The mayor of Kabul will remain in power under the Taliban, he told RT, explaining how the Islamic fundamentalist group was able to so easily retake the country and what will now happen to the country's women.
Taliban existed prior to the US invasion. They rose in power after the invasion of the UdSSR.
Obviously they gained even more momentum “thanks” to the US invasion.
It is the logical conclusion of the strategy you propose, imho.
“Before there can be emancipation, they need peace.”
See:
Taliban are at an asymmetrical warfare against women. Women can either fight for emaciation or surrender. Taking an opposing position towards an enemy that targets you by asymmetrical warfare is contrary to peace. You suggest that peace must come before emaciation.
That can only mean, women should surrender to the Taliban.
You seem to think that “fighting for emancipation” is somehow the same as actual war, you know the one with automatic weapons, tanks and air-bombardments?
Sure, you can fight for emancipation during a war, but to reach emancipation you first need peace. A just and equitable society is simply impossible under war conditions.
You’re setting a pretty high bar for a country that has been occupied for 20 years. Before there can be emancipation, they need peace.
Taliban existed prior to the US invasion. They rose in power after the invasion of the UdSSR. Obviously they gained even more momentum “thanks” to the US invasion.
There is no peace without emancipation. Asymmetrical warfare, is still warfare.
also if the only solution for Afghanistan you can think of is nationalism, or pan-nationalism you set the bar extremly low.
What you’re saying is basically that women must surrender to have peace in Afghanistan. That is utterly disgusting.
Thats not at all what i’m saying, so dont put any words in my mouth.
It is the logical conclusion of the strategy you propose, imho.
See: Taliban are at an asymmetrical warfare against women. Women can either fight for emaciation or surrender. Taking an opposing position towards an enemy that targets you by asymmetrical warfare is contrary to peace. You suggest that peace must come before emaciation. That can only mean, women should surrender to the Taliban.
If you mean something else, please explain.
You seem to think that “fighting for emancipation” is somehow the same as actual war, you know the one with automatic weapons, tanks and air-bombardments?
Sure, you can fight for emancipation during a war, but to reach emancipation you first need peace. A just and equitable society is simply impossible under war conditions.
Every women that picked up a gun to defend themselves and to defend their sisters is a counter argument to your “women rights after the revolution”
What about “you can fight for emancipation during a war” do you not understand?
Why do you always assume some hidden anti-emancipatory agenda? I never said nor implied “women rights after the revolution”.