On BBC News on Monday they aired in interview by a BBC reporter of a Taleban commander in Afghanistan. I personally found this cavorting with the enemy appalling, let alone giving them a platform on the British state broadcaster to push their anti-British Army propaganda. Would they have done the same thing to the Germans during the war? (Come to think of it, had we ever fought the Soviets this current lot probably would have done...) The Defence Secretary raised quite valid concerns that what the BBC was engaging in was putting British troops at risk. This is the BBC's response, entitled "hearing both sides": http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/07/hearing_both_sides.html]http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/07/hearing_both_sides.html My bold, all other formatting is theirs. Am I alone in finding reply rather sickening? As for the last paragraph, I would very much like to find out how "interviews or statements with the Taleban are obtained", especially with regard to how a Western reporter representing the state broadcaster of the country which the Taleban is fighting was able to get so close to a Taleban commander. Was it perhaps because the Taliban knew that they would come out favourably from such an encounter?