Pretending that Taleban women are somehow not the mothers of their Taleban men is pretty dumb to.
The Taleban are a relatively recent phenomenon. Most of the men that now make up the Taleban, certainly those that make up the leadership, were well into adulthood before the Taleban ever existed. Blaming their mothers really doesn't make much sense. Even if one could reasonably blame their mothers, I don't see how that entitles them to go around abusing other women, including those who have no sons and those whose sons are not of the Taleban.
If you can't come up with something more coherent than that, I will have little choice but to conclude that you are indeed babbling again. I suppose that I could, on a freelance basis, undertake to convert your babble into a coherent statement, but I doubt that you could afford my services.
If you read a bit, you will find that the Taleban spring from a relatively small part of the country, and that they came to power over the rest of the country through armed conquest. Is it wrong to be concerned when a regional faction seizes control of a country and imposes a regime of violent repression and religious intolerance on the rest of the population? If I object to the Taleban's moves to force Hindus to wear distinguishing marks, does that mean I'm serving a Hindu agenda?
it is being used at all times for an agenda
Are you claiming that anybody who acknowledges that some women are indeed oppressed is serving the feminist agenda? That would be a pretty odd notion. I don't see ho acknowledging the available evidence can be classified as serving an agenda. If we deny that the women of Afghanistan are being oppressed, wouldn't that be serving the agenda of Islamic fundamentalism?
If I say that domestic violence is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, am I acknowledging a fact or serving the feminist agenda? |
