Well, I haven’t met a member of the Taleban personally. I do go to a gym full of vets who have dealt with the people on a personal basis, however.

What would a soldier know about afghans or talibans? If they see a Taliban, they will shoot him dead. I can assure you that soldiers wont go around and interview them. The only info soldiers getting is the very basics, so they can fight at their full capability.

The Taleban receives fresh recruits mainly due to insecurity and poverty.

isn't it the same thing I said earlier?

Restore peace and prosperity to the region, and you will see war evaporate.

Which will be archived if Pashtunistan is made.

If there were not significant foreign forces in Afganistan, it would still be at war with itself. The conditions in Afganistan- poverty, insecurity, nationalist and religious extremism- aren’t very likely to result in an outbreak of peace happening anytime soon.

agree

Everyone can call themselves honorable, and think up a nice sounding code of ethics to go along with that.

It is an unwritten code, so they didn't come op with it themselves, it what other people saw in their behavior.

The Taliban mixes Sharia with Pashtunwali. They would agree with you on that point, even though most westerners would not.

I know Taliban is a mix of Sharia and their code, but what have that anything to do with the Pashtuns? I am talking about Pashtuns specifically and not a mixing of Sharia.

So try telling two large nations that they both have to willingly give up a large piece of land. 

What would they need that large piece of land if they dont have any control over it? And even more important, why would they need if they dont help the population there? They live poverty and with no security, which recruits thousands of rebel fighters.
I even see as hypocrisy in Pakistan if that the case. Pakistan keep complaining about Israel, yet they themselves do the same thing, the different is that Israel at least support the people within it lands.

The Taleban arose in response to atrocities committed by the local government troops- who were often also Pashtuns.

That is not true. The Taliban arose from atrocities committed by warlords (previous mujahedins) in the civil war. And they were from all ethnic groups in Afghanistan. example Dustum which was from Usbek ethnic group.

We sponsored A.S. Massoud, who was (relatively) moderate and who had helped throw out the soviets. He had defeated the Taleban in battle, but was assassinated by them eventually.

Sponsored Massoud was the last thing USA did. I can even show you a video of him being interviewed, where he complains about the lack of support from USA and Pakistan. He even mention that you guys mostly only supported the Pashtun extremist.

I am beginning to think that you dont know who Taliban is..

Exactly, think is the key word. You only think I dont know who Taliban is, but thinking something doesn't make it a fact.

There are more than a dozen other insurgent groups working in Afghanistan and these are not Pashtun centric.

Mention some, all I hear about is Taliban from any source I try to find.

The problem isn't the Pashtuns,

The Pashtuns aren't the problem, but the Taliban is.

the primary problem is the occupation and the failed governance.

The primary problem is poverty and the lack of support to modern people in Taliban strongholds.

And even so, we have already seen what happens when the Pashtuns were in total power. Hint, they supported the Taliban.

The only times when Pashtuns was in power, was back in times of kings. They hadn't been in power in the last 30-40 years.

Are you even sure about the origin of the Taliban?

I am more then sure, but I dont seem to understand what this comment has anything to do with the statement I made...

No. These people started the group themselves, external forces merely jumped on the bandwagon and armed them. They are not direct Western creations.

Then you have no idea what kind of brainwashing was done in the religious schools. And by support the extremist, you are giving them bigger influence.
It actually the same thing Iran is doing in western Afghanistan. They are only supporting people who are pro-Iran. This way they increase they influence throughout Afghanistan.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 15472.html

My area borders there's and many times we see them taking refuge in our area.
and many times they are killed for old country's quabbels in our area..

Did you see them, when they killed them?
if so, how do you know they killed them because of so called revenge?
There is around 30-40 millions pashtuns in Pakistan, I doubt you see them go around and kill people randomly.
I do agree on that they have a code called Badal, which is revenge, but that is only very small part of the Pashtun culture. You made it sound like, that all they do.

Something to read

How does this relate to the topic? If anything, it just prove my point.

What would they need that large piece of land if they dont have any control over it? And even more important, why would they need if they dont help the population there? They live poverty and with no security, which recruits thousands of rebel fighters.
I even see as hypocrisy in Pakistan if that the case. Pakistan keep complaining about Israel, yet they themselves do the same thing, the different is that Israel at least support the people within it lands

How  is it so?

How does this relate to the topic? If anything, it just prove my point.

It proves that Pakistani Taliban are a different breed.
Tattoos are forbidden in Islam and with living things tattoos, you can't say your prayers.
If Taliban were as hardcore as they claim, even if this person was a new convert, the first thing he would have will be erasing that tattoo.
Also, I read many times that they have found uncircumcised bodies of the and gorkha bodies too, this proves that a foreign hand is involved.
There is a Policeman named aftab phlarwan, he did operations against them and wrote an auto biography.read it.

The primary problem is poverty and the lack of support to modern people in Taliban strongholds.

Citing this reason is turning a bling eye to the regions history.
Brits tried it, Greeks and russians tried it but they were repulsed.
In those days, resistance did not have a religious color but this time this happens to be the case, its only a coincidence.
This was not religiously motivated,

Did you see them, when they killed them?
if so, how do you know they killed them because of so called revenge?
There is around 30-40 millions pashtuns in Pakistan, I doubt you see them go around and kill people randomly.
I do agree on that they have a code called Badal, which is revenge, but that is only very small part of the Pashtun culture. You made it sound like, that all they do.

Because that is one of the most important things that they do.
Often, their tribal vendettas go over a century back.
You are mistaken to think that it is a "small" part of their culture.
Actually it is the most important part of their culture.
Its blood for blood or woman for blood.
and before you call me a eacist or something let me tell you such things even happen in my area.
My family had a fight in 80's and both sides carry a vendetta ever since.
We compete for land purchase and etc.
Many times, the land is known to be worthless but we still buy it just to tease the other party.
Up north, situation is more violent.

I would have thought that we would learn the lessons of history and not pin our hopes on arbitrary line drawing circa 1920s self determination. Creating states out of nations isn't necessarily the road to peace. Implying that people of different cultures cannot live alongside one another is a slippery slope.

In any case there are a myriad of reasons behind the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, some historical, some contemporary. But to think that creating Pashtunistan will solve the problem is a gross simplification for a number of reasons. Firstly, it implies that the Pashtun people are themselves unified. Yes they share the same language and culture more or less, but it is that same culture that spawns violent tribal tendencies. A central government would struggle to impose statehood on a disparate people much in the same way the Karzai struggles now, only on a smaller scale.

Then there are the outside players to consider. Pakistan for one would not be happy with an independent Pashtun state, which would no doubt act as a safe haven for the Mujahideen to mount further attacks on Northern Pakistan. Looking already at how far the Pakistani armed forces have incurred into Waziristan, if the Pashtun's gained independence, they could find themselves beset upon very quickly by their neighbours.

Ultimately however, until the Kabul based government can rid itself of corruption and govern for the people and not for themselves, regionalism will prevail. I believe that the key problem in Afghanistan is a dearth of political leaders willing to challenge the status quo and make meaningful steps in the right direction. It is a fallacy that Afghan culture is rooted in the Middle Ages and that any attempt to make progressive unifying reforms is doomed to failure. The Soviets and the Taleban are in no small part responsible for this, although the endemically corrupt Karzai government should also take some of the blame on this count.

Things will not change overnight. It took the Western world hundreds of years to properly develop functioning demicracies. How we expect Afghanistan to do so in mere decades is ridiculous, and these kind of 'miracle cure' ideas do nothing but distract from sensible long term policy making and implementation.

I would have thought that we would learn the lessons of history and not pin our hopes on arbitrary line drawing circa 1920s self determination. Creating states out of nations isn't necessarily the road to peace. Implying that people of different cultures cannot live alongside one another is a slippery slope.

In any case there are a myriad of reasons behind the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, some historical, some contemporary. But to think that creating Pashtunistan will solve the problem is a gross simplification for a number of reasons. Firstly, it implies that the Pashtun people are themselves unified. Yes they share the same language and culture more or less, but it is that same culture that spawns violent tribal tendencies. A central government would struggle to impose statehood on a disparate people much in the same way the Karzai struggles now, only on a smaller scale.

Then there are the outside players to consider. Pakistan for one would not be happy with an independent Pashtun state, which would no doubt act as a safe haven for the Mujahideen to mount further attacks on Northern Pakistan. Looking already at how far the Pakistani armed forces have incurred into Waziristan, if the Pashtun's gained independence, they could find themselves beset upon very quickly by their neighbours.

Ultimately however, until the Kabul based government can rid itself of corruption and govern for the people and not for themselves, regionalism will prevail. I believe that the key problem in Afghanistan is a dearth of political leaders willing to challenge the status quo and make meaningful steps in the right direction. It is a fallacy that Afghan culture is rooted in the Middle Ages and that any attempt to make progressive unifying reforms is doomed to failure. The Soviets and the Taleban are in no small part responsible for this, although the endemically corrupt Karzai government should also take some of the blame on this count.

Things will not change overnight. It took the Western world hundreds of years to properly develop functioning demicracies. How we expect Afghanistan to do so in mere decades is ridiculous, and these kind of 'miracle cure' ideas do nothing but distract from sensible long term policy making and implementation.

Well said Serenity.

Well said Serenity.

This monicker actually has nothing to do with the show. When I made this profle I hadn't even seen it. Since then I have, and I do rate it pretty highly I must say.

Oh and cheers.

Mention some, all I hear about is Taliban from any source I try to find.

Hizb-i-Gullbudin, Islamic Jihad Union, Harakat-ul-Mujahideen, Jalaluddin Haqqani Network, Mullah Dadullah Front, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, just to name a few. Pity that most people only think they're fighting a monolithic group.

The primary problem is poverty and the lack of support to modern people in Taliban strongholds.

That is a secondary problem stemming from the immensely inept governance, that has done little for the people. Furthermore, given that the government's reputation has been harmed by its subservient relationship with NATO, they are viewed with little more than disgust. Afghan support for the Taliban is genuine, and they have showed support to oust NATO troops out.

The only times when Pashtuns was in power, was back in times of kings. They hadn't been in power in the last 30-40 years.

The Taliban ruled from 1996 to 2001. I don't know why it gets forgotten so easily.

Then you have no idea what kind of brainwashing was done in the religious schools. And by support the extremist, you are giving them bigger influence.
It actually the same thing Iran is doing in western Afghanistan. They are only supporting people who are pro-Iran. This way they increase they influence throughout Afghanistan.

The Saudis supported the Taliban, not the Iranians. Different Muslim sect. Of course the millions of dollars of Saudi help pouring into madrassah and weapons does help, but this was only after the Taliban had grown in stature. Mullah Omar started his own madrassah with his own resources which formed the nucleus for the Taliban. The Afghan mujaheddin had already begun their own insurrection movement, without the aid of any foreigner.

Afghan support for the Taliban is genuine, and they have showed support to oust NATO troops out.

I wouldn't say this is entirely true. What they want an end to is corruption, and the imposition of the rule of law. The Taleban for all their hideous characteristics do not tolerate corruption, and summarily inflict punishment on those who are found guilty. They also impose ther fundamentalist creed rigidly. What the people want is stability, and until one side emerges victorious, this won't happen. When you hear Afghans saying they were better off under the Taleban, often they are simply referring to a period of relative stability, where if you kept your head down, you could get on with your life. The problem is, that you cannot just take the good without taking the bad. Many Afghans fear a return of the Taleban, and for good reason.

Many Afghans fear a return of the Taleban, and for good reason.

The lesser of two evils it seems.

The Saudis supported the Taliban

seems logical. if usa keeps fighting them. they have to keep buying loads of oil.
good move of saudi there..

seems logical. if usa keeps fighting them. they have to keep buying loads of oil.
good move of saudi there..

Key word is Supported.