I dont see why not. They are people and if ppl want to fight then let them. Why should some ppl be exempt? I dont see why anyone would want to fight on the front lines @ all but thats just me. There are men who want to fight and kill and there are women who want to fight and kill. If theres pollies to die for and ppl willing to die then let them.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 3:55pm:

I dont see why not.

Nor me.  Let 'em do whatever they like.

However, you'll get the usual arguments from the conservatives:

1) They'll get their periods
2) They'll distract the male soldiers
3) They'll be too emotional
4) They'll get raped
5) They'll get pregnant
6) They'll want separate toilets
7) They're not physically capable

::)

I couldn't care less. Same attitude towards war as you SOB.

No.

Back into the kitchen and raising the kids and we’d all be better off.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:14pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 3:55pm: I dont see why not. Nor me.  Let 'em do whatever they like. However, you'll get the usual arguments from the conservatives: 1) They'll get their periods 2) They'll distract the male soldiers 3) They'll be too emotional 4) They'll get raped 5) They'll get pregnant 6) They'll want separate toilets 7) They're not physically capable ::)

Some of those are real problems.
Women aren't required to do the same physical tests and drills men are, so there is a problem with "equality" there. I've read numerous stories where men have had to carry women's backpack due to them not having the physical endurance to do so.

It would be interesting to see if women can face some of the conditions in trench warfare like where you all have to sh*t and piss in an open latrine. 

I don't see any problem with the last one there. Women are game, army ones especially, I would imagine.

I went to a metal weapons medieval event in Armidale once, and the toilet accommodations for everyone was a single log over a trench.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:14pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 3:55pm: I dont see why not. Nor me.  Let 'em do whatever they like. However, you'll get the usual arguments from the conservatives: 1) They'll get their periods 2) They'll distract the male soldiers 3) They'll be too emotional 4) They'll get raped 5) They'll get pregnant 6) They'll want separate toilets 7) They're not physically capable ::)

Amazing how you grasp the fact these issues exist, yet dismiss them with a roll of your eyes. 

But as part of female-only units, sure.  why not?

...and prisons? If we take all this 'equality' business really seriously, are we going to stop segregating male and female prisoners?

It makes a mockery of "equal" rights to not desegregate the prison population.

It would certainly cut down on the rampant sodomy of young men.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:14pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 3:55pm: I dont see why not. Nor me.  Let 'em do whatever they like. However, you'll get the usual arguments from the conservatives: 1) They'll get their periods 2) They'll distract the male soldiers 3) They'll be too emotional 4) They'll get raped 5) They'll get pregnant 6) They'll want separate toilets 7) They're not physically capable ::)

Good points.

... wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:48pm:

Amazing how you grasp the fact these issues exist, yet dismiss them with a roll of your eyes.  But as part of female-only units, sure.  why not?

Here, this guy gives a bit more than a roll of the eyes:

http://www.mamamia.com.au/news/arguments-against-women-on-the-front-line-and-why-theyre-wrong/

Uncle Meat wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:58pm:

... wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 4:48pm: Amazing how you grasp the fact these issues exist, yet dismiss them with a roll of your eyes.  But as part of female-only units, sure.  why not? Here, this guy gives a bit more than a roll of the eyes: http://www.mamamia.com.au/news/arguments-against-women-on-the-front-line-and-why-theyre-wrong/

Good one uncle meat

SOB

A link to comedy routine will solve the problems of women on the front line.  ::)

Uncle Meat wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:14pm:

1) They'll get their periods

Obviously, but how could this be a problem?


Uncle Meat wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:14pm:

2) They'll distract the male soldiers

Maybe the male soldiers need to be disciplined a bit better then.


Uncle Meat wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:14pm:

3) They'll be too emotional

Somehow I think any woman who would be too emotional wouldn't join the armed forces in the first place.


Uncle Meat wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:14pm:

4) They'll get raped

I have to admit that this would concern me.  Part of the process of training a soldier involves dehumanising them to a degree, which could encourage them to sexually abuse others - and, whether we like it or not, rape has been used as a tool of war.


Uncle Meat wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:14pm:

5) They'll get pregnant

Not by themselves they can't.


Uncle Meat wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:14pm:

6) They'll want separate toilets

So what?  And, on the battlefield, all you could expect would be a bit of privacy while you squat behind a bush.....


Uncle Meat wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:14pm:

7) They're not physically capable

Maybe if the tasks allotted involved lifting heavy weights there might be a few issues here, but nothing that couldn't be sorted out by a competent commanding officer.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:58pm:

... wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 4:48pm: Amazing how you grasp the fact these issues exist, yet dismiss them with a roll of your eyes.  But as part of female-only units, sure.  why not? Here, this guy gives a bit more than a roll of the eyes: http://www.mamamia.com.au/news/arguments-against-women-on-the-front-line-and-why-theyre-wrong/

Not very impressive. 

1. Women aren’t as strong as men!

True - does anyone dispute this?  Doesn't matter for pulling the trigger, but tends to become a problem on 30km march with full kit. 

2. Women are more likely to get raped.

I agree Thats not much of a reason, so long as she knows the risk.

3. But they’ll get their period!

mock all you like "mamamia" irrational behaviour will go a good way to getting you and your colleagues killed.

4. Islamic fighters rarely surrender to female soldiers.

Never heard this as a reaosn before.  If you have to make up reasons to debunk, just don't bother.

5. Having women in troops will ruin the ‘mateship’ in the ranks and lower morale.

yes, undoubtedly.  But could be overcome with female-only units.

6. But what if the women start up romances, or get pregnant?

groups of men tend to get disgruntled when people around them are getting laid and they're not.   And if more than one is rooting the same shiela - look out.

When women get PMT they can change into monsters.

... wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:26pm:

4. Islamic fighters rarely surrender to female soldiers. Never heard this as a reaosn before.  If you have to make up reasons to debunk, just don't bother.

Actually, that one's not made up.  It's quite well known (and often quoted).

It's discussed in an old book by Dave Grossman, called 'On Killing'.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:37pm:

... wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:26pm: 4. Islamic fighters rarely surrender to female soldiers. Never heard this as a reaosn before.  If you have to make up reasons to debunk, just don't bother. Actually, that one's not made up.  It's quite well known (and often quoted). It's discussed in an old book by Dave Grossman, called 'On Killing'.

regardless, it's a silly reason. 

Bobby. wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:33pm:

When women get PMT they can change into monsters.

All they need to do is provide the male soldiers with these:

http://mummykins.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/pmt.jpg

And the female soldiers with these:

http://www.mug-shop.co.uk/images/large/mugs-warning/pmt-alert-mug_LRG.jpg

I see the usual leftards writing their opinion from a point of total ignorance.


Well done, you made me waste 3 minutes of my life trying to find a cogent point.  >:(

... wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:41pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:37pm: ... wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:26pm: 4. Islamic fighters rarely surrender to female soldiers. Never heard this as a reaosn before.  If you have to make up reasons to debunk, just don't bother. Actually, that one's not made up.  It's quite well known (and often quoted). It's discussed in an old book by Dave Grossman, called 'On Killing'. regardless, it's a silly reason.

I tend to agree with you.

Anyway, for those interested:

"In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman ...

"Grossman also notes that Islamic militants rarely, if ever, surrender to female soldiers. In modern warfare where intelligence is perhaps more important than enemy casualties, every factor, even making concessions to sexism, reducing combatants' willingness to fight is considered. Similarly, Iraqi and Afghani civilians are often not intimidated by female soldiers. However, in such environments, having female soldiers serving within a combat unit does have the advantage of allowing for searches on female civilians, and in some cases the female areas of segregated mosques, while causing less offense amongst the occupied population. A notable example of this would be the so-called "Lionesses," female US military personnel who are specially selected to participate in patrols and raids for this purpose."

BigOl64 wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:51pm:

Well done, you made me waste 3 minutes of my life trying to find a cogent point.  >:(

A bitter old right winger, "living" in Townsville?

Seems you've wasted most of your life anyway.  Another 3 minutes isn't going to make much difference.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

BigOl64 wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:51pm: Well done, you made me waste 3 minutes of my life trying to find a cogent point.  >:( A bitter old right winger, "living" in Townsville? Seems you've wasted most of your life anyway.  Another 3 minutes isn't going to make much difference.

Kudos meat, you're a gem in the rough of inanity.  ;D


Pls tell us about your time in uniform from which you have formulated your 'expert' opinion.  ;D

... wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:26pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 4:58pm: ... wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 4:48pm: Amazing how you grasp the fact these issues exist, yet dismiss them with a roll of your eyes.  But as part of female-only units, sure.  why not? Here, this guy gives a bit more than a roll of the eyes: http://www.mamamia.com.au/news/arguments-against-women-on-the-front-line-and-why-theyre-wrong/ Not very impressive.  1. Women aren’t as strong as men! True - does anyone dispute this?  Doesn't matter for pulling the trigger, but tends to become a problem on 30km march with full kit.  2. Women are more likely to get raped. I agree Thats not much of a reason, so long as she knows the risk. 3. But they’ll get their period! mock all you like "mamamia" irrational behaviour will go a good way to getting you and your colleagues killed. 4. Islamic fighters rarely surrender to female soldiers. Never heard this as a reaosn before.  If you have to make up reasons to debunk, just don't bother. 5. Having women in troops will ruin the ‘mateship’ in the ranks and lower morale. yes, undoubtedly.  But could be overcome with female-only units. 6. But what if the women start up romances, or get pregnant? groups of men tend to get disgruntled when people around them are getting laid and they're not.   And if more than one is rooting the same shiela - look out.

Quote:

1. Women aren’t as strong as men! True - does anyone dispute this?  Doesn't matter for pulling the trigger, but tends to become a problem on 30km march with full kit.

The women that have been through basic training and all the exercises to get to front line duty are obviously capable of the job. Saying women arent as strong as men is a stereotype and not true for all.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 6:09pm:

The women that have been through basic training and all the exercises to get to front line duty are obviously capable of the job. Saying women arent as strong as men is a stereotype and not true for all. SOB

Women not being as strong as men is not a stereotype, it's a biological fact.

I can see your military experience comes from playing Call to Duty 4 and not much else, so here are some facts.

A soldier goes through a bit more than basic training before they get to be called a soldier. The job is hard enough for most males and near impossible for females.

Sh1t the last time labor had one of these brilliant plans, all it did was lower the standards required for males, just so the females could say they were 'equal' and we ended up with lesser males getting through the system.

These social experiments are best kept to the 'arts' departments of our more progressive universities and leave the job of killing to those who can do it properly.

It's just another labor party distraction to divert the ADHD labor faithful from the disaster that is the current government.

BigOl64 wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 6:06pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm: BigOl64 wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:51pm: Well done, you made me waste 3 minutes of my life trying to find a cogent point.  >:( A bitter old right winger, "living" in Townsville? Seems you've wasted most of your life anyway.  Another 3 minutes isn't going to make much difference. Kudos meat, you're a gem in the rough of inanity.  ;D Pls tell us about your time in uniform from which you have formulated your 'expert' opinion.  ;D

Tell you?  I'll do better than that, I'll show you:

http://histclo.com/youth/youth/image/imgsco/austso02s.jpg

;)

BigOl64 wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 6:22pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 6:09pm: The women that have been through basic training and all the exercises to get to front line duty are obviously capable of the job. Saying women arent as strong as men is a stereotype and not true for all. SOB Women not being as strong as men is not a stereotype, it's a biological fact. I can see your military experience comes from playing Call to Duty 4 and not much else, so here are some facts. A soldier goes through a bit more than basic training before they get to be called a soldier. The job is hard enough for most males and near impossible for females. Sh1t the last time labor had one of these brilliant plans, all it did was lower the standards required for males, just so the females could say they were 'equal' and we ended up with lesser males getting through the system. These social experiments are best kept to the 'arts' departments of our more progressive universities and leave the job of killing to those who can do it properly. It's just another labor party distraction to divert the ADHD labor faithful from the disaster that is the current government.

Read what i said. I said basic traing AND ALL THE EXERCISES NEEDED jesus. I never claimed any "military experience" so your insults are lost on me there because you have no idea if i have or not.

It is a stereotype. SOME women are as strong and even stronger than SOME men. Jesus.

What has it got to do with labour? Either party would do this because its a natural progression in human rights. Everyone should have the chance to die.

SOB

... wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:26pm:

2. Women are more likely to get raped. I agree Thats not much of a reason, so long as she knows the risk.

If they're raped, you rape them back!!!!


... wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:26pm:

4. Islamic fighters rarely surrender to female soldiers. Never heard this as a reaosn before.  If you have to make up reasons to debunk, just don't bother.

Islamic fighters are more like to think of them as a bunch of corrupt Western female whores who don't have the modesty to wear hijab. Muslims tend to have a different concept of nakedness. They'd look like supermodels in comparison.


... wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:26pm:

5. Having women in troops will ruin the ‘mateship’ in the ranks and lower morale. yes, undoubtedly.  But could be overcome with female-only units.

agree -- segregate the two sexes in the front-lines.

If I was a soldier and I found myself with a female, I'd be thinking, wow what a wonderful face and wonderful voice. I don't what this one to get hurt. She'd probably be thinking the same thing about my groin.


... wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:26pm:

groups of men tend to get disgruntled when people around them are getting laid and they're not.   And if more than one is rooting the same shiela - look out.

Is it really that big of a deal who gets the girls? I would much rather not be around them because of the pheromones and seduction. It would be easier to concentrate when they're not around.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 6:32pm:

It is a stereotype. SOME women are as strong and even stronger than SOME men. Jesus.

Yes, but those men are what we in the business refer to as 'wusses" (among other terms)  They won't pass the basic requirements of the army, and should really consider handing back their Y chromosome.  They are irrelevant to both this argument, and life in general.

Although strength isn't the right measure, as a baalnce is needed between strength and endurance.  There are 6 foot 5, 200kg "women" in the world who have the strength you'd expect of someone their size.  But, it ain't much good if you've also got the endurance associated with someone that size. 

Uncle Meat wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:37pm:

... wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:26pm: 4. Islamic fighters rarely surrender to female soldiers. Never heard this as a reaosn before.  If you have to make up reasons to debunk, just don't bother. Actually, that one's not made up.  It's quite well known (and often quoted). It's discussed in an old book by Dave Grossman, called 'On Killing'.

That's because Islam permits them to rape them. But they have to win first.


Quote:

Women not being as strong as men is not a stereotype, it's a biological fact.

So only choose the strong ones. Problem solved.

Front line means Woirld War I and bayonet and shovel fights. These days its drones fired by a coffee and keyboard person. Or armoured vehicle passenger. The navy don't really use swords except as surprise tactics .

falah wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:50pm:

...and prisons? If we take all this 'equality' business really seriously, are we going to stop segregating male and female prisoners? It makes a mockery of "equal" rights to not desegregate the prison population.

Maybe it would stop the non-consential male/male sex that is prevalent in virtually all prisons?

I don't have an issue with women choosing whatever they want to do in life.

There are plenty of women in mining these days, some even work underground, but .....let's just say that they'd be welcomed with open arms by the mayor of Mount Isa. Nothing wrong with female miners.  Many of them have rugged good looks. They'd make a good husband for somebody.     :P 

"are we going to stop segregating male and female prisoners?"
Muslims are getting sloppy with female control and discipline. Women are allowed out on the street without a muzzle and chain and get in the way of pedestrians. Council car-parking inspectors should enforce the female leash rules.

chimera wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 8:00am:

"are we going to stop segregating male and female prisoners?" Muslims are getting sloppy with female control and discipline. Women are allowed out on the street without a muzzle and chain and get in the way of pedestrians. Council car-parking inspectors should enforce the female leash rules.

I think my council do. I've seen a couple of young lasses being led by their male owners. They seem to favour the wide collar with studs and and a chain type leash. The women don't seem to mind. I suppose it's better than having to think for yourself.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 8:10am:

chimera wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 8:00am: "are we going to stop segregating male and female prisoners?" Muslims are getting sloppy with female control and discipline. Women are allowed out on the street without a muzzle and chain and get in the way of pedestrians. Council car-parking inspectors should enforce the female leash rules. I think my council do. I've seen a couple of young lasses being led by their male owners. They seem to favour the wide collar with studs and and a chain type leash. The women don't seem to mind. I suppose it's better than having to think for yourself.

I wouldn't advise you to wear a collar and lead down the street old girl. The council ranger would have to check that you are micro chipped.

... wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 7:22pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 6:32pm: It is a stereotype. SOME women are as strong and even stronger than SOME men. Jesus. Yes, but those men are what we in the business refer to as 'wusses" (among other terms)  They won't pass the basic requirements of the army, and should really consider handing back their Y chromosome.  They are irrelevant to both this argument, and life in general. Although strength isn't the right measure, as a baalnce is needed between strength and endurance.  There are 6 foot 5, 200kg "women" in the world who have the strength you'd expect of someone their size.  But, it ain't much good if you've also got the endurance associated with someone that size.

Whatever you want to say about "wusses" etc my comment still holds. the women that go to the front line are capable of doing the job or they wouldn't be sent there.

SOB

How about men shouldn't be allowed on the front lines?

1.  men need to wank twice a day
2.  men have erections and can only piss vertically and the fountain shows the enemy their location
3.  when ordered to put their helmets away men often get confused and remove their head protection thus exposiing themselves to danger

Heh the reasons are just as silly. There are prolly a lot more reasons too.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 6:32pm:

Read what i said. I said basic traing AND ALL THE EXERCISES NEEDED jesus. I never claimed any "military experience" so your insults are lost on me there because you have no idea if i have or not. It is a stereotype. SOME women are as strong and even stronger than SOME men. Jesus. What has it got to do with labour? Either party would do this because its a natural progression in human rights. Everyone should have the chance to die. SOB

I did read what you wrote, and it is still wrong. because they don't have the capacity to "finish all the exercises needed" what ever the hell that means.

You just don't grasp the fact that a female soldier does not need to be as good as the average male but needs to be as good as the average soldier and that is vastly different. Which is why they will never be good enough for combat roles.

BTW I can tell that you have NEVER even considered serving your country let alone put on a uniform.   ;D


Your are right everyone should have the right to serve their country, but no-one should die because of some leftard social experiment designed to make idiots feel good about themselves.

In my unit we had 5 girls total. They were excellent, part of team and very good with shooting.
They did not enter frontline and not go in to Gaza with us in Cast Lead but they do all else.

I like girls in the army they are great teammates.

BigOl64 wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 8:55am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 6:32pm: Read what i said. I said basic traing AND ALL THE EXERCISES NEEDED jesus. I never claimed any "military experience" so your insults are lost on me there because you have no idea if i have or not. It is a stereotype. SOME women are as strong and even stronger than SOME men. Jesus. What has it got to do with labour? Either party would do this because its a natural progression in human rights. Everyone should have the chance to die. SOB I did read what you wrote, and it is still wrong. because they don't have the capacity to "finish all the exercises needed" what ever the hell that means. You just don't grasp the fact that a female soldier does not need to be as good as the average male but needs to be as good as the average soldier and that is vastly different. Which is why they will never be good enough for combat roles. BTW I can tell that you have NEVER even considered serving your country let alone put on a uniform.   ;D Your are right everyone should have the right to serve their country, but no-one should die because of some leftard social experiment designed to make idiots feel good about themselves.

What do your reckon about it bigol? 

Always curious to know what someone who actually served thinks about it.

Is it really safe to have men and women living together in close quarters (bearing in mind that the military is often the refuge of the dregs of society, who can't make it in the civilian world)?

Should public toilets be de-segregated?

The U.S. military's 'rape epidemic'
http://theweek.com/article/index/212187/the-us-militarys-rape-epidemic

Rape in the US military: America's dirty little secret

A female soldier in Iraq is more likely to be attacked by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/09/rape-us-military


"Invisible War" exposes widespread rape in U.S. military
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/22/us-sundance-military-idUSTRE80L0YS20120122


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3hvOwbWrBc

Quote:

The Plight of Women Soldiers In 2003, a survey of female veterans found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military. A 2004 study of veterans who were seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving. And a 1995 study of female veterans of the Gulf and earlier wars, found that 90 percent had been sexually harassed. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103844570

1/3rd of Women in US Military Raped
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/01/26/13rd-of-women-in-us-military-raped/

That's why Obama legalised beastiality in the military, to give the humans a break.

Falah, is it true that Islam legalises the rape of female soldiers caught in battle?

falah wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 9:56am:

(bearing in mind that the military is often the refuge of the dregs of society, who can't make it in the civilian world)?

Most interesting. Taliban Al Qaeda jihadis Hamas Mohammed.

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 10:15am:

Falah, is it true that Islam legalises the rape of female soldiers caught in battle?

Islam - Lovely bunch of people.....
Fking sick pr*cks, they deserve the same.


A young woman recently stoned to death in Somalia first pleaded for her life, a witness has told the BBC.

"Don't kill me, don't kill me," she said, according to the man who wanted to remain anonymous. A few minutes later, more than 50 men threw stones.

Human rights group Amnesty International says the victim was a 13-year-old girl who had been raped.

Initial reports had said she was a 23-year-old woman who had confessed to adultery before a Sharia court.

Numerous eye-witnesses say she was forced into a hole, buried up to her neck then pelted with stones until she died in front of more than 1,000 people last week.

Cameras were banned from the stoning in Kismayo, but print and radio journalists who were allowed to attend estimated that the woman, Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, was 23 years old.

However, Amnesty said it had learned she was 13, and that her father had said she was raped by three men.
When the family tried to report the rape, the girl was accused of adultery and detained, Amnesty said.


Meanwhile, Islamists in the capital, Mogadishu have carried out a public flogging.

chimera wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 10:28am:

falah wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 9:56am: (bearing in mind that the military is often the refuge of the dregs of society, who can't make it in the civilian world)? Most interesting. Taliban Al Qaeda jihadis Hamas Mohammed.

It is West where military participation is voluntary. it is the US and Australia which invades other countries. It is difficult to see how anyone other than racist scumbags and retards would want to join the Australian army when it is invading countries for US and Israeli purposes.

In the US, there is little welfare, so the poor often have little choice but to join the army. The same cannot be said of Australia.

Stoning to death a 13 year old girl for being raped.

You fking sick pr*cks.

Taliban Al Qaeda Hamas Mohammed were voluntary soldiers.
Iraq soldiers invaded Kuwait and Iran. West Pakistan massacred East Pakistan at separation, after the massacres of Indian partition. Syria invaded Lebanon. Turkey invaded every one.
dregs of society.

BigOl64 wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 8:55am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 6:32pm: Read what i said. I said basic traing AND ALL THE EXERCISES NEEDED jesus. I never claimed any "military experience" so your insults are lost on me there because you have no idea if i have or not. It is a stereotype. SOME women are as strong and even stronger than SOME men. Jesus. What has it got to do with labour? Either party would do this because its a natural progression in human rights. Everyone should have the chance to die. SOB I did read what you wrote, and it is still wrong. because they don't have the capacity to "finish all the exercises needed" what ever the hell that means. You just don't grasp the fact that a female soldier does not need to be as good as the average male but needs to be as good as the average soldier and that is vastly different. Which is why they will never be good enough for combat roles. BTW I can tell that you have NEVER even considered serving your country let alone put on a uniform.   ;D Your are right everyone should have the right to serve their country, but no-one should die because of some leftard social experiment designed to make idiots feel good about themselves.

You are obviously wrong if there are women there.

SOB

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 10:35am:

freediver wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 10:15am: Falah, is it true that Islam legalises the rape of female soldiers caught in battle? Islam - Lovely bunch of people..... Fking sick pr*cks, they deserve the same. A young woman recently stoned to death in Somalia first pleaded for her life, a witness has told the BBC. "Don't kill me, don't kill me," she said, according to the man who wanted to remain anonymous. A few minutes later, more than 50 men threw stones. Human rights group Amnesty International says the victim was a 13-year-old girl who had been raped. Initial reports had said she was a 23-year-old woman who had confessed to adultery before a Sharia court. Numerous eye-witnesses say she was forced into a hole, buried up to her neck then pelted with stones until she died in front of more than 1,000 people last week. Cameras were banned from the stoning in Kismayo, but print and radio journalists who were allowed to attend estimated that the woman, Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, was 23 years old. However, Amnesty said it had learned she was 13, and that her father had said she was raped by three men. When the family tried to report the rape, the girl was accused of adultery and detained, Amnesty said. Meanwhile, Islamists in the capital, Mogadishu have carried out a public flogging.

The Shabab Government and eyewitnesses said the woman was 23 years-old.

The Shabab Government said the woman confessed to adultery.


Andrei, seeing how you cite an Amnesty report, do you think that Amnesty is a credible sourse of information?

If so, do you also agree with Amnesty's assessment that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza?

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 10:15am:

Falah, is it true that Islam legalises the rape of female soldiers caught in battle?

No. I think that you are thinking of Jewish religion:

IDF colonel-rabbi implies: Rape is permitted in war
http://972mag.com/idf-colonel-rabbi-implies-rape-is-permitted-in-war/39535/

So why does Abu think it is legal? Is he from a different school of Islamic thought?

What is the Islamic punishment for raping a slave?

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 1:12pm:

So why does Abu think it is legal? Is he from a different school of Islamic thought? What is the Islamic punishment for raping a slave?

WTH has this got to do with women fighting on the front line?

SOB

Islamic law permits women caught in battle to be enslaved. Which means raped. A female slave is pretty much a sex slave.

So it is understandable that Muslims think the idea of female soldiers is ghastly. In Islam, women are meant to be the prize, not the fight.

These are things you have to consider in sending women off to fight in the middle east, or when a Muslim Australian condemns the practice.

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 1:48pm:

Islamic law permits women caught in battle to be enslaved. Which means raped. A female slave is pretty much a sex slave.

Can you provide proof for your lies Freeliar.

How about your response to my question about the Islamic punishment for raping a slave?

You are the Muslim. Why are you asking me to tell you what Islamic law is?

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 2:08pm:

How about your response to my question about the Islamic punishment for raping a slave? You are the Muslim. Why are you asking me to tell you what Islamic law is?

Can you explain why you are obsessed with a non-existent Islamic permission to rape, while you totally ignore the Israeli army rabbi saying that Jews can rape?

Abu has already said that Islam legalises rape. You even said yourself that Islamic courts do not punish rapists in some circumstances.

Let's put it this way:

Falah, what is the proper Islamic punishment for raping a slave?

Or raping your own wife?

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 2:14pm:

Abu has already said that Islam legalises rape. You even said yourself that Islamic courts do not punish rapists in some circumstances. Let's put it this way: Falah, what is the proper Islamic punishment for raping a slave? Or raping your own wife?

And whosoever disobeys God and His Messenger, and transgresses His limits, He will cast him into the Fire, to abide therein; and he shall have a disgraceful torment...Forbidden it is to inherit women against their will, and you should not treat them (women) with harshness...live with them (women) on a footing of kindness...
[The Quran, an-Nisaa (the Women), v.14-9]


And among His (God's) signs is this, that He created for you wives from among yourselves, that you may find serenity in them, and He has ordained between you affection and mercy. Verily, in that are indeed signs for a people who reflect.
[Quran, ar-Rum, v.31]


...And force not your female slaves into sexual service, if they desire chastity...
[Quran an-Noor, v.33]



On many occasions Prophet Muhammed said: "I commend you to be good to women"

He also said:

‘Treat women well! (Bukhari & Muslim)


‘The most perfect of believers in belief is one who is best of them in character. The best of you are those who are the best to their women." (Tirmidhi)



Now let us contrast this to the Bible which encourages actually encourages rape and murder of women:


Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle.  "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded.  "...They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people.  Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
[Numbers 31:7-18]


If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
[Deuteronomy 22:28-29]


When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.   (Exodus 21:7-11

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house.  But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb.  After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife.  However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."
[Deuteronomy 21:10-14][/quote]

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 1:48pm:

Islamic law permits women caught in battle to be enslaved. Which means raped. A female slave is pretty much a sex slave. So it is understandable that Muslims think the idea of female soldiers is ghastly. In Islam, women are meant to be the prize, not the fight. These are things you have to consider in sending women off to fight in the middle east, or when a Muslim Australian condemns the practice.

Well @ least they arent killed.

The idea of being on the front lines is to kill the other team. Or die. You arent supposed to be captured. Its a risk they all take. If a woman wants to go out and kill ppl and take the risk of being killed herself (or raped) then let her.

SOB

Hell, she stands a very good chanced of being raped in the Military academy as it is, before even leaving these shores.

It seems to me to be a form of compensation whereby if a Muslim kills a man who's married, the wife is offered some kind of social security in return for sex .........

LifeMasque wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 2:36pm:

Hell, she stands a very good chanced of being raped in the Military academy as it is, before even leaving these shores.

She could always join the Aussie Navy, Army or Air force where she will be guaranteed to be raped or at the very least sexually harassed until she submits to her commanding officers

adelcrow wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 4:33pm:

She could always join the Aussie Navy, Army or Air force where she will be guaranteed to be raped or at the very least sexually harassed until she submits to her commanding officers

Maybe a better name for the Australian Defence Force is Australian Defence Brothel/Rapehouse or Australian Sex Force.

... wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 9:52am:

BigOl64 wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 8:55am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 6:32pm: Read what i said. I said basic traing AND ALL THE EXERCISES NEEDED jesus. I never claimed any "military experience" so your insults are lost on me there because you have no idea if i have or not. It is a stereotype. SOME women are as strong and even stronger than SOME men. Jesus. What has it got to do with labour? Either party would do this because its a natural progression in human rights. Everyone should have the chance to die. SOB I did read what you wrote, and it is still wrong. because they don't have the capacity to "finish all the exercises needed" what ever the hell that means. You just don't grasp the fact that a female soldier does not need to be as good as the average male but needs to be as good as the average soldier and that is vastly different. Which is why they will never be good enough for combat roles. BTW I can tell that you have NEVER even considered serving your country let alone put on a uniform.   ;D Your are right everyone should have the right to serve their country, but no-one should die because of some leftard social experiment designed to make idiots feel good about themselves. What do your reckon about it bigol?  Always curious to know what someone who actually served thinks about it.

I served in the squadrons with several females, out in the field too, they do  their job just like everyone else.

But, to say that can enter combat roles because it is politically correct to do so is just stupid in the extreme.

It is not sexist to say you are not capable due to your biology to do this job, if it is true and to lower standards just so they can 'break the cam net ceiling' is dangerous for everyone involved.

The hawk government did this back in the 80's in lowering the standards so females could pass the same recruit course as the males and all's it did was allow lesser males to get through.

Mnemonic wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 7:17pm:

adelcrow wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 4:33pm: She could always join the Aussie Navy, Army or Air force where she will be guaranteed to be raped or at the very least sexually harassed until she submits to her commanding officers Maybe a better name for the Australian Defence Force is Australian Defence Brothel/Rapehouse or Australian Sex Force.

lol, or where you can't go when you can't get a proper job force. Wait until Tony gets in, we will be growing the Defence Force.

No dole, join the defence force option.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 6:36am:

lol, or where you can't go when you can't get a proper job force.

Like being a checkout chick.

You have no reason to 'lol', ya loser.  ;D


You have lived a pointless existance.

BigOl64 wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 7:46am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 6:36am: lol, or where you can't go when you can't get a proper job force. Like being a checkout chick. You have no reason to 'lol', ya loser.  ;D You have lived a pointless existance.

Because I didn't join the army and get raped? lol

Were you the giver or the taker? I'd guess you were the giver, the victims don't usually speak so highly of the place that let them down.

BigOl64 wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 5:19am:

[quote author=0715031C15097E0019001503500 link=1336110914/39#39 date=1336175577] It is not sexist to say you are not capable due to your biology to do this job,

It may be correct on personality. But what exactly is the physical limit in combat? That's different from the strength and power training at base which is probably unconnected with reality. Even SAS may never have to carry 200kg machine guns 100km in a night up a Himalaya mountain.i

BigOl64 wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 5:19am:

... wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 9:52am: BigOl64 wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 8:55am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 6:32pm: Read what i said. I said basic traing AND ALL THE EXERCISES NEEDED jesus. I never claimed any "military experience" so your insults are lost on me there because you have no idea if i have or not. It is a stereotype. SOME women are as strong and even stronger than SOME men. Jesus. What has it got to do with labour? Either party would do this because its a natural progression in human rights. Everyone should have the chance to die. SOB I did read what you wrote, and it is still wrong. because they don't have the capacity to "finish all the exercises needed" what ever the hell that means. You just don't grasp the fact that a female soldier does not need to be as good as the average male but needs to be as good as the average soldier and that is vastly different. Which is why they will never be good enough for combat roles. BTW I can tell that you have NEVER even considered serving your country let alone put on a uniform.   ;D Your are right everyone should have the right to serve their country, but no-one should die because of some leftard social experiment designed to make idiots feel good about themselves. What do your reckon about it bigol?  Always curious to know what someone who actually served thinks about it. I served in the squadrons with several females, out in the field too, they do  their job just like everyone else. But, to say that can enter combat roles because it is politically correct to do so is just stupid in the extreme. It is not sexist to say you are not capable due to your biology to do this job, if it is true and to lower standards just so they can 'break the cam net ceiling' is dangerous for everyone involved. The hawk government did this back in the 80's in lowering the standards so females could pass the same recruit course as the males and all's it did was allow lesser males to get through.

Hmmm. you seem to be arguing with yourself here.

First females are fine and do their job like everyone else.

Then you say they arent capable to do the job because of their biology.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 9:28am:

Hmmm. you seem to be arguing with yourself here. First females are fine and do their job like everyone else. Then you say they arent capable to do the job because of their biology. SOB

You seem to lack the requisite comprehension skills to tell the difference between a combat role and a support role.

Soldier - combat role, not for females

Not soldier - support role, ok for females

I agree completely that female soldiers can play excellent role and I have experience this personally.

BigOl64 wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 10:08am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 9:28am: Hmmm. you seem to be arguing with yourself here. First females are fine and do their job like everyone else. Then you say they arent capable to do the job because of their biology. SOB You seem to lack the requisite comprehension skills to tell the difference between a combat role and a support role. Soldier - combat role, not for females Not soldier - support role, ok for females

Tell me did you fight tooth and nail to stop them getting this far? Be truthful now.

SOB

Israeli females serve on checkpoints but not in forward advance attack roles.
They are welcome comrades and I am happy they do serve.

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 10:54am:

Israeli females serve on checkpoints but not in forward advance attack roles. They are welcome comrades and I am happy they do serve.

Avram,
But at the correct time when they need to kill or be killed
they might not be able to pull the trigger.
This would put their comrades in jeopardy.

A woman's place is in the home bringing up kids not
on a battlefield.

Bobby. wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 10:59am:

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:54am: Israeli females serve on checkpoints but not in forward advance attack roles. They are welcome comrades and I am happy they do serve. Avram, But at the correct time when they need to kill or be killed they might not be able to pull the trigger. This would put their comrades in jeopardy. A woman's place is in the home bringing up kids not on a battlefield.

Lolololololololololol

Why wouldn't they be able to pull the trigger? lololololol

SOB

Bobby the girls in my unit just as capable of firing as me and some have better shooting targets results too.
These are tough girls.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 11:02am:

Bobby. wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:59am: Avram Horowitz wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:54am: Israeli females serve on checkpoints but not in forward advance attack roles. They are welcome comrades and I am happy they do serve. Avram, But at the correct time when they need to kill or be killed they might not be able to pull the trigger. This would put their comrades in jeopardy. A woman's place is in the home bringing up kids not on a battlefield. Lolololololololololol Why wouldn't they be able to pull the trigger? lololololol SOB

It's not easy to be a killer.
I read an article that said that many soldiers fire above the heads
of their targets.

One girl was on check point with me in Jerusalem and she has no problems handle the dangerous times and she not afraid to point her weapon too!

I always fire above heads.
Particular to teenage rock throws because it is standard warning practice.

I have never fire without above head warning first.

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 11:04am:

One girl was on check point with me in Jerusalem and she has no problems handle the dangerous times and she not afraid to point her weapon too!

But can a woman look an enemy in the eye & kill them?

Yes absolutely bobby

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 10:42am:

BigOl64 wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:08am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 9:28am: Hmmm. you seem to be arguing with yourself here. First females are fine and do their job like everyone else. Then you say they arent capable to do the job because of their biology. SOB You seem to lack the requisite comprehension skills to tell the difference between a combat role and a support role. Soldier - combat role, not for females Not soldier - support role, ok for females Tell me did you fight tooth and nail to stop them getting this far? Be truthful now. SOB

WTF are you on about?

I expressed an opinion, albeit one based on actually having served in the ADF, instead of one based on ignorance and need to talk sh1t.

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 11:08am:

Yes absolutely bobby

Avram,
Really - do you have any proof that a female Israeli soldier
has killed an enemy in battle - in close quarters?

BigOl64 wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 11:10am:

I expressed an opinion, albeit one based on actually having served in the ADF, instead of one based on ignorance and need to talk sh1t.

But what exactly is the physical limit in combat? That's different from the strength and power training at base which is probably unconnected with reality

Bobby. wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 11:06am:

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 11:04am: One girl was on check point with me in Jerusalem and she has no problems handle the dangerous times and she not afraid to point her weapon too! But can a woman look an enemy in the eye & kill them?

They're brainwashed to view the enemy as an inhuman object. That's why they have no trouble killing women and children at close range.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 11:30am:

Bobby. wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 11:06am: Avram Horowitz wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 11:04am: One girl was on check point with me in Jerusalem and she has no problems handle the dangerous times and she not afraid to point her weapon too! But can a woman look an enemy in the eye & kill them? They're brainwashed to view the enemy as an inhuman object. That's why they have no trouble killing women and children at close range.

I  asked a police woman once  ( at a party )
what she would do if a deep voice came out of a dark alley & said
" come & get me copper "

She said - " she'd run away "    ;D

Bobby. wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 11:04am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 11:02am: Bobby. wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:59am: Avram Horowitz wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:54am: Israeli females serve on checkpoints but not in forward advance attack roles. They are welcome comrades and I am happy they do serve. Avram, But at the correct time when they need to kill or be killed they might not be able to pull the trigger. This would put their comrades in jeopardy. A woman's place is in the home bringing up kids not on a battlefield. Lolololololololololol Why wouldn't they be able to pull the trigger? lololololol SOB It's not easy to be a killer. I read an article that said that many soldiers fire above the heads of their targets.

Why would gender be a factor?

SOB

BigOl64 wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 11:10am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:42am: BigOl64 wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:08am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 9:28am: Hmmm. you seem to be arguing with yourself here. First females are fine and do their job like everyone else. Then you say they arent capable to do the job because of their biology. SOB You seem to lack the requisite comprehension skills to tell the difference between a combat role and a support role. Soldier - combat role, not for females Not soldier - support role, ok for females Tell me did you fight tooth and nail to stop them getting this far? Be truthful now. SOB WTF are you on about? I expressed an opinion, albeit one based on actually having served in the ADF, instead of one based on ignorance and need to talk sh1t.

What I am on about. Basically women have not always been there in "support" roles either. They had to fight for that right. @ that time were you for or against them being allowed there?

SOB

Bobby. wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 11:33am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 11:30am: Bobby. wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 11:06am: Avram Horowitz wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 11:04am: One girl was on check point with me in Jerusalem and she has no problems handle the dangerous times and she not afraid to point her weapon too! But can a woman look an enemy in the eye & kill them? They're brainwashed to view the enemy as an inhuman object. That's why they have no trouble killing women and children at close range. I  asked a police woman once  ( at a party ) what she would do if a deep voice came out of a dark alley & said " come & get me copper " She said - " she'd run away "    ;D

So would a smart male officer. Without backup a lone policeman isnt allowed to go investigate something like that anyway I dont think. Better a live chook than a dead duck.

SOB

Bobby this is checkpoint on border with Egypt.

---

:)  :)

---

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 11:30am:

Bobby. wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 11:06am: Avram Horowitz wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 11:04am: One girl was on check point with me in Jerusalem and she has no problems handle the dangerous times and she not afraid to point her weapon too! But can a woman look an enemy in the eye & kill them? They're brainwashed to view the enemy as an inhuman object. That's why they have no trouble killing women and children at close range.

Objects who throw rocks, petrol bombs and attempt to kill us.

There's a woman at work who looks like that. And no hair ribbon either.

Why not, i just don't get why it is an issue. Do we have equality or not.

I understand why people do not want the females to be attacked and subject to hostage taking.

Remember how dangerous and inhuman actions the opponents take.

Soldier Gilad Shalit was take hostage by extremists and hold with no good food and just water for years in bad conditions.
He was taken by cowards who attack from behind - we do not want women to have this problem,

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 12:01pm:

I understand why people do not want the females to be attacked and subject to hostage taking. Remember how dangerous and inhuman actions the opponents take. Soldier Gilad Shalit was take hostage by extremists and hold with no good food and just water for years in bad conditions. He was taken by cowards who attack from behind - we do not want women to have this problem,

Well men shouldn't have that problem either should they. They joined up - they chose the risk. Thing is you could do something about the "attacks" by leaving the palestinains alone and stop trying to encroach on their space.

SOB

He was taken by cowards who attack from behind

__________

you mean the mossad?

namaste

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 12:06pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 12:01pm: I understand why people do not want the females to be attacked and subject to hostage taking. Remember how dangerous and inhuman actions the opponents take. Soldier Gilad Shalit was take hostage by extremists and hold with no good food and just water for years in bad conditions. He was taken by cowards who attack from behind - we do not want women to have this problem, Well men shouldn't have that problem either should they. They joined up - they chose the risk. Thing is you could do something about the "attacks" by leaving the palestinains alone and stop trying to encroach on their space. SOB

It is conscription army.
I was told I was in the army by letter, you do not "chose the risk"

it_is_the_light wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 12:08pm:

He was taken by cowards who attack from behind __________ you mean the mossad? namaste

no Hamas cowards.
Who attack soldiers from behind in tunnels and fire rockets from behind women and children.

Cowards.

If a woman can lift a Uzi does she need more muscle strength?

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 12:10pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 12:06pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 12:01pm: I understand why people do not want the females to be attacked and subject to hostage taking. Remember how dangerous and inhuman actions the opponents take. Soldier Gilad Shalit was take hostage by extremists and hold with no good food and just water for years in bad conditions. He was taken by cowards who attack from behind - we do not want women to have this problem, Well men shouldn't have that problem either should they. They joined up - they chose the risk. Thing is you could do something about the "attacks" by leaving the palestinains alone and stop trying to encroach on their space. SOB It is conscription army. I was told I was in the army by letter, you do not "chose the risk"

Aha. Nice. Equality. You conscript male and female. While I disagree with conscription I agree with the equality.

SOB

no Hamas cowards.
Who attack soldiers from behind in tunnels and fire rockets from behind women and children.

________

yes but isnt hamas an instrument of the mossad?

....

Hamas is a Creation of Mossad

by Hassane Zerouky

Global Outlook, No 2, Summer 2002
www.globalresearch.ca   23 March 2004
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ZER403A.html

Thanks to the Mossad, Israel's "Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks", the Hamas was allowed to reinforce its presence in the occupied territories. Meanwhile, Arafat's Fatah Movement for National Liberation as well as the Palestinian Left were subjected to the most brutal form of repression and intimidation

Let us not forget that it was Israel, which in fact created Hamas. According to Zeev Sternell, historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, "Israel thought that it was a smart ploy to push the Islamists against the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)".

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ZER403A.html

chimera wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 12:17pm:

If a woman can lift a Uzi does she need more muscle strength?

We use the Tavor - it is lighter than the Uzi and more rapid fire.
It also has selective fire operations - you can switch between semi and full auto fire ability.

I could always fire off to three different directions in less then 10 seconds to hit multiple targets.

The women has no problem with this weapon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et7qhnt-xeg

Hamas, made by Israel

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 11:40am:

Bobby. wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 11:04am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 11:02am: Bobby. wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:59am: Avram Horowitz wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:54am: Israeli females serve on checkpoints but not in forward advance attack roles. They are welcome comrades and I am happy they do serve. Avram, But at the correct time when they need to kill or be killed they might not be able to pull the trigger. This would put their comrades in jeopardy. A woman's place is in the home bringing up kids not on a battlefield. Lolololololololololol Why wouldn't they be able to pull the trigger? lololololol SOB It's not easy to be a killer. I read an article that said that many soldiers fire above the heads of their targets. Why would gender be a factor? SOB

Because women are the fairer sex.
Women like to run through fields of flowers & trip over
a daisy into the arms of their man -
not shoot people in war.

i hear that 'gods chosen people' do not care

about what happens to goyem women or men

namaste

Sources: The Talmud, Soncino Press, Hebrew-English; The Truth About The Talmud, Michael Hoffman Here; Jewish History-Jewish Religion, Israel Shahak Here; The Plot Against Christianity, Elizabeth Dilling Here


THE JEWISH TALMUD is “Holy Writ” for the Jews.
The Talmud supercedes the Old Testament in authority for the Jews. And the Talmud is the most racist, hate-mongering , blasphemous book the world has ever known.

The Talmud was written in Hebrew between the 3rd & 6th Centuries as a codification of the so-called Oral Law that the Jewish rabbis claim was handed down from Moses.

But the Messiah Jesus censored the “Oral Law” when He said, “By the traditions of your elders you make void the Word of God.” (St Matthew 15).

The English translation of the Talmud has been watered down so as to conceal from the Gentiles the “satanic verses” contained in the original Hebrew.

The “Satanic Verses” of the Talmud can be classified into 3 categories:

1) Jewish Supremacy.
2) Hatred Towards The “Goys” (Gentiles).
3) Blasphemies Against Jesus Christ, The Virgin Mary, & All Christians.

* “If a ‘goy’ (Gentile) hits a Jew he must be killed.” (Sanhedrin 58b)

* “If a Jew finds an object lost by a ‘goy’ it does not have to be returned.” (Baba Mezia 24a)

* “If a Jew murders a ‘goy’ there will be no death penalty.” (Sanhedrin 57a)

* What a Jew steals from a ‘goy’ he may keep.” (Sanhedrin 57a)

* “Jews may use subterfuges to circumvent a ‘goy.’” (Baba Kamma 113a)

* “All children of the ‘goyim’ (Gentiles) are animals.” (Yebamoth 98a)

* “Girls born of the ‘goyim’ are in a state of ‘niddah’ (menstrual uncleanness!) from birth.” (Abodah Zarah 36b)

* “The ‘goyim’ are not humans. They are beasts.” (Baba Mezia 114b)

* “If you eat with a ‘goy’ it is the same as eating with a dog.” (Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b)

* “Even the best of the ‘goyim’ should all be killed.” (Soferim 15)

* “Sexual intercourse between the ‘goyim’ is like intercourse between animals.” (Sanhedrin 74b)

* “When it comes to a Gentile in peace times, one may harm him indirectly, for instance, by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice.” (Shulkan Arukh, Yoreh De ‘ah, 158, Hebrew Edition only)

__________

sound like a special cult

forgiven

namaste

all are forgiven unconditionally,and LOVED beyond measure,it is better to conquer thyself than to win 1000 battles...in LOVE and LIGHT namaste

it_is_the_light wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 1:34pm:

i hear that 'gods chosen people' do not care about what happens to goyem women or men namaste

You are being offensive.

Bobby. wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 1:32pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 11:40am: Bobby. wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 11:04am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 11:02am: Bobby. wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:59am: Avram Horowitz wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:54am: Israeli females serve on checkpoints but not in forward advance attack roles. They are welcome comrades and I am happy they do serve. Avram, But at the correct time when they need to kill or be killed they might not be able to pull the trigger. This would put their comrades in jeopardy. A woman's place is in the home bringing up kids not on a battlefield. Lolololololololololol Why wouldn't they be able to pull the trigger? lololololol SOB It's not easy to be a killer. I read an article that said that many soldiers fire above the heads of their targets. Why would gender be a factor? SOB Because women are the fairer sex. Women like to run through fields of flowers & trip over a daisy into the arms of their man - not shoot people in war.

Ahhhh. You are taking the piss. Okay,

SOB

Avram,
Is that a compliment or criticism?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 11:42am:

What I am on about. Basically women have not always been there in "support" roles either. They had to fight for that right. @ that time were you for or against them being allowed there? SOB

Women  have been doing those roles long before I enlisted, so I don't know any different, so why would I be against something that has always been.

Try to not make sh1t up to support your woeful argument.

BigOl64 wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 2:51pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 11:42am: What I am on about. Basically women have not always been there in "support" roles either. They had to fight for that right. @ that time were you for or against them being allowed there? SOB Women  have been doing those roles long before I enlisted, so I don't know any different, so why would I be against some that has always been. Try to not make sh1t up to support your woeful argument.

Whats my "woeful argument"? And what did I make up? I was just asking.

SOB

chimera wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 11:28am:

But what exactly is the physical limit in combat? That's different from the strength and power training at base which is probably unconnected with reality

Why ask me, why not pop down to recruiting and ask a combat soldier and while you're there you can explain your theories on equality to him.  ;D

Big ole are you suggesting that admission to the armed forces should be based on ability rather than sex?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 2:54pm:

BigOl64 wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 2:51pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 11:42am: What I am on about. Basically women have not always been there in "support" roles either. They had to fight for that right. @ that time were you for or against them being allowed there? SOB Women  have been doing those roles long before I enlisted, so I don't know any different, so why would I be against some that has always been. Try to not make sh1t up to support your woeful argument. Whats my "woeful argument"? And what did I make up? I was just asking. SOB

Then you need to get a lot better at asking questions.

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 2:58pm:

Big ole are you suggesting that admission to the armed forces should be based on ability rather than sex?

Sadly that is the requirement for service, free   :)

BigOl64 wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 2:59pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 2:54pm: BigOl64 wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 2:51pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 11:42am: What I am on about. Basically women have not always been there in "support" roles either. They had to fight for that right. @ that time were you for or against them being allowed there? SOB Women  have been doing those roles long before I enlisted, so I don't know any different, so why would I be against some that has always been. Try to not make sh1t up to support your woeful argument. Whats my "woeful argument"? And what did I make up? I was just asking. SOB Then you need to get a lot better at asking questions.

What did I make up?

SOB

BigOl64 wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 3:01pm:

freediver wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 2:58pm: Big ole are you suggesting that admission to the armed forces should be based on ability rather than sex? Sadly that is the requirement for service, free   :)

So you actually support the right of sufficiently strong women to join the service?

That's enough, I won't pay any taxes if O64 is going to talk like  that. Can't be fairer that that.

Are people who enrol in the Australian military closet masochists?



Quote:

'Culture of abuse 20 years' old' TWENTY-TWO years ago, I had the world at my feet. I had graduated from a prestigious all-boys school where I had played 1st XV rugby, rowed in a winning Head of the River crew, had been a school prefect and a cadet under-officer in the school cadet unit. I had also played schoolboys rugby at a national and international level. I was just the sort of young man the army wanted. I had always been interested in a military career and the army seemed keen to have me, readily offering me an Australian Defence Force Scholarship to the recently opened Australian Defence Force Academy, where I was told I would receive military training and a first-class university education before commencing a career as an army officer. In January 1989, I was duly sworn in as an officer cadet and flown to Canberra to commence officer training. Arriving at ADFA, I was allocated to a division and introduced to the Corps of Officer Cadets. As a 17-year-old child, I was about to lose my innocence at the hands of the Australian Defence Force. What followed was a descent into a world of bullying and harassment that few outside the defence forces can imagine. I know I am not alone and that there are hundreds of others who have lived through the same mistreatment and carry the same scars. They are a silent minority, and are a skeleton in the closet that the ADF does not acknowledge or talk about. After 20 years, I can now speak out and describe the physical, sexual and psychological abuse I was subjected to, and the inappropriate culture that existed, and still lingers, in the ADF. My experiences are something I do not readily discuss. How do you describe to friends and family what it feels like to have a gang of people break into your room at night, hold you down, beat you and anally rape you? The anger and humiliation are something you just try to live with. After a short stay in hospital, I was transferred to RMC Duntroon to finish my military training. It was made clear to me that if I complained, my career would be irreparably damaged. I would be stigmatised by the sexual nature of the assault because homophobia was the norm and at the time homosexuality was still illegal in the ADF. Even though I was the victim, it seemed to be my fault. As a proud young male, this was difficult to cope with. Shortly after I was attacked, the same gang attacked and gang-raped a female cadet in my division. No one was charged and nothing was done about it. One of the perpetrators said openly that "she was a drunk slut, she had it coming". That person is now a senior officer in the ADF... http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/culture-of-abuse-20-years-old/story-e6frg8yo-1226036257416

Raped ADF trainee told to 'suck it up'
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8233988/raped-adf-trainee-told-to-suck-it-up

New sex scandals rock ADF
http://www.news.com.au/news/new-sex-scandals-rock-adf/story-fn7djq9o-1226035620260





The Uniform They Make You Wear In The Day:
http://www.9abc.net/wp-content/uploads/ta-thumbnails-cache/TAdownload/2011/9/60522-1.jpg


The Uniform they make you wear at night?


http://www.wildsoundmovies.com/images/pulp_fiction_gimp.jpg




The Box They Send You Home In:
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2007/oct/20071029a/20071028adf8252964_013_lo.jpg

http://sydwalker.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/australian_army_recruitment_poster.gif



http://www.terencebunch.co.uk/protest-photographer/images/080717/1.jpghttp://www.propertyinvestmentproject.co.uk/images/gimp.jpg

http://www.bitpuddle.com/images/2004/08/experience2.jpg

Yes they should make it a government political unit as in Muslim police states.

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 11:52am:

Objects who throw rocks, petrol bombs and attempt to kill us.

You better be joking! "Zionists" have often been accused of the racist attitude that the people they are fighting "are just objects." I certainly hope you're not putting yourself in that category. Don't be one of those people.

If a bunch of people are throwing rocks and petrol bombs at you why not just arrest them? Sue them, put them in jail and lay charges of assault and vandalism against them. Use the legal system. They should be educated on how to be responsible citizens. Why turn a civilian matter into a military one? Treat them like people, not objects. Just don't call them objects.

In a war you may be so emotionally affected by the violence directed against you that you'll start hating certain people. You'll start thinking of ways to get back at them. That happens a lot in normal society too. Sometimes I read in the news about a group of people doing something I hate or who have attitudes or political views I hate. I imagine myself confronting them and viciously attacking them, usually verbally. I imagine what would happen if I was robbed in my home, on a train or bullied in the workplace and how I'm going to deal with my adversaries. I imagine making weapons or start thinking what kind of tirade I'm going to direct against them. Then I realise I've lost my head. I ask myself, "what am I becoming?"

If you're in a part of the world where there's constant warfare, don't let it get to your sanity. Don't let threats of violence turn you into a psychopath. Stay cool.

I suppose it's ok if they don't mind a bullet ripping through their womb or a bayonet up 'em.
They don't like it up 'em y'know.

Nice post Mnemonic

SOB

Mnemonic,

I understand why you would say this speech because of where you come from and what you are used.
Yes I too, if I live all my life in Sydney and I experience nothing of what I know, I too would say the same thing so I will try to explain a little more the situation.

These who throw the rocks and throw the petrol bombs and also fire weapons to us are not next to us. It is not possible to arrest them.

This is thrown to us when we are in a checkpoint position or when we are at entry points to settlements in the West Bank.
They will be some distance from us and also in a position where if we go to where they are - we are in line of sight for snipers often.

So we cannot just go and arrest these people - often they too are young teenages as well.

So the decision we make is to fire warning shots from positions we can defend.
Our checkpoints are positioned to where we can avoid fire and also respond well with covering fire.

The rules of engagement for all IDF is that we can not (no matter what you people believe) - we can not fire on Palestinians without specific permission from the Field Office in Tel Aviv.
We MUST call the details through of the engagement and then receive yes or no on allowance to reply with fire.

If we fire back without authority we can be court martial.

So in my own personal experiences, if i am under petrol bomb throw and rocks throw, i call through to Tel Aviv, i explain, i receive yes respond fire permission granted, i then fire into air above heads 3 times of warning shots.
Only at this time if ignored and they still do, can i allow myself to make decision to aim to them.

That is how it is.

It is very different to what you say.

Oh and also my personal view of them. I do not hate them. I hate Hamas, I hate Islamic Jihad, I hate Hizbollah - they kill women and children deliberate. They are cowards.
I do not hate palestinians all of them.

To this topic - I believe women make very good soldiers, I know many who do. They are tough and they are good shots. We have good Israeli female soldiers and they do not allow any mischief from the enemy too.

Let them fight.

Armed forces are full of poor people doing the rich mans bidding :(

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 8:01pm:

Mnemonic, I understand why you would say this speech because of where you come from and what you are used. Yes I too, if I live all my life in Sydney and I experience nothing of what I know, I too would say the same thing so I will try to explain a little more the situation. These who throw the rocks and throw the petrol bombs and also fire weapons to us are not next to us. It is not possible to arrest them. This is thrown to us when we are in a checkpoint position or when we are at entry points to settlements in the West Bank. They will be some distance from us and also in a position where if we go to where they are - we are in line of sight for snipers often. So we cannot just go and arrest these people - often they too are young teenages as well. So the decision we make is to fire warning shots from positions we can defend. Our checkpoints are positioned to where we can avoid fire and also respond well with covering fire. The rules of engagement for all IDF is that we can not (no matter what you people believe) - we can not fire on Palestinians without specific permission from the Field Office in Tel Aviv. We MUST call the details through of the engagement and then receive yes or no on allowance to reply with fire. If we fire back without authority we can be court martial. So in my own personal experiences, if i am under petrol bomb throw and rocks throw, i call through to Tel Aviv, i explain, i receive yes respond fire permission granted, i then fire into air above heads 3 times of warning shots. Only at this time if ignored and they still do, can i allow myself to make decision to aim to them. That is how it is. It is very different to what you say. Oh and also my personal view of them. I do not hate them. I hate Hamas, I hate Islamic Jihad, I hate Hizbollah - they kill women and children deliberate. They are cowards. I do not hate palestinians all of them. To this topic - I believe women make very good soldiers, I know many who do. They are tough and they are good shots. We have good Israeli female soldiers and they do not allow any mischief from the enemy too. Let them fight.

what about the cowards sitting in tanks who bulldoze down peoples homes ??

Some tank positions are the most dangerous in the armed forces, in terms of risk of getting killed.

It is my understanding that they use bulldozers for knocking down people's homes, not tanks.

Rachel Corrie was a 23-year old American peace activist who was run over and killed by an Israeli on a bulldozer, on March 16, 2003 in Nablus, Palestine. Corrie was protesting Israel's systematic destruction of Palestinian homes.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUoZGnvZwNY

So she actually put herself in the way of the bulldozer.

Now maybe its me, but why is it a surprise she was run over??

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 12:48am:

So she actually put herself in the way of the bulldozer. Now maybe its me, but why is it a surprise she was run over??

It's a surprise because she was deliberately killed.
Would you have run over her?

Bobby. wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 12:50am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 12:48am: So she actually put herself in the way of the bulldozer. Now maybe its me, but why is it a surprise she was run over?? It's a surprise because she was deliberately killed. Would you have run over her?

She was protesting and put herself in the way of a bulldozer.
It's not fking rocket science.

You know what when I see all those d*ckhead who put themselves in the way of bulldozers to build by-passes and chain themselves to trees etc, I think "fking idiots, step on the gas, if they want to live they'll fking move"

Seriously Bobby, if this girl had not got in the way it wouldn't have happened.
What the bugger was she doing there?

It's a long way from the United States....

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 3:07pm:

BigOl64 wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 3:01pm: freediver wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 2:58pm: Big ole are you suggesting that admission to the armed forces should be based on ability rather than sex? Sadly that is the requirement for service, free   :) So you actually support the right of sufficiently strong women to join the service?

See this is the problem with civilians trying to have a conversation about military matters.

I have NEVER stated that women should not enlist for military service. I have ONLY stated that they not be in combat role, because they will never meet the requirements.

Now read this a couple of time and let it sink in before posting another stupid question or statement.

What muscle requirements are there beyond lifting a rifle and walking with a pack?

In general, I would say "No, a woman/woman should not be subjected to the horrors of frontline fighting"
...However, I think that the modern manbeast/woman come throwback, who is now approaching a general definition of the "western woman" in this dishonest society, should in fact experience the horrors of war, albeit very briefly, and only to relay to their findings to the sisterhood.

Yessss, we should round up the most far-right of the far-right feminists and pit them against the most archaic military understanding of the "Islamic brotherhood", or the Reichstag regime etc., and then let them fight it out in the trenches for awhile...say, one year or so.

If by some miracle, the feminists could survive that long, they would come back crying like babies and be far more respectful of the successful sacrifices which have been made for them in the past...maybe.

Nobody is about to throw a war to prove the point of what we already know. Women cannot win wars.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 12:48am:

So she actually put herself in the way of the bulldozer. Now maybe its me, but why is it a surprise she was run over??

In "western society" that would not have happened. The bulldozer driver would have been charged with murder if it had. Why didnt the military or whatever just force her out of the way? It was murder. You cant justify it - it was.

SOB

Amadd wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 8:29am:

In general, I would say "No, a woman/woman should not be subjected to the horrors of frontline fighting" ...However, I think that the modern manbeast/woman come throwback, who is now approaching a general definition of the "western woman" in this dishonest society, should in fact experience the horrors of war, albeit very briefly, and only to relay to their findings to the sisterhood. Yessss, we should round up the most far-right of the far-right feminists and pit them against the most archaic military understanding of the "Islamic brotherhood", or the Reichstag regime etc., and then let them fight it out in the trenches for awhile...say, one year or so. If by some miracle, the feminists could survive that long, they would come back crying like babies and be far more respectful of the successful sacrifices which have been made for them in the past...maybe. Nobody is about to throw a war to prove the point of what we already know. Women cannot win wars.

All this pigeon holing and stereotyping and calling women "feminists" doesnt help. Women are ppl too and as humans they are all different. I have no idea why ANYONE would want to go to the front lines and kill and risk being killed. But some ppl do want to and some of them are women. Let them - it may rid of of some psychopaths.

SOB

Quote:

Women cannot win wars.

lol. Nobody wins wars. Especially ppl on the ground with guns.

SOB

Amadd wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 8:29am:

Nobody is about to throw a war to prove the point of what we already know. Women cannot win wars.

Trafalgar Women | Bideford http://bidefordbuzz.org.uk/history/trafalgar-women/
TRAFALGAR WOMEN. Much is known about crew men but less so of the women. “Many as equally useful” as men when working heavy guns in action were ...

A woman can press a button just as easily as any man..that's all I can say.

In WWI they had a third line of trenches where the front line rotated for a break, they couldn't take long spells at the sharp end.
At Gallipoli after a few months some Oz troops were in despair and walked in the open hoping to be shot and out of the misery.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 8:40am:

Amadd wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 8:29am: In general, I would say "No, a woman/woman should not be subjected to the horrors of frontline fighting" ...However, I think that the modern manbeast/woman come throwback, who is now approaching a general definition of the "western woman" in this dishonest society, should in fact experience the horrors of war, albeit very briefly, and only to relay to their findings to the sisterhood. Yessss, we should round up the most far-right of the far-right feminists and pit them against the most archaic military understanding of the "Islamic brotherhood", or the Reichstag regime etc., and then let them fight it out in the trenches for awhile...say, one year or so. If by some miracle, the feminists could survive that long, they would come back crying like babies and be far more respectful of the successful sacrifices which have been made for them in the past...maybe. Nobody is about to throw a war to prove the point of what we already know. Women cannot win wars. All this pigeon holing and stereotyping and calling women "feminists" doesnt help. Women are ppl too and as humans they are all different. I have no idea why ANYONE would want to go to the front lines and kill and risk being killed. But some ppl do want to and some of them are women. Let them - it may rid of of some psychopaths. SOB

I was calling the "manbeast women" the feminists, not the women. There is a vast difference.

Well I hope that nobody wants to go to the frontlines to subject themselves and others to absolute inhuman torture, but that's the way it was, and that's the way it may be again.

Forget walking the now "well-trodden" Kokoda trail.
Forget the abilty to press buttons.
If you really want to walk a mile in the necessary boots, then show us you're up to it.

Let's be honest, women are physically weaker than the men who fulfill these roles.
Maybe they should start by proving they have what it takes to be chosen as an NRL or AFL player. Seriously, do you think that would ever happen? Not one would even make it to the lower grades in these codes.i

It needs a soldier from Iraq Afghanistan to post what are the distances that patrols walk in today's battles. 1km .. 3km..%km?

BigOl64 wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 5:41am:

freediver wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 3:07pm: BigOl64 wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 3:01pm: freediver wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 2:58pm: Big ole are you suggesting that admission to the armed forces should be based on ability rather than sex? Sadly that is the requirement for service, free   :) So you actually support the right of sufficiently strong women to join the service? See this is the problem with civilians trying to have a conversation about military matters. I have NEVER stated that women should not enlist for military service. I have ONLY stated that they not be in combat role, because they will never meet the requirements. Now read this a couple of time and let it sink in before posting another stupid question or statement.

But what if they do? Should they be allowed to serve in combat then? Or is one of the requirements being a man? I have seen some pretty strong women in my time.

You can tell by their faces.
PIG GROWTH HORMONEwww.grg.org/porcineGH.htmCached
Gene Therapy Yields Bigger Pigs by. Philip Brasher, AP Farm Writer. 1:35 AM EST; December 8, 1999;

chimera wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 9:07am:

It needs a soldier from Iraq Afghanistan to post what are the distances that patrols walk in today's battles. 1km .. 3km..%km?

I very much doubt an active combat veteran would want to answer any of these inane questions.


Why don't you do some research of your own instead of demanding others provide you with answers.


Even better enlist and you could find out for yourself all the answers you seek.  ;D

BigOl64 wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 12:59pm:

chimera wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 9:07am: It needs a soldier from Iraq Afghanistan to post what are the distances that patrols walk in today's battles. 1km .. 3km..%km? I very much doubt an active combat veteran would want to answer any of these inane questions. Why don't you do some research of your own instead of demanding others provide you with answers. Even better enlist and you could find out for yourself all the answers you seek.  ;D

Well so much for the "endurance" portion of the argument.

SOB

Yes we can read what O64 is saying. Thanks big man.

There are many psychological aspect of war that women may be inherently better at handling.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 8:51pm:

There are many psychological aspect of war that women may be inherently better at handling.

I agree that there very well may be, but to me, logic suggests that we should first get a good grounding in the "relatively safe" area of the sporting arenas.

Afterall, physical sports are the training ground for battlefield situations.

Before blindly assuming that women can handle these situations, it should first be put to the test by pitting women equally against men in the relatively safe confines of sporting arenas.

You might conclude that frontline war is a very different beast, but actually it isn't.

Who do you reckon you'd like to be fighting alongside with between Jill Singer and Chris Judd?

Words are cheap, actions require substance.

IMO, before discounting the necessary attributes of frontline war situations as being beneath that of the physical sporting arenas, there should at least be something to compare it to.

The logical first step, IMO, would be to allow women to pit themselves equally against men in all sports...that would be a better starting point I reckon.

Are we still in the days of Roman and Celtic warriors using biceps and big nostrils to slog it out?
It's not really grand final football is it? What's the finger pressure on a semi automatic rifle?

Quote:

I was calling the "manbeast women" the feminists, not the women. There is a vast difference.

So only if they arent really women but beasts or men. There are no true scotsmen.

SOB

chimera wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 8:21am:

Are we still in the days of Roman and Celtic warriors using biceps and big nostrils to slog it out? It's not really grand final football is it? What's the finger pressure on a semi automatic rifle?

Your ignorance knows no bounds, doesn't it?

It seems the sum total of your military knowledge has been gleened from a couple hours playing Call to Duty 4 - Black Ops.

This is why service men and women find people like yourself to be nothing more than a loud mouthed WAFTAM, my suggestion to you is NEVER talk to any ex-servicemen in person.

BigOl64 wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 9:37am:

chimera wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 8:21am: Are we still in the days of Roman and Celtic warriors using biceps and big nostrils to slog it out? It's not really grand final football is it? What's the finger pressure on a semi automatic rifle? Your ignorance knows no bounds, doesn't it? It seems the sum total of your military knowledge has been gleened from a couple hours playing Call to Duty 4 - Black Ops. This is why service men and women find people like yourself to be nothing more than a loud mouthed WAFTAM, my suggestion to you is NEVER talk to any ex-servicemen in person.

"I used to be in the military" is not a valid answer to every question.

SOB

Do you leftwad dopes really think the only factor in combat is the ability to pull the trigger?

What if your mate is lying wounded in the open - trust a chick to be able to drag/carry him to cover? 

What about the recoil on that machine gun?  You need an excess of strength to keep it accurate, not to mention preventing it from tearing your shouder apart.

How about travelling 60km on foot, with 60 pounds of kit on your back? 

And even if you find a chick who can do this - odds are she'll turn into an irrational firebreathing monster for a few days each month.  Can't have that - it endangers everyone.

An army doesn't (or shouldn't) give a damn for your indivduality, your feelings or your ideology.  They want a cohesive unit that will get the job done.  Adding chicks just throws a big variable into the mix, for no potential gain. 

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 10:24am:

BigOl64 wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 9:37am: chimera wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 8:21am: Are we still in the days of Roman and Celtic warriors using biceps and big nostrils to slog it out? It's not really grand final football is it? What's the finger pressure on a semi automatic rifle? Your ignorance knows no bounds, doesn't it? It seems the sum total of your military knowledge has been gleened from a couple hours playing Call to Duty 4 - Black Ops. This is why service men and women find people like yourself to be nothing more than a loud mouthed WAFTAM, my suggestion to you is NEVER talk to any ex-servicemen in person. "I used to be in the military" is not a valid answer to every question. SOB

On military matters I would tend to swing more behind Big.Ol and Avram (two guys who have served in the military of their respective countries) than any others on here on matters relating to military conduct and operations.

You can't do both. Avram is for, bigO is against women (i think, it's very hard to get a straight reply from Old63.5).
OK we've got 60 km with a pack. Where in Afghanistan did Oz troops do that? it's just a question, no need to get PMT about it mate.

Quote:

Do you leftwad dopes really think the only factor in combat is the ability to pull the trigger?

So sexism is a purely right wing thing?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 11:04am:

Quote: Do you leftwad dopes really think the only factor in combat is the ability to pull the trigger? So sexism is a purely right wing thing? SOB

Avoiding the issue to pursue a cheap soundbite.  Lame.

Where is the benefit to the militray for allowing women into combat roles?  THAT is what it should be about.  If women in combat roles provides an advantage, then that's the botom line and it should be allowed, even encoraged.  But what advantage can they provide?

... wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 11:06am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 11:04am: Quote: Do you leftwad dopes really think the only factor in combat is the ability to pull the trigger? So sexism is a purely right wing thing? SOB Avoiding the issue to pursue a cheap soundbite.  Lame. Where is the benefit to the militray for allowing women into combat roles?  THAT is what it should be about.  If women in combat roles provides an advantage, then that's the botom line and it should be allowed, even encoraged.  But what advantage can they provide?

More ppl to kill and be killed. What else? Look I am not going to go through all that baity BS again. Read the entire thread and see how most of your "points" have already been dealt with.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 11:12am:

... wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 11:06am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 11:04am: Quote: Do you leftwad dopes really think the only factor in combat is the ability to pull the trigger? So sexism is a purely right wing thing? SOB Avoiding the issue to pursue a cheap soundbite.  Lame. Where is the benefit to the militray for allowing women into combat roles?  THAT is what it should be about.  If women in combat roles provides an advantage, then that's the botom line and it should be allowed, even encoraged.  But what advantage can they provide? More ppl to kill and be killed. What else? Look I am not going to go through all that baity BS again. Read the entire thread and see how most of your "points" have already been dealt with.SOB

Read it twice, and I'm not seeing it.  I see the usual labelling, mocking, dismissing and obfuscating, but no valid arguments for women in combat roles.

Where is the question of what benefit they will deliver addressed?

... wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 10:49am:

odds are she'll turn into an irrational firebreathing monster for a few days each month.

I think you're exaggerating quite a bit there....

Frances wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 11:18am:

... wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 10:49am: odds are she'll turn into an irrational firebreathing monster for a few days each month. I think you're exaggerating quite a bit there....

Your husband doesn't.

Steyr AUG "The recoil isnt that high compared to most other assualt rifles. 
Air Elijah   : 19 Mar 07,   
Location: Mid-South, USA 
I'm no expert, but I've done a bit of research on the AUG (actually trying to buy one in the near future). Recoil: a former ADF member told me it "kicks like a pillow".

... wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 11:14am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 11:12am: ... wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 11:06am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 11:04am: Quote: Do you leftwad dopes really think the only factor in combat is the ability to pull the trigger? So sexism is a purely right wing thing? SOB Avoiding the issue to pursue a cheap soundbite.  Lame. Where is the benefit to the militray for allowing women into combat roles?  THAT is what it should be about.  If women in combat roles provides an advantage, then that's the botom line and it should be allowed, even encoraged.  But what advantage can they provide? More ppl to kill and be killed. What else? Look I am not going to go through all that baity BS again. Read the entire thread and see how most of your "points" have already been dealt with.SOB Read it twice, and I'm not seeing it.  I see the usual labelling, mocking, dismissing and obfuscating, but no valid arguments for women in combat roles. Where is the question of what benefit they will deliver addressed?

Selective eyesight? I addressed it right her in this post. Im not retyping it. Read up.

As for your other crap read about avram (I think it was avram) and see his pictures of women right there with the men. No problems there it seems.

If you refuse to "see" the arguments that is your problem. Luckily you dont set policy.

SOB

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 11:31am:

... wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 11:14am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 11:12am: ... wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 11:06am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 11:04am: Quote: Do you leftwad dopes really think the only factor in combat is the ability to pull the trigger? So sexism is a purely right wing thing? SOB Avoiding the issue to pursue a cheap soundbite.  Lame. Where is the benefit to the militray for allowing women into combat roles?  THAT is what it should be about.  If women in combat roles provides an advantage, then that's the botom line and it should be allowed, even encoraged.  But what advantage can they provide? More ppl to kill and be killed. What else? Look I am not going to go through all that baity BS again. Read the entire thread and see how most of your "points" have already been dealt with.SOB Read it twice, and I'm not seeing it.  I see the usual labelling, mocking, dismissing and obfuscating, but no valid arguments for women in combat roles. Where is the question of what benefit they will deliver addressed? Selective eyesight? I addressed it right her in this post. Im not retyping it. Read up. As for your other crap read about avram (I think it was avram) and see his pictures of women right there with the men. No problems there it seems. If you refuse to "see" the arguments that is your problem. Luckily you dont set policy. SOB SOB

So your *ahem* "refutation" is that women, and specifically women, will boost the numbers of people to "kill or be killed". 

You know what else would boost numbers?  Dropping all entrance requirements altogether.  Why not have retards, children and grannies too?  After all, it's just a numbers game - the more, the better and quality and cohesion of the unit doesn't even come into it, right?

Of course there's the miniscule number of women who would actually be interested in combat roles, minus those actaulyl capable of performing them, offfset against the number of men who actually want the masculinity associated with the armed forces who would have joined, but change their mind after seeing how feminised it has become.  Are you really sure the numbers would be boosted at all? 

Did you want to have another crack at the question?

Refutation? WTH? It was just an answer to a question. you are just trolling.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 11:43am:

Refutation? WTH? It was just an answer to a question. you are just trolling. SOB

So putting forward considered, informed arguments against your groupthink slogans is "trolling?"

There are negatives, there are also positives. Morale might be improved under some circumstances. One brave woman would put some backbone in a lot of weak kneed men. There's precedent that shows fighting women aren't a bad thing. Women in Anarchist militia units in the Spanish civil war have never been criticised, neither have Maori women fighting their war against European invasion. And let's not forget it's arguable that the most decisive fight of WW2 was made by the women of the 1077th AA regiment. They delayed the panzers long enough for the preparations for the defence of Stalingrad to be completed.


Quote:

The burden of the initial defense of the city fell on the 1077th Anti-Aircraft (AA) Regiment, a unit made up mainly of young women volunteers who had no training on engaging ground targets. Despite this, and with no support available from other Soviet units, the AA gunners stayed at their posts and took on the advancing Panzers. The German 16th Panzer Division reportedly had to fight the 1077th’s gunners “shot for shot” until all 37 AA batteries were destroyed or overrun. In the beginning, the Soviets relied extensively on “Workers’ militias” composed of workers not directly involved in war production. For a short time, tanks continued to be produced and then manned by volunteer crews of factory workers. They were driven directly from the factory floor to the front line, often without paint or even gunsights. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ww2/Stalingrad.html

Quote:

The first combat with a German Panzer column occurred on the approaches to the Tractor Factory. The unit involved was the 1077th Anti-Aircraft Regiment. The crews of these AA Guns consisted of young girls who had volunteered for combat duty with the Army. The Artillery unit was positioned on the flat ground of the Steppe. We saw that they were all alone as there were no Soviet troops either to the left of them,or to the right. We fully understood that it was their duty to stand and defend this ground to the last person living. The young female gunners have stopped the German Panzer Column. We see in front of us that there are several 'Panzers' and trucks ruined and burning. They had taken their time in planning this attack and used small battlegroups that tried to make a lightening attack to quickly take out our positions. The Germans attacked several times inflicting heavy losses to this unit and they kept attacking until all were killed. The dead will remain forever scattered in the steppe as a testimony of their heroic defence of our factory. http://stalingrad-info.com/stalingrad1942.htm

Grey wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 11:51am:

There are negatives, there are also positives. Morale might be improved under some circumstances. One brave woman would put some backbone in a lot of weak kneed men. There's precedent that shows fighting women aren't a bad thing. Women in Anarchist militia units in the Spanish civil war have never been criticised, neither have Maori women fighting their war against European invasion. And let's not forget it's arguable that the most decisive fight of WW2 was made by the women of the 1077th AA regiment. They delayed the panzers long enough for the preparations for the defence of Stalingrad to be completed. Quote: The burden of the initial defense of the city fell on the 1077th Anti-Aircraft (AA) Regiment, a unit made up mainly of young women volunteers who had no training on engaging ground targets. Despite this, and with no support available from other Soviet units, the AA gunners stayed at their posts and took on the advancing Panzers. The German 16th Panzer Division reportedly had to fight the 1077th’s gunners “shot for shot” until all 37 AA batteries were destroyed or overrun. In the beginning, the Soviets relied extensively on “Workers’ militias” composed of workers not directly involved in war production. For a short time, tanks continued to be produced and then manned by volunteer crews of factory workers. They were driven directly from the factory floor to the front line, often without paint or even gunsights. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ww2/Stalingrad.html

Fighting against invasion is one thing - you expect every man, woman and child to do their bit - But wars on foreign soil are another entirely. 
Females like say, Joan of Arc are undoubteldy of benefit to a war effort, but as a talisman rather than direct combatants.  Seeing women slaughtered will be incredibly demoralising to men, who are hard wired to protect women.  This hardwiring could also contribute to irrational actions if a damsel is in distress.  Rememebr it is not a persons feelings or indivudlaity that matters, but what the unit overall can accomplish.  1 woman in a unit of 8 might fell good about her accomplishment in passing selection, but this means nothing if the overall units capacity is diminshed.

I note the 1077th, as with most AA regiments were almost entirely female.  Not sure whether AA regiments would actually be classed as frontline combat troops.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 10:24am:

BigOl64 wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 9:37am: chimera wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 8:21am: Are we still in the days of Roman and Celtic warriors using biceps and big nostrils to slog it out? It's not really grand final football is it? What's the finger pressure on a semi automatic rifle? Your ignorance knows no bounds, doesn't it? It seems the sum total of your military knowledge has been gleened from a couple hours playing Call to Duty 4 - Black Ops. This is why service men and women find people like yourself to be nothing more than a loud mouthed WAFTAM, my suggestion to you is NEVER talk to any ex-servicemen in person. "I used to be in the military" is not a valid answer to every question. SOB

Formulate a cogent and rational question and you may receive a half decent answer. Until then you'll get what you're given.


BTW, if you are trying to paraphrase my replies don't use " as I have never actually made that statement.

chimera wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 11:02am:

You can't do both. Avram is for, bigO is against women (i think, it's very hard to get a straight reply from Old63.5). OK we've got 60 km with a pack. Where in Afghanistan did Oz troops do that? it's just a question, no need to get PMT about it mate.

Soldiers do have to walk long distances for days on end to patrol their area of operations, in some cases they may be airlifted some of the way, but not always.

Soldiers need to be able to kill an enemy at close quarters, they don't always get stand behind a wall and shoot from a distance.

Soldier needs to be able to carry their wounded to safety over couple of hundred metres, so 60 kg is a minimum lift for a soldier.

Soldiers need to able to live in the field for weeks without adequate food, sleep or comforts of any kind, including bathing.

Their job is tough and relentless, some chicks can to some of the job some of the time; in the ADF half arsed isn't good enough.

Currently chicks do 90% of the tasks available in the ADF, jobs that they are physically not capable of and where the ADF cannot lower the standards due to operational requirements; well it's stiff sh1t for them.

I don't care the the leftards are fighting the good fight for women's rights and enforced political correctness, they are not suited.

Am I right that the opponents of women in combat have made an abrupt shift from arguing that women are not physically strong enough to arguing that they would unduly distract their male comrades? They might even prevent men enrolling because the thought of women hanging around would put them off?

Sounds like someone is a bit too fond of 'In the Navy'.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 12:27pm:

Am I right that the opponents of women in combat have made an abrupt shift from arguing that women are not physically strong enough to arguing that they would unduly distract their male comrades? They might even prevent men enrolling because the thought of women hanging around would put them off? Sounds like someone is a bit too fond of 'In the Navy'.

No shift.  Theres always been more than 1 argument against.  Still waiting for an argument for though...

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 12:27pm:

Am I right that the opponents of women in combat have made an abrupt shift from arguing that women are not physically strong enough to arguing that they would unduly distract their male comrades? They might even prevent men enrolling because the thought of women hanging around would put them off? Sounds like someone is a bit too fond of 'In the Navy'.

One opponent, not "opponents"

They are not physically capable of maintaining the role a of a combat soldier, everything else is irrelevant.


We had two females posted into our squadron which was an ODF (near the 'front') squadron and it actually improved our conditions; especially in the form of water for personal hygiene; but we were NOT front line combatants.

Sitting down the back behind the soldiers is much more comfortable and safe than being a soldier.

OK the AUG Steyr recoil is no problem.
All these women down to lightweight lifted well over 60kg.

90+ KG
S KATRINA ROBERTSON 252.5 KG DEC 1998 NAPIER NEW ZEALAND
B ANITA MILLINGTON 145 KG 13 NOVEMBER 2010 SOUTH AFRICA
D KATRINA ROBERTSON 263.5 KG DEC 1998 NAPIER NEW ZEALAND
T KATRINA ROBERTSON 655.0 KG DEC 1998 NAPIER NEW ZEALAND
   

chimera wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

OK the AUG Steyr recoil is no problem. All these women down to lightweight lifted well over 60kg. 90+ KG S KATRINA ROBERTSON 252.5 KG DEC 1998 NAPIER NEW ZEALAND B ANITA MILLINGTON 145 KG 13 NOVEMBER 2010 SOUTH AFRICA D KATRINA ROBERTSON 263.5 KG DEC 1998 NAPIER NEW ZEALAND T KATRINA ROBERTSON 655.0 KG DEC 1998 NAPIER NEW ZEALAND

Whats the endurance of your average powerlifter like?

A little explanation of the relevance of this earth shattering information wouldn't go astray either.

chimera wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

OK the AUG Steyr recoil is no problem. All these women down to lightweight lifted well over 60kg. 90+ KG S KATRINA ROBERTSON 252.5 KG DEC 1998 NAPIER NEW ZEALAND B ANITA MILLINGTON 145 KG 13 NOVEMBER 2010 SOUTH AFRICA D KATRINA ROBERTSON 263.5 KG DEC 1998 NAPIER NEW ZEALAND T KATRINA ROBERTSON 655.0 KG DEC 1998 NAPIER NEW ZEALAND

Were they being shot at, at the time?

Picking one thing and trying to validate your whole argument is a very poor effort indeed.



Women do nothing to enhance the ADF's combat capability, they will be nothing more than a burden on those who need rely on them.

We only have to wait a year or two for the first female to 'have a go' to find out if they can make the grade, because unlike last time labor 'enhanced the ADF' with positive discrimination for females, there will be no lowering of standards.

Hey sarge, I'm popping your targets and you keep throwing up new ones. Will pink undies match camo. hats? Do trousers have an extra pocket for tampons?
Some women have the strength.  Do you have hurt feelings and are you all sulky?

If they want to it's ok.
So long as they don't mind a bullet ripping their womb out or a bayonet up 'em. They don't like the cold steel up 'em y'know.

... wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 7:22pm:

Although strength isn't the right measure, as a baalnce is needed between strength and endurance.  There are 6 foot 5, 200kg "women" in the world who have the strength you'd expect of someone their size.  But, it ain't much good if you've also got the endurance associated with someone that size.

Gosh.  It's almost as if I could foresee that someone would try to equate the existence of a single strong woman with women being on par in physicality with men.

I must be psychic....so why, when I try to foresee someone coming up with a reason why women would offer an advantage on the battlefield, do I just draw a blank?

There are several women in power lifting. Not all men pass army fitness. The q. is not the advantage that women bring, that's another new target eh.
It's that some women and some men can walk the walk. If they can, they can.

chimera wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 1:13pm:

Hey sarge, I'm popping your targets and you keep throwing up new ones. Will pink undies match camo. hats? Do trousers have an extra pocket for tampons? Some women have the strength.  Do you have hurt feelings and are you all sulky?

Yes Ive seen highlights of the Olympic games, I'm well aware that some women can lift heavy weights. Never actually argued that no woman could lift over 60 kilos, but well researched anyway.

If that is a win for you, then kudos; you must have a very small life.  ;D


Even if I explained in minute detail, which I have no desire to do, I doubt you could work your head around the synergy of physical requirements that just may count out 99.9999999999999999% of women for combat and that last one might not want to deal with the sh1t goes with military service.

The ADF is not some social experiment to make leftards feel like they are 'making a difference', it's role is to defend Australia through military force. If chicks or any other whiny minority do not enhance that capability, then they do not get to play with the boys on this occasion.

chimera wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 1:26pm:

There are several women in power lifting. Not all men pass army fitness. The q. is not the advantage that women bring, that's another new target eh. It's that some women and some men can walk the walk. If they can, they can.

Actually, that's precisely the question. 

While you're busily, yet hopelessly trying to negate the myriad disadvantages to women in combat, you've forgotten (or more accurately, wilfully avoided) to outline any positives. 

You're doing the "enhance the capability" thing too. (with " "). A bit emotional with all the 999, do you throw things when you get cross?
So if a female can do it, has she done it?

... wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 1:30pm:

[quote author=303B3A3E362132530 link=1336110914/184#184 date=1336447602]Actually, that's precisely the question.

It's not the q. of this thread and not the ADF requirement. It may possibly be for Duntroon but that's not a weight lifting matter.
Can you lift 60kg and fire Steyr bursts are your big points and they're answered. Can men cope? Some get wet pants.

chimera wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 1:31pm:

You're doing the "enhance the capability" thing too. (with " "). A bit emotional with all the 999, do you throw things when you get cross? So if a female can do it, has she done it?

If you're pushing for a change, the onus is on you to provide a good reason for that change.  So, if it doesn't bring an advantage, what reason is there?

chimera wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 1:35pm:

... wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 1:30pm: [quote author=303B3A3E362132530 link=1336110914/184#184 date=1336447602]Actually, that's precisely the question.    It's not the q. of this thread and not the ADF requirement. It may possibly be for Duntroon but that's not a weight lifting matter. Can you lift 60kg and fire Steyr bursts are your big points and they're answered. Can men cope? Some get wet pants.

3 heads, and not a brain between them.

Women may possibly be absolute garbage in a full-on ambush. Don't know. I'm just testing the issue of physical ability. The evidence from real wars seems to be yes.

... wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 1:38pm:

[quote author=585352565E495A3B0 link=1336110914/188#188 date=1336448152] 3 heads, and not a brain between them.

It was the war-goat of a horse tribe in Asia Minor and the symbol of French Celts in Brittany. Later the Beaufort Yale, and the unicorn of Scotland , Royal Arms of UK.

chimera wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 1:31pm:

You're doing the "enhance the capability" thing too. (with " "). A bit emotional with all the 999, do you throw things when you get cross? So if a female can do it, has she done it?

So if having females in combat roles does not enhancing the capability of the ADF, what is the point, other than making her feel better about herself?

The ADF is not there to deal with self esteem issues.

This retarded belief that the ADF needs to be fixed and the best way to do that is to undermine its very foundations is ludicrous.

Combat soldiers need to meet a certain standard and be able to function under extremely harsh conditions and if after 100 years of having females serve in the ADF, it has been determined by the ADF that they are not an asset in those roles and are unlikely to effectively fulfill those roles; then they don't get to do those roles.

It's pretty friggen simple to most people.

... wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 1:30pm:

chimera wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 1:26pm: There are several women in power lifting. Not all men pass army fitness. The q. is not the advantage that women bring, that's another new target eh. It's that some women and some men can walk the walk. If they can, they can. Actually, that's precisely the question.  While you're busily, yet hopelessly trying to negate the myriad disadvantages to women in combat, you've forgotten (or more accurately, wilfully avoided) to outline any positives.

The same positives that there are for men. What are they?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 1:49pm:

... wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 1:30pm: chimera wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 1:26pm: There are several women in power lifting. Not all men pass army fitness. The q. is not the advantage that women bring, that's another new target eh. It's that some women and some men can walk the walk. If they can, they can. Actually, that's precisely the question.  While you're busily, yet hopelessly trying to negate the myriad disadvantages to women in combat, you've forgotten (or more accurately, wilfully avoided) to outline any positives.  The same positives that there are for men. What are they? SOB

Just one single advantage is all I'm asking for - is that too much to ask?  Groupthink won't cut it hivey. 

Then list the real faults they have. Your 60kg, Steyr recoil are duds. What's the argument you really want? Come on, be logical and not all weepy.

... wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 1:51pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 1:49pm: ... wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 1:30pm: chimera wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 1:26pm: There are several women in power lifting. Not all men pass army fitness. The q. is not the advantage that women bring, that's another new target eh. It's that some women and some men can walk the walk. If they can, they can. Actually, that's precisely the question.  While you're busily, yet hopelessly trying to negate the myriad disadvantages to women in combat, you've forgotten (or more accurately, wilfully avoided) to outline any positives.  The same positives that there are for men. What are they? SOB Just one single advantage is all I'm asking for - is that too much to ask?  Groupthink won't cut it hivey.

The same advantages as for men. What are they'?

SOB

[quote ]
Just one single advantage is all I'm asking for - is that too much to ask?  Groupthink won't cut it hivey.  [/quote]
None. zero.
If women can meet the muscle spec. then they pass just as a man passes the check-list. No more or less. 

chimera wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 1:53pm:

Then list the real faults they have. Your 60kg, Steyr recoil are duds. What's the argument you really want? Come on, be logical and not all weepy.

FFS It's like beating my head against a brick wall.  Let me spell this out real slow for ya


IF YOU PUSH FOR A CHANGE, YOU MUST PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT CHANGE. 

CHANGE WON'T HAPPEN IF IT DOESN'T RESULT IN A BENEFIT THAT OUTWEIGHS THE HASSLE OF IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE.

WHERE IS THAT BENEFIT COMING FROM?

chimera wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 1:41pm:

Women may possibly be absolute garbage in a full-on ambush. Don't know. I'm just testing the issue of physical ability. The evidence from real wars seems to be yes.

Evidence?  Just a quick reminder, your opinion is not evidence.


You have done no research at all and have feebly discounted any argument with some weak drivel about female weight lifters.

Being a soldier is not just about lifting 60 kg and pulling a trigger.

Find be some recent evidence where a female soldier has physically subdued / killed a trained and capable enemy combatant in close quarter combat (and lived) and I might give some quarter myself. Make sure your evidence is reliable and not anecdotal. ie not some army chick who stabbed her boyfreind 'cause she was pissed off at him


But at some time, you will have to accept that your knowledge on this subject is severely limited and your unwillingness to listen to anyone who disagrees with you, is hindering your improvement in this area.

chimera wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 1:56pm:

None. zero. If women can meet the muscle spec. then they pass just as a man passes the check-list. No more or less.

You use the word "if" a lot when trying to justify your position.

The fact is women are not biologically the same when it comes to strength or physical capability which is why even at Olympic athlete level of fitness and capability they do not compete against each other. And for some reason you think that when it comes to having to kill each other they're the same.

When women can:

Compete against males at all sports including Olympics, NRL, AFL and Rugby and not get totally thrashed each and every time they play, I will absolutely change my mind on women in combat roles.

So here's me at halfway.  ;D

chimera wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 1:56pm:

[quote ] Just one single advantage is all I'm asking for - is that too much to ask?  Groupthink won't cut it hivey.

None. zero.
If women can meet the muscle spec. then they pass just as a man passes the check-list. No more or less.  [/quote]


So you admit there is no benefit to be gained from such a move.  Good, we're halfway there.


The next step is to address why the problems such as irrational behaviour when the crimson tide is in, or the different way in which men (the other 99%) behave when women are around won't reduce the effectiveness or efficiency of the unit.

[quote ]IF YOU PUSH FOR A CHANGE, YOU MUST PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT CHANGE. 

CHANGE WON'T HAPPEN IF IT DOESN'T RESULT IN A BENEFIT THAT OUTWEIGHS THE HASSLE OF IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE. WHERE IS THAT BENEFIT COMING FROM?[/quote]
The justification for women passing a muscle test is that they pass. Your hassle problems are not my business. Do you have a social worker or auntie to talk to?

You didn't understand the question did you?

I'm sorry, I can't make it any clearer. I guess whoever said that 3 heads are better than 1 hadn't come across you before.

... wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 1:51pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 1:49pm: ... wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 1:30pm: chimera wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 1:26pm: There are several women in power lifting. Not all men pass army fitness. The q. is not the advantage that women bring, that's another new target eh. It's that some women and some men can walk the walk. If they can, they can. Actually, that's precisely the question.  While you're busily, yet hopelessly trying to negate the myriad disadvantages to women in combat, you've forgotten (or more accurately, wilfully avoided) to outline any positives.  The same positives that there are for men. What are they? SOB Just one single advantage is all I'm asking for - is that too much to ask?  Groupthink won't cut it hivey.

The same advantages as for men. What are they'?

SOB

Quote:

Evidence?  Just a quick reminder, your opinion is not evidence. You have done no research at all and have feebly discounted any argument with some weak drivel about female weight lifters. Being a soldier is not just about lifting 60 kg and pulling a trigger. Find be some recent evidence where a female soldier has physically subdued / killed a trained and capable enemy combatant in close quarter combat (and lived) and I might give some quarter myself. But at some time, you will have to accept that your knowledge on this subject is severely limited and your unwillingness to listen to anyone who disagrees with you, is hindering your improvement in this area.

1. The evidence is from Stalingrad. posted above. And from Avram, Israel DF.
2. I did research and you said I did very well, you're just being a big meanie.
3.You said it's about 60kg and recoil.
4. That's another new target. Can you march in  straight line or not?
5. I ask you questions and you refuse to answer. Your last bit is silly and emotional and you'd best listen to your ipod.

[quote ]So you admit there is no benefit to be gained from such a move.  Good, we're halfway there.


The next step is to address why the problems such as irrational behaviour when the crimson tide is in, or the different way in which men (the other 99%) behave when women are around won't reduce the effectiveness or efficiency of the unit.[/quote]
There is no benefit from men . They just meet the requirements. Irrational, weak women don't qualify, but if a woman can do the 60kg that you said is the main thing and also be rational when men get romantic and/or sulky, then she meets the ADF standard.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 2:14pm:

... wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 1:51pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 1:49pm: ... wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 1:30pm: chimera wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 1:26pm: There are several women in power lifting. Not all men pass army fitness. The q. is not the advantage that women bring, that's another new target eh. It's that some women and some men can walk the walk. If they can, they can. Actually, that's precisely the question.  While you're busily, yet hopelessly trying to negate the myriad disadvantages to women in combat, you've forgotten (or more accurately, wilfully avoided) to outline any positives.  The same positives that there are for men. What are they? SOB Just one single advantage is all I'm asking for - is that too much to ask?  Groupthink won't cut it hivey.  The same advantages as for men. What are they'? SOB

It was idiocy the first time, and it's idiocy on a number of levels.

The very fact that men have being doing the combat since the dawn of man and before, tends to suggest that no, women don't bring "the same advantages as men". If that was the case, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, as whomever utilised women in this way would have an advantage over those who didn't, meaning women in combat would be very quickly adopted by all. 

The very mention of the word "advantage" renders your argument mindless slogan null and void. 

ad·van·tage/ədˈvantij/Noun: A condition or circumstance that puts one in a favorable or superior position.

If two things are equal, there can be no advantage.  But women and men are not equal when it comes to warfare, are they?  Hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, adapting males to warfare and females to nurturing doesn't lend itself to equality in that regard, does it?

Do you think men behave exactly the same when with other blokes, as they do when women are around, and vice versa?  Adding a variable can have serious repercussions - I spoke earlier of ther males hard-wired drive to protect women, and the demoralisign effect of failure to protect them.  All good arguments against having a few token women around.  Any benefit (of which there are none anyway) are undone and more by the irrationality introduced when the opposite sex is brought into the equation. 

Lastly, how, if you don't know what "advantages" men have, how can you say women are their equal in those factors? 

Answer:  you can't, but just thought it sounded "progressive".  This is reality, not some fantasy land.

chimera wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 2:16pm:

Quote: Evidence?  Just a quick reminder, your opinion is not evidence. You have done no research at all and have feebly discounted any argument with some weak drivel about female weight lifters. Being a soldier is not just about lifting 60 kg and pulling a trigger. Find be some recent evidence where a female soldier has physically subdued / killed a trained and capable enemy combatant in close quarter combat (and lived) and I might give some quarter myself. But at some time, you will have to accept that your knowledge on this subject is severely limited and your unwillingness to listen to anyone who disagrees with you, is hindering your improvement in this area. 1. The evidence is from Stalingrad. posted above. And from Avram, Israel DF. 2. I did research and you said I did very well, you're just being a big meanie. 3.You said it's about 60kg and recoil. 4. That's another new target. Can you march in  straight line or not? 5. I ask you questions and you refuse to answer. Your last bit is silly and emotional and you'd best listen to your ipod.

Stalingrad is not recent and it was about desperate attempt at repelling an invasion, russia does not have women in combat roles now, maybe you should ask why. Israel has pretty much the same problem with more enemy than potential male soldiers, we do not have that problem.

Your research was at best poor, I am mean to lazy posters, get better or move on

I made no mention of 60 kg being an absolute requirement, if fact I gave no specific weight, try again. As for recoil as an ex-armourer I have seen chicks shoot, usually it was the SLR, which has a much greater recoil. So that was not my argument either.

As for the females being required to fight in close quarters that has been my argument all along you have avoided it since I first presented it. CSoldiers have to fight and shooting is not the only fighting they do. They must be physically capable of killing a man at close quarters, so 60 kg and a trigger finger are somewhat irrelevant.

And that last bit wasn't silly, it was an astute evaluation of your content knowledge and your ability to learn.

"Advantage" is your pet word, pet, not the ADF term.
The problem is with the men, isn't it? If you can't fault the woman, then male faults will do.
The point about football. If 1/2 a platoon face the Wallabies and get thrashed, do they have to leave the army same as sheilas who get thrashed?

chimera wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 2:38pm:

"Advantage" is your pet word, pet, not the ADF term. The problem is with the men, isn't it? If you can't fault the woman, then male faults will do. The point about football. If 1/2 a platoon face the Wallabies and get thrashed, do they have to leave the army same as sheilas who get thrashed?

You seem to answering two different posts here.

My argument that if women are equal in combat they should at the very least be equal in sport.

So if a female rugby team should be able to compete against a male rugby team of the same skill level and not get thrashed and this should apply to all sports.

I did not argue that a group of net ballers who played the game in their teens should be able to effective compete against the Australian rugby team.

This is why I treat you with contempt, I don't respect people who resort to weasel or reductio arguments. Man up, present your argument, reply to what is written, not what you amend it to be in your mind.


BTW ASRU does on occasion play the wallabies and doesn't get thrashed, in fact most time they do quite well. Hell of a lot better than the wallabies would do being shot at by the ASRU team. ;D

Quote:

Being a soldier is not just about lifting 60 kg and pulling a trigger. I made no mention of 60 kg being an absolute requirement, if fact I gave no specific weight, try again.

"Soldier needs to be able to carry their wounded to safety over couple of hundred metres, so 60 kg is a minimum lift for a soldier."
Oxford Companion to Military History says women can be trained to kill in combat.
A team of heavy women playing the smaller members in a regiment would likely be evenly matched. Taliban don't play rugby but could shoot the Oz football team, which is a last ditch argument going nowhere.

chimera wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 3:03pm:

Quote: Being a soldier is not just about lifting 60 kg and pulling a trigger. I made no mention of 60 kg being an absolute requirement, if fact I gave no specific weight, try again. "Soldier needs to be able to carry their wounded to safety over couple of hundred metres, so 60 kg is a minimum lift for a soldier." Oxford Companion to Military History says women can be trained to kill in combat. A team of heavy women playing the smaller members in a regiment would likely be evenly matched. Taliban don't play rugby but could shoot the Oz football team, which is a last ditch argument going nowhere.

You have no idea of what is required to be a soldier and any attempt to help you understand seems to be block by god knows what malfunction you have.


You rely too heavily on a reductio argument and picking only that which suits your argument, you are very poor at this so as like the rest of your 'opponents', Ill just ignore you from now on; you're a fool.

BigOl64 wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 3:15pm:

chimera wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 3:03pm: Quote: Being a soldier is not just about lifting 60 kg and pulling a trigger. I made no mention of 60 kg being an absolute requirement, if fact I gave no specific weight, try again. "Soldier needs to be able to carry their wounded to safety over couple of hundred metres, so 60 kg is a minimum lift for a soldier." Oxford Companion to Military History says women can be trained to kill in combat. A team of heavy women playing the smaller members in a regiment would likely be evenly matched. Taliban don't play rugby but could shoot the Oz football team, which is a last ditch argument going nowhere. You have no idea of what is required to be a soldier and any attempt to help you understand seems to be block by god knows what malfunction you have. You rely too heavily on a reductio argument and picking only that which suits your argument, you are very poor at this so as like the rest of your 'opponents', Ill just ignore you from now on; you're a fool.

Ouch!

Can I get you some of these, perhaps?:

http://static.productreview.com.au/pr.products/142296_carefree_flexia_tampons.jpg