AsadHashimAJE

There is significant general anti-US sentiment in Pakistan, based on that country's policies (and perceived policies) in the region. That similarity between people's view of the US and the Taliban's, however, should not be taken to mean that most Pakistanis are on board with the rest of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan's agenda.

The whole question of public support for militancy is a complex one: what it boils down to, data shows, is usually the stated political aims of the groups in question, and not necessarily their ideological aims. People can be very selective in their support for militancy, based on the targets of the militant groups in question. So, for example, if a person feels that the US is fighting an unjust war of occupation in Afghanistan, they may well support the Afghan Taliban in principle as "resistance fighters", and also have anti-US views, but they may not support the Pakistani Taliban's battle against the Pakistani state - even though that's an anti-US group, too.

The situation is, frankly, complex. The valley is more peaceful than it has been in several years, but it is a tenuous calm. The army remains heavily deployed to maintain order, and all (including local government officials) agree that the police is not yet in a state to take over security responsibilities. As for the Taliban, they have very little operational presence in the valley. Residents and local security officials told AJE that most of the Taliban had fled to adjoining Dir district, and some were operating from over the Afghan border in Kunar province. The Taliban do maintain the ability to launch targeted attacks against their opponents, however - as evidenced by not just the attack on Malala Yousafzai, but on several others in recent months and years. More on this here: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/10/20121017154411586582.html

The safety of interviewees is absolutely a concern that every journalist has when reporting in a zone where those kinds of risks exist. Ultimately, you have to take it on a case-by-case basis, based on the context of the story you're reporting and your assessment of the risks, and also on interviewees' assessment of that risk. In a place like Swat, for example, where the risk of targeted attacks against those who speak against the local Taliban is very real, it's a conversation you have with each person you speak to and intend on quoting. And, often, as a reporter, you may choose to obscure the identity of an interviewee even if they're happy to have their name out there.

Good question. Media coverage is a double-edged sword for the Taliban - they want their attacks to get adequate media attention, in order to increase their profile and for people to be more aware of the threat they pose. That, in turns, helps them establish the fear that serves as the basis for the space in which they operate.

Having said that, in this case they clearly did not realise quite how much outrage the shooting of a 14-year-old female education activist would raise - and that has quite the opposite effect from that which was intended. Now, instead of fearing them, people are collectively taking a stand against them - fearlessly.

"Civilised" is a complicated word to use in this debate, so I'm going to steer clear of it, but as for what's provoking the Taliban: it's a case of establishing fear amongst the populace. It is the fear of retributive action that gives non-state actors such as the local Taliban the space to operate - and that's true whether you're talking about Pakistan or any other ideologically driven militia elsewhere.