Last night i was watching India 60 mins the issue n hand was whether women should be taken in army for the combat role. there were sevral people who came and gave there views about the issue. listening to all that what i felt is that we as a society are stoping women to do things i mean when a lady is capable of taking part in the combat role then why shouldnt she be allowed. there have been several excuses like what would as the society think? who would marry her knowing that she was there in the combat role where she had to fight with men? and when i am talking about do we alllow women to grow it includes both men and women. twenty years back when someone said that the lady of the house is working then one would think that they are very mordern in their thoughts to let a women work but now the situation is different when we can change so much and start accepting women in each and every walk of life then why not in the combat role? do we as women ask for preferentail treatment sometimes like when we stand in the que or anything for the matter of fact. have we created a fragile image for our ownselves? when is that we can break the mould? how is that we can break the mould? there are so many questions that are unanswered.........
wish some of you come with some answers...
do we?
Moderator: The Moderator Team
16 posts
• Page 1 of 1
The debate over women in combat turns on two questions: whether women can do it (handle the rigors of combat) and whether they should do it (is it morally acceptable and socially desirable).
MY answer wud be NO, In A word Inhuman, Irreligious and Immoral.
Read completely to understand.
women lack the necessary physical prowess. The strongest woman recruit, generally, is only as strong as the weakest man. Given that the services try to weed out the weakest men, it's counterproductive to recruit even the strongest women. And our volunteer military, remember, doesn't get the strongest women; it gets average women.
As well, women suffer higher rates of bone fractures, and other factors such as menstruation, pregnancy and aging militate against recruiting women as combat soldiers. The 20-something woman, for instance, has about the same lungpower as the 50-something man.
Well, that might be true for ground combat, the feminists insist, but surely they can fly jets and bombers. It's all just a Nintendo game up there. Again, untrue. Flying high-performance jets requires incredible conditioning and strength, particularly in the neck. Top Gun fighter pilots told the commission (and news reports later confirmed) that unqualified lady pilots routinely passed Naval flight training. At that time at least, officers were rated on the number of women they promoted. The result in one case? Kara Hultgreen, the first woman to "qualify" flying an F-14, was killed when her jet crashed because she couldn't land it on the carrier Abraham Lincoln.
But let's suppose women fly jets as well as men. What happens when one is shot down? The safety of the high-tech cockpit is gone, and she is alone on the ground, trying to survive. She is another Jessica Lynch.
As for the ships, consider the obvious: You don't send a few nubile sailorettes aboard Navy ships with 1,500 horny sailors, no matter what the Navy says about its "leadership" correcting carnal temptations. As well, the strength deficit surfaces again in many shipboard tasks too numerous to mention here.
Military training is another area where the women fall flat; they cannot survive the same basic training as men, so it is "gender-normed." That means the services (and military academies) have different standards for women than for men, and not just for hair length. If women were held to the same standards as men, more than 14 percent of our armed forces would not be women; they could not attend the academies. Oddly enough, the feminists aver that scrapping the double standard would be discriminatory! So much for judging someone on her true merit.
nothing has changed unless women have evolved markedly improved muscle and bone.
In reply to these unassailable facts, some suggest some women can meet the same standards with the proper weight training and physical-fitness regimen. That's a stretch, but let's say a few can. That takes us back to the weakest man vs. the strongest woman. What standard would these few meet? The lowest among the men? Even if they fell among men of medium strength, consider the prohibitive cost of selecting these Amazonian anomalies from among general population. And finding them assumes they want to be found.
an experiment: Let's train two squads, one all women, the other all men, to peak physical and combat-ready condition. Then drop them in the woods for a war game and see who wins.
Point is, women get by in the military only because of men. As one Internet wag observed, the equipment one man carries into combat is nearly as heavy, perhaps heavier, than Jessica Lynch. Lynch and women her size do not have the strength to carry a fallen 200-pound comrade out of harm's way. Forgetting about combat, some women aircraft mechanics need men to lift their toolboxes. Without men, the armed forces would collapse, and the more women the military enlists, the weaker it becomes.
As one commissioner remarked in exasperation: "Women are not little men, and men are not big women."
MORAL Question:
The kidding aside, the moral and social argument is one of "rights" vs. what is right. The feminists claim combat service is a "right." Nonsense.
A battlefield is not a boardroom, a courtroom or an operating room, and the contrary notion is hyperegalitarianism rooted in feminist fantasies that women "will have made it" when they have commanded troops in battle. Women do not have a "right" to serve. Military service for volunteers is a privilege; for draftees, it is a duty. No one has a "right" to serve, a civilian idea equivalent to having the "right" to be a doctor or lawyer that has no place in the military, whose principal purpose is to kill the enemy and destroy his capacity to fight.
In "Crimson Tide," Gene Hackman's submarine skipper explained the point: The armed forces defend democracy, they do not practice it.
So much for "rights." Now, as to whether women in combat is right:
At one commission hearing, Col. John Ripley, one of the most famous Marines who fought in Vietnam, explained combat for the largely civilian audience. A good picture of real combat, he said, is walking down a path to find your best friend nailed to a tree, or his private parts in his mouth. The feminists and military women in the audience gnashed their teeth.
the law excluding women from combat was always considered a privileged exemption, not sex discrimination. It was the thoughtful recognition that women should be spared the carnage and cruelty of war.
Why?
Because turning a woman into the kind of person who views such gore without blinking an eye, or who participates in the wanton killing war requires, is a step down to pagan barbarism and cultural suicide. In some sense, given what we've seen in the Gulf, we've already taken that step. But the feminists won't quit until they get women into ground combat units. As recent events prove, no one seems to care what all this means not only culturally but also psychologically.
It will require training men and women to regard the brutalization of women, and a woman's brutalization of others, as normal and acceptable. To train the men properly, a woman commissioner observed, we must erase everything their mothers taught them about chivalry; i.e., that a real man protects a woman from harm. Instead, they must be trained to brain a woman with a pugil stick in training. This truth raises two paradoxes.
On one hand, to completely desensitize the men, such training would be required. But the feminists don't want that because women can't meet the same standards as men; they won't survive it. Yet how are these women to survive combat if they cannot survive real, not gender-normed, basic training? The men would have to protect them. Successfully integrating women in combat means this: A soldier must ignore the screams of a woman POW being tortured and raped.
On the other hand, while the feminists never stop the finger-wagging about "domestic abuse," they importune us to inure men to the wartime abuse of women. Again, to some degree, we're already there. The capture and torture of Jessica Lynch and Shoshana Johnson, the single mother, was just another day in the war. But then again, the society that sent these young women to war is the same one that has steroidally-fortified men and women bashing each other senseless in television's faux wrestling, which presents the illusion that women really can fight against men, as well as preposterous movies about women Navy SEALS, or women who receive the Medal of Honor while the men cower in fear.
Lastly, assigning women to combat, or even combat support units like the 507th, purposely subjects them to trials and tribulations for which nature has not prepared them. Such assignments endanger not only the women but also the men around them, who will redirect their attention from fighting toward protecting or helping the women. Men will do that because they are men, because regardless of feminist propaganda, good parents teach their sons about chivalry and honor. The Steinem brigade doesn't like it, but it's true nonetheless. Thus, men will die unnecessarily. That is immoral and unjust, as is ordering married men and women to live in close quarters where they are tempted to adultery.
Oddly enough, the silly clamor for women in combat assumes most military women want combat assignments. They don't. Only a few aging feminists do, and of course, they won't be subject to the combat assignments or the draft. When you join the military, you join voluntarily, but you go where they need you. When women get their "right" to fight, they won't have the "right" to refuse. And why would they? After that, again, comes the draft for women.
Refernces:lewrockwell and other sources.
Complete research and report By a comission available on request.
MY answer wud be NO, In A word Inhuman, Irreligious and Immoral.
Read completely to understand.
women lack the necessary physical prowess. The strongest woman recruit, generally, is only as strong as the weakest man. Given that the services try to weed out the weakest men, it's counterproductive to recruit even the strongest women. And our volunteer military, remember, doesn't get the strongest women; it gets average women.
As well, women suffer higher rates of bone fractures, and other factors such as menstruation, pregnancy and aging militate against recruiting women as combat soldiers. The 20-something woman, for instance, has about the same lungpower as the 50-something man.
Well, that might be true for ground combat, the feminists insist, but surely they can fly jets and bombers. It's all just a Nintendo game up there. Again, untrue. Flying high-performance jets requires incredible conditioning and strength, particularly in the neck. Top Gun fighter pilots told the commission (and news reports later confirmed) that unqualified lady pilots routinely passed Naval flight training. At that time at least, officers were rated on the number of women they promoted. The result in one case? Kara Hultgreen, the first woman to "qualify" flying an F-14, was killed when her jet crashed because she couldn't land it on the carrier Abraham Lincoln.
But let's suppose women fly jets as well as men. What happens when one is shot down? The safety of the high-tech cockpit is gone, and she is alone on the ground, trying to survive. She is another Jessica Lynch.
As for the ships, consider the obvious: You don't send a few nubile sailorettes aboard Navy ships with 1,500 horny sailors, no matter what the Navy says about its "leadership" correcting carnal temptations. As well, the strength deficit surfaces again in many shipboard tasks too numerous to mention here.
Military training is another area where the women fall flat; they cannot survive the same basic training as men, so it is "gender-normed." That means the services (and military academies) have different standards for women than for men, and not just for hair length. If women were held to the same standards as men, more than 14 percent of our armed forces would not be women; they could not attend the academies. Oddly enough, the feminists aver that scrapping the double standard would be discriminatory! So much for judging someone on her true merit.
nothing has changed unless women have evolved markedly improved muscle and bone.
In reply to these unassailable facts, some suggest some women can meet the same standards with the proper weight training and physical-fitness regimen. That's a stretch, but let's say a few can. That takes us back to the weakest man vs. the strongest woman. What standard would these few meet? The lowest among the men? Even if they fell among men of medium strength, consider the prohibitive cost of selecting these Amazonian anomalies from among general population. And finding them assumes they want to be found.
an experiment: Let's train two squads, one all women, the other all men, to peak physical and combat-ready condition. Then drop them in the woods for a war game and see who wins.
Point is, women get by in the military only because of men. As one Internet wag observed, the equipment one man carries into combat is nearly as heavy, perhaps heavier, than Jessica Lynch. Lynch and women her size do not have the strength to carry a fallen 200-pound comrade out of harm's way. Forgetting about combat, some women aircraft mechanics need men to lift their toolboxes. Without men, the armed forces would collapse, and the more women the military enlists, the weaker it becomes.
As one commissioner remarked in exasperation: "Women are not little men, and men are not big women."
MORAL Question:
The kidding aside, the moral and social argument is one of "rights" vs. what is right. The feminists claim combat service is a "right." Nonsense.
A battlefield is not a boardroom, a courtroom or an operating room, and the contrary notion is hyperegalitarianism rooted in feminist fantasies that women "will have made it" when they have commanded troops in battle. Women do not have a "right" to serve. Military service for volunteers is a privilege; for draftees, it is a duty. No one has a "right" to serve, a civilian idea equivalent to having the "right" to be a doctor or lawyer that has no place in the military, whose principal purpose is to kill the enemy and destroy his capacity to fight.
In "Crimson Tide," Gene Hackman's submarine skipper explained the point: The armed forces defend democracy, they do not practice it.
So much for "rights." Now, as to whether women in combat is right:
At one commission hearing, Col. John Ripley, one of the most famous Marines who fought in Vietnam, explained combat for the largely civilian audience. A good picture of real combat, he said, is walking down a path to find your best friend nailed to a tree, or his private parts in his mouth. The feminists and military women in the audience gnashed their teeth.
the law excluding women from combat was always considered a privileged exemption, not sex discrimination. It was the thoughtful recognition that women should be spared the carnage and cruelty of war.
Why?
Because turning a woman into the kind of person who views such gore without blinking an eye, or who participates in the wanton killing war requires, is a step down to pagan barbarism and cultural suicide. In some sense, given what we've seen in the Gulf, we've already taken that step. But the feminists won't quit until they get women into ground combat units. As recent events prove, no one seems to care what all this means not only culturally but also psychologically.
It will require training men and women to regard the brutalization of women, and a woman's brutalization of others, as normal and acceptable. To train the men properly, a woman commissioner observed, we must erase everything their mothers taught them about chivalry; i.e., that a real man protects a woman from harm. Instead, they must be trained to brain a woman with a pugil stick in training. This truth raises two paradoxes.
On one hand, to completely desensitize the men, such training would be required. But the feminists don't want that because women can't meet the same standards as men; they won't survive it. Yet how are these women to survive combat if they cannot survive real, not gender-normed, basic training? The men would have to protect them. Successfully integrating women in combat means this: A soldier must ignore the screams of a woman POW being tortured and raped.
On the other hand, while the feminists never stop the finger-wagging about "domestic abuse," they importune us to inure men to the wartime abuse of women. Again, to some degree, we're already there. The capture and torture of Jessica Lynch and Shoshana Johnson, the single mother, was just another day in the war. But then again, the society that sent these young women to war is the same one that has steroidally-fortified men and women bashing each other senseless in television's faux wrestling, which presents the illusion that women really can fight against men, as well as preposterous movies about women Navy SEALS, or women who receive the Medal of Honor while the men cower in fear.
Lastly, assigning women to combat, or even combat support units like the 507th, purposely subjects them to trials and tribulations for which nature has not prepared them. Such assignments endanger not only the women but also the men around them, who will redirect their attention from fighting toward protecting or helping the women. Men will do that because they are men, because regardless of feminist propaganda, good parents teach their sons about chivalry and honor. The Steinem brigade doesn't like it, but it's true nonetheless. Thus, men will die unnecessarily. That is immoral and unjust, as is ordering married men and women to live in close quarters where they are tempted to adultery.
Oddly enough, the silly clamor for women in combat assumes most military women want combat assignments. They don't. Only a few aging feminists do, and of course, they won't be subject to the combat assignments or the draft. When you join the military, you join voluntarily, but you go where they need you. When women get their "right" to fight, they won't have the "right" to refuse. And why would they? After that, again, comes the draft for women.
Refernces:lewrockwell and other sources.
Complete research and report By a comission available on request.
I have an attitude and I am not afraid to use it.
-
Cragg - Level 1 Star User
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:57 pm
thanks for the detailed report but what about the high profile agencies like those of MOSSAD and CIA. MOSSAD is considered to be one of the best security agency what do want to say about this. MOSSAD has approx 5% of the women population working for them.
how happy is he born and free,
who serveth not anothers will,
whose armour is his honest thought and,
simple truth his utmost skill..........
who serveth not anothers will,
whose armour is his honest thought and,
simple truth his utmost skill..........
-
labelle - Level 1 Star User
- Posts: 687
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 8:52 pm
Cragg wrote:Flying high-performance jets requires incredible conditioning and strength, particularly in the neck. Top Gun fighter pilots told the commission (and news reports later confirmed) that unqualified lady pilots routinely passed Naval flight training. At that time at least, officers were rated on the number of women they promoted. The result in one case? Kara Hultgreen, the first woman to "qualify" flying an F-14, was killed when her jet crashed because she couldn't land it on the carrier Abraham Lincoln.
I do not know what the credentials of Mr.Kirkwood (author of the above article) are, but it has been scientifically proven that women perform much better under high G-forces compared to men. Their body is well suited for hig G manoveurs than male pilots. As for the death of first female F-14 pilot, the question to be asked is, was the ejection seat designed for a woman pilot?
IMO, the main reason why armed forces are not comfortable with woman in combat roles is because of woman specific issues. Our armed forces operate with limited budget and it is expensive to build seperate facilities for woman at every forward location, especially when the percentage of woman that are expected to serve is very low.
Secondly, womans mensturation cycle will be a big obstacle in them performing upto their potention on specific days. War does not wait, nor care for this. Same with female fighter pilots... they simply cannot afford 5 days on ground every month.
Third is the culture issue. No matter how fast India is changing and how modern the army is, majority of the recruits come from the rural India where men do not take orders from women. So what respect will a jawan have when his village finds that his commanding officer is a female?
Fourth, the question of enemy. Anyone remembers what happened to Lt.Saurabh Kalia (first matyr in Kargil war) and his men? They were all found mutilated with their genitals cut off and bodies riddles with cigarette burns. Same with the 8 BSF soldiers captured by bangladeshi forces. If the pious islamic army of pakistan can do this to men, what will they do to woman?
May the Fries be with you!
-
Mayavi Morpheus - Level 2 Lord
- Posts: 3201
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 7:42 am
- Location: 30° 27' North ; 91° 08' West
Cragg wrote:The debate over women in combat turns on two questions: whether women can do it (handle the rigors of combat) and whether they should do it (is it morally acceptable and socially desirable).
The whole argument of R Cort Kirkwood (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/kirkwood3.html) can be summarised into the following:
1) Strongest Women's physiology doesnt stand upto the weakest man's physiology in combat.
2) Women are to be saved from the impurities of the vile world.
3) Women going to war is a cultural downfall.
Across the ages, each of the above arguments was presented every time a stereotype was attacked. And I believe they are as false in this case as they had prooven to be in the cases of yore. Women must have the same rights as men. For that matter all citizens should have the same right as men to serve in the army.
Under sobre conditions we spend time defining culture, dignity and such abstract ideas. And in doing so end up with a social mindset where subsets of society are excluded from certain social activities. This happened when we said the son of a chamar is a chamar and the son of a pundit is a pundit. This happens when the abrou of the house is held hostage to the purdah of its women. Dictums of gender system parallel the dictums of caste system. And the former will be broken just as the later are being.
The physiology is for sure a disadvantage. But in general that has more to do with the kind of activities a woman has been prescribed and proscribed to pursue across millions of years than the other way round.
Ofcourse the Women PoWs will agitate the emotions of a culture whose idea of honor is bonded to the draperies of its women. But, culture will be redefined as per the needs of the day. This happened when heroines such as Jhansi ki laxmi, Rudramma, and Aisha went to war. It is being redefined now when the lady naxalites and dhukhtaran-e-millat cadres fight the establishment. It has been redefined in srilanka where tamil women fight alongside with the tamil men. There are umpteen historic and contemporary examples of such redefinitions of culture.
We proscribe women from war lest their bodies and hence our izzat befall the wrath of the opponent, yet we see no wrong in such happening when our women befall across the sea as maids or across the street as whores.
Cant see a worse example of hypocrisy.
If a woman wants to go for combat duty then she should be allowed to proove herself to be combat ready. Let her deal with the problems. Let us learn from her solutions and use the learning to help the next women cadre. Let us not banish a whole gender because of ill understood facts and inspite of mouldable traditions.
God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. Voltaire, philosopher (1694-1778)
- Akshay
- Registered User
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 3:58 pm
- Location: ramcastle
Akshay wrote:Cragg wrote:The debate over women in combat turns on two questions: whether women can do it (handle the rigors of combat) and whether they should do it (is it morally acceptable and socially desirable).
The whole argument of R Cort Kirkwood (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/kirkwood3.html) can be summarised into the following:
1) Strongest Women's physiology doesnt stand upto the weakest man's physiology in combat.
2) Women are to be saved from the impurities of the vile world.
3) Women going to war is a cultural downfall.
Across the ages, each of the above arguments was presented every time a
Under sobre conditions we spend time defining culture, dignity and such abstract ideas. And in doing so end up with a social mindset where subsets of society are excluded from certain social activities. This happened when we said the son of a chamar is a chamar and the son of a pundit is a pundit. This happens when the abrou of the house is held hostage to the purdah of its women. Dictums of gender system parallel the dictums of caste system. And the former will be broken just as the later are being.
The physiology is for sure a disadvantage. But in general that has more to do with the kind of activities a woman has been prescribed and proscribed to pursue across millions of years than the other way round.
We proscribe women from war lest their bodies and hence our izzat befall the wrath of the opponent, yet we see no wrong in such happening when our women befall across the sea as maids or across the street as whores.
Cant see a worse example of hypocrisy.
If a woman wants to go for combat duty then she should be allowed to proove herself to be combat ready. Let her deal with the problems. Let us learn from her solutions and use the learning to help the next women cadre. Let us not banish a whole gender because of ill understood facts and inspite of mouldable traditions.
I see a argument in near future over the topic:
Can men give birth to babies:
By the advancement of medical science this might be possible in future . ANd the pace of modernisation of our thinking will lead us to believe that men shud have the equal rights and therefore evn men shud have the right to give birth to offspring .
The age of senselessness I suppose. ...
Then end of ages.
God has made men & women with some physiological and other differences . In some aspects women are superior and in many others Men are.There is no point in arguing mindlessly abt equality.
If god had made Humans a bisexual race , then imagine ...........
there wud be only 10% topics left on FH to discuss .
Every living thing has a purpose and is irreplaceable, be it man, woman , Eunuch, mosquito, cockroach, plants.
If u talk abt equality dont be hypocritical, make every living thing equal.
Why do u forget abt Eunuchs not having any place in society . Even though they have things which lack in both Men & women.
Think Thrice before putting forward an argument.
WTF I have lot of MAN work in office . And lot of other Uni things to do.
ANybody offended by my Views?
Then u better F**** Off.
since everyone is entitled To My Opinion.
I have an attitude and I am not afraid to use it.
-
Cragg - Level 1 Star User
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:57 pm
Cragg wrote:I see a argument in near future over the topic:
Can men give birth to babies:
By the advancement of medical science this might be possible in future . ANd the pace of modernisation of our thinking will lead us to believe that men shud have the equal rights and therefore evn men shud have the right to give birth to offspring .
The age of senselessness I suppose. ...
I dont know what you are trying to say. But, as an example, in current society transexuals are an accepted and equal members of society. Even in Iran FWIW. This was not the case even 100 years back. What you ridicule today is purely based on what you have been taught yesterday. I have no information about male pregnancies but wouldnt dare to count it off the table of future acceptable norms.
Cragg wrote:
Then end of ages.
God has made men & women with some physiological and other differences .
You my friend, as I suspected from your pasted unlinked article, believe in theory of design. This conveniently overlooks the whole gamut of evidence painstakingly collected across history in favor of the theory of evolution. The proof of the theory of evolution is right there in front of your eyes, happening every day, both within and without yourself. One just needs to stop gazing at infinity.
Cragg wrote:In some aspects women are superior and in many others Men are.There is no point in arguing mindlessly abt equality.
The point of argument is not current physiological difference, your article does a decent job on that aspect. My argument is about the cause of the difference. Your article argues physiology dictates behavior; I, while not disputing that, argue that the behavior also dictates physiology. Thus advocating that the physiology will adapt to the new roles women take.
Cragg wrote:If god had made Humans a bisexual race , then imagine ...........
there wud be only 10% topics left on FH to discuss .
Every living thing has a purpose and is irreplaceable, be it man, woman , Eunuch, mosquito, cockroach, plants.
As far as I know the purpose is to survive, not to suplicate to a self sustaining mass hysteria.
Cragg wrote:If u talk abt equality dont be hypocritical, make every living thing equal.
Why do u forget abt Eunuchs not having any place in society . Even though they have things which lack in both Men & women.
I didnt forget them.
Akshay wrote:Across the ages, each of the above arguments was presented every time a stereotype was attacked. And I believe they are as false in this case as they had prooven to be in the cases of yore. Women must have the same rights as men. For that matter all citizens should have the same right as men to serve in the army.
Last I heard, the people you mentioned were still considered humans and citizens of their respective nations. FYI one contemporary western and chinese debate is on the veracity of a 15th century chinese super hero Navy chief Zheng discovering america before columbus. BTW he was a eunuch, who in your theory would not be able to stand a man in combat.
Cragg wrote:ANybody offended by my Views?
Then u better F**** Off.
since everyone is entitled To My Opinion.
Fits well with the theory of design. For you were created by the god of yours to rule over those who do not prescribe to your point of view.
God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. Voltaire, philosopher (1694-1778)
- akshay
- Registered User
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 3:58 pm
- Location: ramcastle
Don't confuse me with facts,theories , designs or f***ing nonsense stuff , my mind's already made up.
If u support the idea of female soldiers in combat then do contribute some from ur side.
If u support the idea of female soldiers in combat then do contribute some from ur side.
I have an attitude and I am not afraid to use it.
-
Cragg - Level 1 Star User
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:57 pm
Cragg wrote:Don't confuse me with facts,theories , designs or f***ing nonsense stuff , my mind's already made up.
If u support the idea of female soldiers in combat then do contribute some from ur side.
If you dont want me to confuse your mind with the matter in the post then please do post a link when you paste an online article. I guess I should provide the definition for plagiarism in the other thread. I won't disagree with you about your rigid mind.
Well...I contirbuted my point: take it, leave it or debate it. If it lost on you, I presented the falce premises in your post, agreeed where your post has agreeable matter, put the facts in historical context, provided abhorable parallels in social systems, cited hiostorical and contemporary examples where women do fight successfull wars and showed the cultural hypocricies of honor tied to women. And moreover addressed your specific comments. Vexing aint gonna help you much.
I am not here to change your mind..i leave it to your god, whose comedy you refuse to partake in. If you dont associate with your post then please do make that public.
God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. Voltaire, philosopher (1694-1778)
- Akshay
- Registered User
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 3:58 pm
- Location: ramcastle
Similar discussion was started here way before the Army Vice Chief comments controversy started. Read it for some perspective from those who really matter... atleast one fighter pilot and army general posted on that thread. No religious/God crap in there.
Link here
Link here
May the Fries be with you!
-
Mayavi Morpheus - Level 2 Lord
- Posts: 3201
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 7:42 am
- Location: 30° 27' North ; 91° 08' West
Akshay wrote:Cragg wrote:Don't confuse me with facts,theories , designs or f***ing nonsense stuff , my mind's already made up.
If u support the idea of female soldiers in combat then do contribute some from ur side.
If you dont want me to confuse your mind with the matter in the post then please do post a link when you paste an online article. I guess I should provide the definition for plagiarism in the other thread. I won't disagree with you about your rigid mind.
I am not here to change your mind..i leave it to your god, whose comedy you refuse to partake in. If you dont associate with your post then please do make that public.
Lewrockwells as source was mentioned in my post.Hope u read with a little more concentration.
To steal idea from one source is palgiarism , to steal from many is research , I think thats what u have been doing.
And hope u found 2 definitions in one single post.
And the fluidity of your mind is acknowledged by me as u support even Transexuality.
At least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious racial, gender based and political idols.
I suppose u fall into one of those categories of motivators.
Gud luck finding support for your ideas
I have an attitude and I am not afraid to use it.
-
Cragg - Level 1 Star User
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:57 pm
wat????
labelle wrote:thanks for the detailed report but what about the high profile agencies like those of MOSSAD and CIA. MOSSAD is considered to be one of the best security agency what do want to say about this. MOSSAD has approx 5% of the women population working for them.
well labelle now dont you know why those 5% of the women are there in Mossad, MI6, CIA, KBG? they are sex traps in most of the cases. I knw they also carry out investigation but we all know how they do it!!!!
hope u got my point.
Raj Singh Dungarpur to Mohammad Azizuddin Azharuddin
"Miya captain banoge"
"Miya captain banoge"
-
Sachin - Registered User
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:08 pm
Re: wat????
Sachin wrote:labelle wrote:thanks for the detailed report but what about the high profile agencies like those of MOSSAD and CIA. MOSSAD is considered to be one of the best security agency what do want to say about this. MOSSAD has approx 5% of the women population working for them.
well labelle now dont you know why those 5% of the women are there in Mossad, MI6, CIA, KBG? they are sex traps in most of the cases. I knw they also carry out investigation but we all know how they do it!!!!
hope u got my point.
do u mean that the above agencies appoints them because of the oomph factor!
how happy is he born and free,
who serveth not anothers will,
whose armour is his honest thought and,
simple truth his utmost skill..........
who serveth not anothers will,
whose armour is his honest thought and,
simple truth his utmost skill..........
-
labelle - Level 1 Star User
- Posts: 687
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 8:52 pm
Re: wat????
labelle wrote:Sachin wrote:labelle wrote:thanks for the detailed report but what about the high profile agencies like those of MOSSAD and CIA. MOSSAD is considered to be one of the best security agency what do want to say about this. MOSSAD has approx 5% of the women population working for them.
well labelle now dont you know why those 5% of the women are there in Mossad, MI6, CIA, KBG? they are sex traps in most of the cases. I knw they also carry out investigation but we all know how they do it!!!!
hope u got my point.
do u mean that the above agencies appoints them because of the oomph factor!
Very definitely. There might be an exception or two but very definitely because of that.
Raj Singh Dungarpur to Mohammad Azizuddin Azharuddin
"Miya captain banoge"
"Miya captain banoge"
-
Sachin - Registered User
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:08 pm
well....
labelle wrote:do u mean to say that beauty and brain dont go hand in hand?
I did not quote that, we were talking abt mossad,MI6.... I just gave my thoughts on that. Women in intelligence agencies are used as traps wherein you know what happens. I mean what I quoted but dont try to generalise it.
Raj Singh Dungarpur to Mohammad Azizuddin Azharuddin
"Miya captain banoge"
"Miya captain banoge"
-
Sachin - Registered User
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:08 pm
16 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
ADVERTISEMENT
SHOUTBOX!
{{ todo.summary }}... expand »
{{ todo.text }}
« collapse
First | Prev |
1 2 3
{{current_page-1}} {{current_page}} {{current_page+1}}
{{last_page-2}} {{last_page-1}} {{last_page}}
| Next | Last
{{todos[0].name}}
{{todos[0].text}}
ADVERTISEMENT
About Hyderabad
The Hyderabad Community
Improve fullhyd.com
More
Copyright © 2023 LRR Technologies (Hyderabad) Pvt Ltd. All rights reserved. fullhyd and fullhyderabad are registered trademarks of LRR Technologies (Hyderabad) Pvt Ltd. The textual, graphic, audio and audiovisual material in this site is protected by copyright law. You may not copy, distribute or use this material except as necessary for your personal, non-commercial use. Any trademarks are the properties of their respective owners.