Note to Mod: Trash this if you dont find it suitable for this forum, but I was just interested to see where things would go.

The phrase Armchair Intelectual to me brings up images of on-the-spot, quick-fire, develop-as-you-go argument, not necessarily arguing for something you belive in, but just arguing for what comes into your head. My best experiences with argument have been in pubs whilst (relatively..) drunk, moving from topic to topic and occasionally finding a common theme or philosophy through the entirity of one's argument.

So with this thread, I hope to create a similar environment, in which absolutely anything can be discussed and no-one can use the (oh-so-common) "lets not get off topic" excuse in avoiding a question or theme.

I want to start the ball rolling with this: The Taliban has implemented a government in the Swat Valley region of Pakistan which has done more good than harm, freeing the people of the region from "an ancient fuedal rule" (Thomas Alitzer, in Slavoj Zizek's First as Tragedy, Then as Farce pg.7) which has created a huge economic boost to the region. Whilst the Taliban have been responsible for many Allied deaths in the Iraq/Afganhistan wars, it os important to remember that there are divisions within the group that we Westerners call "The Taliban" and that we must recognise the fualt of individuals and sub-groups, rather than the group as a whole. I have previously compared it to the IRA, where the Provisional IRA have carried out attacks not condoned by the Real IRA and vice versa (although I realise in both cases, neither group has demonstrated "acceptable" behaviour by Western standards. What are your views on the Taliban as 1) A terrorist orginisation. 2) A political orginisation. and 3) a military force.?
Do you think their actions are legitimate, as a whole or when divided?