inthepaint: When a pundit or a newscaster calls the Taliban fascist (as many do) it is a pretty clear indication that they know little of fascism or the Taliban or both. For many reasons, the Taliban are much more decentralized and infinitely less bureaucratic. (They are, of course, an ugly and brutal group, but they differ substantially from fascist states.) And while many western pundits shriek about the Taliban murdering civilians used as human shields or in suicide bombs aimed at western forces, they ignore the fact that Afghans do not see it that way. Increasingly the Afghan population sees ALL dead civilians ultimately as victims of the occupation forces, according to journalists on the ground. That is something that should give us all pause for thought.

As for the PLO, such assertions about the use of aid are, again, common in the mainstream, but have little merit. The PLO's financal workings are not an unstudied area. Loretta Naploleoni has a useful sketch in her Terror, Inc.

As for negotiations, I can only suggest re-reading the original post. It's about Afghans and how they want to go about ending the war. I'd suggest they know a whole lot about what that means and about war as well. And the, again common, point that 'you don't negotiate with terrorists' is really one of history's most common cliches. From the IRA to the PLO, those words have been eaten with regularity.

As for the nature of the Taliban, while Pakistan was involved in their rise and Arabs joined up later, they are in the main an Afghan phenomenon. And that is evidently the basis on which most Afghans want to proceed in their talks with insurgents.

Thank you for your interest

Dave M