, nor the city of publication. Do you expect me to take your assertions without any evidence? Superm401 - Talk 23:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Poor footnotes practice

Presently the first paragraph has information about:

1. Date and location of bombing
2. How the attack took place
3. Number of dead and injured
   • including foreign nationals
4. Description of damage to locale

Now, all of this is referenced, collectively, by six sources. This is not very good. __meco (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Dead space issue

On my 1280x800 monitor there's a giant area of dead space caused by the campaign box, and I have a feeling other resolutions may have this issue. How shall we fix this?  AcroX  22:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Same here Darkshark0159 (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Appears solved now. Jdkoenig 17:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

wikiproject

How is this wikiproject military history? this is the first terror attack on wikipedia im seeing with a military history wikiproject tag on.

Likewise IR and disaster management, although i can see some connection to, albeit quite a stretch. Lihaas (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't comment on the other two, but as a WP:DM member it is relevant. Wether deleberate or accidental, a catastrophe occured and management wwas/is required. The techniques used are what the project is interested in. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Need edits on Pakistanis killed

The article lists how many American and Danes were killed. There is no mention of Pakistani. Since 60 or more people were murdered and only a few nationalities given, many of them might be Pakistani. Omission may imply bias. At first, it can be excused but as more information is released, the article should be corrected. 903M (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to address this through a reference that stated ~15 of the casualties were foreigners. That means the vast majority were Pakistanis. Superm401 - Talk 05:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

title

In Wikipedia, we have to give an article a name. However, this name is simply one coined by a Wikipedia editor. When there is a name accepted universally, then we bolden the title name. An example is the article on "Pakistan". The manual of style doesn't require bolding of the exact article name in cases like this. By not doing so, we avoid the comical stilted language of an article that sounds like a television episode name. 903M (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

source

an edit just added this: (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Islamabad_Marriott_Hotel_bombing&diff=239951319&oldid=239949718) it has a potentially good source, maybe someone can incorporate it: http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=17401 Lihaas (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a single story from a middle of the road source. That makes it a fringe theory. Unless this goes into the mainstream, it's not worth including. Superm401 - Talk 07:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

American Presence?

The sources for the article do not say that US Marines were the target of the attack, nor do they say that the fire started on the 4th floor. The only semi-relevant bits I pick up from cited sources. are that 1. There were US Marines present, and 2. They may have had steel cases, probably personal footlockers, with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.89.75 (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did the "footlockers" have to bypass security? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.179.208 (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, not that I plan on finding sources because it will never make it into the article, but going through personal property usually doesn't happen. It happens a lot when somebody may have contraband that would offend a country that doesn't work for both sides. Also, Mariott security probably trusted that 30 US Marines were not planning on bombing the hotel or taking over Pakistan. Of course, you could also assume massive Pakistani conspiracies when the government is not extremely friendly towards the US, and also base parts of this Wikipedia article off unfounded speculation, and claim the fire started on the 4th floor when no source says so. The key issue here is relevance and credibility. Read the sourced articles and then judge how much relevant information there is opposed to unsourced speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.89.75 (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's clearly not a significant POV, and has no place in the article. If people still want to include it, more sources are needed, as well as correct grammar and formatting. Do this work on talk before trying to add it to the article. Superm401 - Talk 08:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

PM says he can't jump to conclusions

He was live just one minute ago and said that he can't jump to conclusions, and can't blame anybody.User talk:Yousaf465

It's been changed on the main page; it now says it's only suspected to be so. Lihaas (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

International relations section

Foreign responses that are simply statements of condolences and anti-terrorist rhetoric should be removed. These are formalities and nothing more. Leave the actions, not the routine talk. NVO (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

US strikes infobox

Instead of reverting one can discuss here the utility of having this infobox. Lihaas (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

all such infoboxes go only into articles that are mentioned IN the infobox--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

{{U.S. strikes in Bajour/Waziristan}}

Sorry I just saw this discussion. In general you should be allowed to add, whatever you think is important that others should See. Even the most non-detached observer of the situation, reckons that the U.S. strikes, that have escalated in September, has something to do with this bombing. In other words - had the U.S. not escalated its attacks - taken advantage of the power-vacuum in Pakistan, following the stepping down of Pervez Musharraf on 18 August, we would in all probability not have seen this attack yesterday. Everyone with just a scant affiliation with Pakistani affairs, are aware how angered many Pakistanis are about the U.S attacks, and that explains the Pakistan-U.S standoff 15 September 2008, as the Pakistani leadership is very much aware about possible consequences of U.S forces entering Pakistani territory.

Therefore I shall in the strongest terms object to my template being deleted again and again, when indeed it serves as a valuable tool of information for people, struggling to find an explanation, as to why this has happened. Some people, do not want this truth to be spelled out, preferring instead to wage war without understanding why it happened, and without asking questions. But many people are increasingly aware, that terrorist strikes doesn't come out of the blue, but have a political motivation, ie. in this case protest about U.S interference in Pakistani affairs. All I ask is letting this information be included in the See also section. When it is constantly deleted, I can only interpret it, as if some people wish a mind-control and to restrict the free flow of information -- a flow, which should be at the heart of what it means to be a wikipedian, ie. a developer of the people's own encyclopedia, which includes topics based on commo9n sense, as they are discussed man-to-man. Old printed Encycklopedias had editors who could restrict the free flow of information, but the peoples own encyclopeida, made for and by the people, should aim higher.Nick Finnsbury Nick Finnsbury (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

if you create an article named List of United States raids in Pakistan, fine. But still I do not see any sources linking the attack to the raids. IMO the attack came as a "greetings" for Zardari. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflicts

According to this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Islamabad_Marriott_Hotel_bombing&diff=239980828&oldid=239979427

The conflict here is between saying the "...Marines, scheduled to go to Afghanistan, were staying at the hotel" and between them being "in Pakistan in connection with the visit by US..." It is NOT between "and they were believed to be the targets of the bombing" and then being here with the admiral, as previously supposed.

Now if there are with the delegation's visit then they would not be a tour of duty to the conflict zone. There's a disconnect here. Lihaas (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Poor grammar that can easily be misunderstood, and ends up cluttering the whole thing

The section in its present form says:>An unnamed senior security official stated that about 30 U.S. Marines, scheduled to go to Afghanistan, were staying at the hotel, and they were believed to be the targets of the bombing. This conflicted with information given by another unnamed official who stated that the marines were in Pakistan in connection with the visit by US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen who met the Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani and other government officials on Friday< YEAH Allright,- it conflicts with the information that they were on the Route to Aghanistan but it doesn't CONFLICT with the notion, that they were attacked BECAUSE they were in the hotel Is that clear? It ought to be.

Therefore the word conflict should be averted. It is poor grammar. No great poet like Shakespeare (who is a good example of a master of language, and one we should all be happy in trailing) would use such a word. It is not precise. YEAH the statement by the unnamed "official" conflicts with some of the stuff mentioned in the previous sentence, but it doesn't conflict with the fact that they were targetted because they were 1) U.S marrines and 2) In that hotel at that time. Therefore the word conflict should not be used.Do I make myself clear - or how many times to you prefer to re-enter your poor grammar!!!!Nick Finnsbury (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you may find that there is a way to say something. Perhaps WP:Civility may help.

At any rate, the conflict is mentioned and you agree there is a conflict so why should it not be there? you read it a conflict between two other things, maybe then it should be rephrased at most. you just acknowledged the conflict, but then you go on to state shakespeare would not do so. what is the meaning of conflict then? why is it not grammatically right?

how about: "...unnamed senior security official stated that about 30 U.S. Marines, who were believed to be the targets of the bombing, were also scheduled to go to Afghanistan. This conflicted with information given by another unnamed official who stated" Lihaas (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I havent the foggiest what you are on to. It is the word: conflict that is wrong to use in this context.It is not precise, as the officials statement only 'conflicts' with one of the points mentioned in the previous sentence, ie. that the marrines were en route to Aghanistan. It does not 'conflict' with the idea, that they were the reason the hotel was bombed. Allthough news had emerged that it could be the pakistani leadership that was the target, I am sure 30 marrines would be viewed by the instigaters of this attack as fair collateral damage. The possibility exists the the marrines and their steel boxes in some way were there to guard the pakistani leadership.

But you continue to re-insert the word: 'Conflict, even though i have offered a very fair compromise, namely that >This conflicted with information given by another unnamed official who stated< should be replaced with >Another unnamed official stated, that...< And everytime I insert this better-languaged substitute, you tell me that I am not allowed to do so, and that I should discuss it here.Nick Finnsbury (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

See also

This section should also be included. In which Lebanon hotel bombing of 1995 (i think) and the American ohio boming should be included.Pl confirm these incidents.~``

Under what grounds? how is it related? Lihaas (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Highly relevant remark from (unsigned). I agree with you. One ought to make a Template called: Truck bombs. And here is the incident in Lebanon, I gather you had in mind: 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. Yours sincerely Nick Finnsbury (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Name

I propose renaming this article to 2008 Marriott Hotel bombing in Islamabad. --HowardRob (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It is generally not a good idea to start with a year, as it makes searches internally on wikipedia difficult. And one doesn't expect any more attacks on Islamabad Marriott Hotels(it will anyway take some time, as the current one is going to be demolished, and a new one then has to be erected). If we have one in -say 2010, we could consider naming this one "2008...". Nick Finnsbury (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia naming conventions (and this is the case for a variety of attacks) the year does come into play. So something like what you (Howard) said, or 2008 Islamabad Marriott hotel bombing should be good. Maybe there will be a minor bombing at another marriott in the same year or next. Needs the conventions. Lihaas (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Summer time?

I believe Pakistan is currently on summer time. This should be clarified vis-à-vis the time reference in the infobox. __meco (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, they are on summer time. "PDT" stands for Pakistan Daylight Time, and can be seen on the Pakistan Wikipedia page, so I think that should cover it. jdkoenig 22:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

peoples response

I have the youtube video for the people's reponse where to add it.User talk:Yousaf465

Either in external links or as a source. (i believe i added the al jazeera video to the external links) Lihaas (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Pak condemnation

should we add a new section for all the reaction from pakistani leaders? or perhaps just add a pak flag to the reaction section. Lihaas (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

New section will be better.User talk:Yousaf465

got a collection of links here:

http://www.kmsnews.org/news/pro-freedom-leaders-condemn-islamabad-blast Kashmiri (probably Indian right now)

http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=137164 Hyderabad (Pak) rally

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53527&Itemid=2 NA Spekaer

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\09\21\story_21-9-2008_pg11_5 Traders

http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=137163 Prez/PM

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=70056&sectionid=351020401 same

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53485&Itemid=2 Ministers

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53554&Itemid=2 Balochis

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53537&Itemid=2 Hurriyat

http://www.geo.tv/9-20-2008/25306.htm FM

http://thepost.com.pk/CorpNewsT.aspx?dtlid=184207&catid=8 chamber of commerce

http://www.dawn.com/2008/09/14/top16.htm prez/pm

http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=133660 chief of army staff

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53470&Itemid=2 mqm

http://www.greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=22_9_2008&ItemID=19&cat=21 jklf (India?)

http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=133636 rehman malik (notable?)

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53499&Itemid=2 punjab cm

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=137310 youth parliament (notable?)

http://thepost.com.pk/ShortNewsT.aspx?shortid=6758&catid=2 senate

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53541&Itemid=2 imran khan

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/7435/ cpp

http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=135192 people

http://thepost.com.pk/NatNewsT.aspx?dtlid=181746&catid=2 or http://thepost.com.pk/CityNewsT.aspx?dtlid=184140&catid=3 lawyers?

http://www.norwaypost.no/cgi-bin/norwaypost/imaker?id=194501 norway ambassador's house

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53526&Itemid=2 general

ps- for all those in pak. did you interior min go home to change clothes thrice ;) Lihaas (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Likewise the following passage should be added to a new section. doesn't make sense where ti is.

Both Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani condemned the attack and vowed their determination to deal with terrorism, with Law Minister Farooq Naek stating "this is Pakistan's nine-eleven". Lihaas (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I support a separate section for Pakistani reactions. __meco (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I too support the creation of a separate section for Pakistani internal political reactions and other notable opinions. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't do tables, if someone could set one up i will add to it. ^{(Hypnosadist)}

It's not so difficult. If you look at the code for the existing tables, you could easily copy and modify so as to create a new table. Here is the basic code:

{| class="wikitable" align=center width=100%
! width=175px  | Source !! Response
|-
| column 1 content || column 2 content
|-
| column 1 content || column 2 content
|}

__meco (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This too needs to be added to this section:

"Many people are of the view that a foreign power is involved in the attacks in some way. <ref>{{cite news..." ~~~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs) 11:04, September 26, 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your edit botched up the page for more than three weeks so that anything below has been hidden until now. (I now commented out the damaging code). __meco (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

References

presence of explosive inside the buidling

It has just been announced that there were explosives present inside the building also which caused the damage to 4th and 5th floor.This was said the forensic experts.No written report has arrived as yet this was just stated on tv. So pl add this when a cite is ava.User talk:Yousaf465

Bangladeshi response

I added it along with a flag. 903M (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Change in plans reportedly saved Pakistani leaders

[2] Grey Fox (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Suspected Perps?

Two things: 1) Fadayan-e_Islam listed on the chart of perpetrators doesn't seem to be the same group claiming responsibility. It links to a defunct Iranian group. Dawn refers to the group as Fedayeen-i-Islam. 2) Since the Pakistani group has not been known until now and because many believe that the group is comprised of members of other already existing groups, should we not include al-Qaeda, HuJI, etc. on the short list of suspected groups? --RDavi404 (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Name of americans killed have been released

The U.S. military identified the two Americans killed in the Marriott bombing as Air Force Maj. Rodolfo I. Rodriguez, 34, of El Paso, Texas, and Navy Petty Officer Matthew O'Bryant, 22, of Theodore, Ala.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD93CN8T01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Finnsbury (talk • contribs) 16:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Fadayan-e Islam

The Fadayan-e Islam group linked to in the infobox is not the same group claiming responsibility for the attack. That group is a pre-Revolution Iranian group that is no longer active. The Fedayeen Islam group claiming responsibility has never been heard of before now. The source cited confirms this fact (Seen here: Dawn). A new page needs to be created for the Pakistani group (although many investigators believe that the new group is composed of members of an already existing group such as al-Qaeda, Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami or Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan). ----meco (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdavi404 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)