Pakistan's relationship with Afghanistan is complex and fraught with tension, stemming from historical disagreements and a porous border. Pakistan played a significant role in the Afghan-Soviet War (1979-1989), with many analysts believing that the CIA and ISI trained and funded the Taliban to counter the Soviets. The post-9/11 "War on Terror" further complicated this relationship, forcing Pakistan to ally with the US. However, this alliance did not prevent Pakistan from suffering severely from Taliban-related terrorism, including numerous suicide bombings. The study investigates the portrayal of this complex relationship in US media, focusing on whether the media presented Pakistan as a country playing a double game, undermining the simple binary of ally versus enemy.

The literature review highlights the changing narratives surrounding the Taliban in US media, from their portrayal as freedom fighters during the Afghan-Soviet war to their depiction as terrorists after 9/11. The study draws upon Edward Said's concept of Orientalism to explain how Western media often employs stereotypical representations of Eastern countries. It also considers the discourse of terrorism and its dehumanizing effects on the portrayal of enemy actors, referencing relevant studies on cultural criminology and media's influence on shaping public opinion. The study acknowledges that the definition of "enemy" is often context-dependent, varying according to the foreign policy agendas of different countries. It establishes the need to investigate whether the coverage of the Taliban in US media aligns with US foreign policy.

This research uses a corpus-assisted critical discourse analysis (CDA) approach, focusing on articles from *Time* magazine published between 2001 and 2010 related to Pakistan. A total of 509 articles were selected. The analysis is conducted on three levels: (1) time-specific patterns of the word "Taliban*" (and its derivatives) in the context of Pakistan, visualized using a line graph; (2) identification of the most significant and strong collocates of "Taliban*" using Wordsmith and Graph Coll, highlighting statistically significant associations (t-test with p<0.05 and MI2 values); and (3) semantic categorization of the collocates into tables A and B, based on the ideological square of "Us vs. Them", and nomination and predication strategies from Reisigl and Wodak (2001). Table A categorizes collocates relating to the Taliban themselves and their supporters, while Table B categorizes those representing actors acting against them. Categories include Identity, Tactics/Strategies, Targets/Victims/Goals, Areas, Supporters, and Time. The quantitative data from frequency counts were converted into histograms, and qualitative analysis was conducted by examining concordance lines to gain contextual understanding.

The time-specific pattern analysis reveals peaks in Taliban mentions in 2001 (immediately following 9/11) and from 2007 to 2009 (corresponding to increased violence in Pakistan). The analysis of collocates using both the t-test and MI2 shows strong associations between "Taliban*" and "al-Qaeda," "Afghanistan," and, notably, "Pakistan." The semantic categorization reveals ambiguities in the identity of the Taliban, with inconsistent use of terms like "Afghan Taliban" and "Pakistani Taliban," leading to a lack of clarity for the reader. The analysis also indicates a tendency to dehumanize the Taliban, using animalistic metaphors and portraying them as agents of evil to justify actions against them. Furthermore, the study highlights the omission of US involvement in the creation of the Taliban during the Soviet-Afghan war and the absence of discussion of the humanitarian costs for Pakistan in the War on Terror. Pakistan is portrayed as simultaneously supporting and fighting against the Taliban, rendering the simple "ally vs. enemy" dichotomy inadequate for understanding its role.

The findings demonstrate that *Time* magazine's coverage of the Taliban in the context of Pakistan displays significant inconsistencies and biases, reflecting a complex and contradictory portrayal of Pakistan's role in the War on Terror. The ambiguous nomenclature surrounding the Taliban groups reveals a lack of nuanced understanding and arguably propagates a misleading narrative for the layperson. The dehumanizing language employed reflects broader trends in media representations of conflict, ultimately justifying the violence perpetrated against the Taliban. The omission of crucial historical details and the economic costs to Pakistan further reinforce the notion of a biased presentation.

The study concludes that *Time* magazine's coverage of Pakistan and the Taliban in the post-9/11 era reveals a complex narrative that undermines the simplistic "ally vs. enemy" binary. The ambiguous nomenclature, dehumanization tactics, omission of historical context, and focus on Pakistan's actions without acknowledging the costs it incurred paints an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of the situation. Future research could examine other media outlets to determine the extent to which this portrayal is widespread, as well as further investigate the economic and social impact of the War on Terror on Pakistan.

The study is limited by its focus on a single news magazine (*Time*) and a specific time period (2001-2010). While *Time* is a significant and widely read publication, its perspective may not fully represent the diversity of viewpoints within US media. The study also acknowledges the inherent limitations of CDA in objectively interpreting language, although the researchers strive for transparency in their approach and methodology. The findings are specific to the selected corpus and may not generalize fully to other media contexts or time periods.