Quote:No. What does that even mean? Your only criteria seems to be how many countries recognised the ruling authority as legitimate.
That was one piece of evidence for it.
Quote:How does that make it a failed state?
A state is an entirely human construct. They exist only by convention. If no-one else thinks your state does not exist, then by definition it does not exist.
Quote:See how you are still playing with semantics - even when you promise to put them aside?
I promised nothing. I merely gave you the opportunity to put semantics aside.
Quote:firstly, they did not "spring up" during Taliban rule, they were already there - invited in actually by the previous regime that was many times worse in terms of providing stability than the Taliban
What previous regime?
Quote:The truth is the Taliban and AQ had a marriage of convenience

The same people you insist the US should have "worked with". How convenient.
Quote:Yes, the Taliban were in a precarious position financially, but this doesn't make their authority over society fundamentally 'unstable', let alone the definition of a 'failed state'.
Does the fact they only controlled a majority of the country for less than 5 years make them unstable?
Why does being in a "marriage of convenience" with the very organisation that brought about their undoing not count as being unstable?
Quote:By 1996 the front lines had stabilised
Crap.
Quote:Secondly, terrorists establishing themselves in a country and launching terrorist attacks - gosh who ever heard of that!! It happens everywhere - rich countries, poor countries, most of them are not "failed states".
Can you give an example of where a "stable and effective" government was in a "marriage of convenience" with a terrorist organisation that openly declared war on and attacked far more powerful nations?