Kurds raise all-female battalions to fight ISIS - think they will go to Hell if killed by a woman. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=minilandstan;45764676]Besides what Trunk Monkay said, you have to realize that if you sent Female Combatants against ISIS, they'd do a lot worse than record them being beheaded. There was an article written by a female servicewoman who stated that the United States is not prepared to hear news about a female soldier being raped and gutted by enemy combatants, as real as it is.[/QUOTE] This is one of the things in this world that truly unnerves me. For the Kurds they don't have a choice. IS is already raping and enslaving civilians. It's either fight them as a soldier and risk this or stay a civilian and risk this.

[QUOTE=draugur;45763174] True, I'd wager this is similar to how the U.S. allowed Black recruits in WWII because of the total-war scenario, right down to the segregated units. It's sad that it takes the threat of total annihilation to make a civilization re-think backwards policies such as these.[/QUOTE] Or like the WWI Harlem Hellfighters.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;45756870]correct me if im wrong but most western nations dont let women into combat roles even if they make the cut[/QUOTE] The US is now letting women into combat roles. They're doing small trials of it right now. The issue is is that women in the military haven't been held to the same standard men are. So when your average female soldier in the US military is considered for a combat role, she doesn't meet basic requirements because she's never been held to that standard before. I'd link the article if I still had it handy, but a General or some other high-tier officer was talking about how most of the women in the UMSC are not fit for combat roles because they don't even meet the rock-bottom requirements for a combat position. It's not to say that all women are incapable of exceeding these requirements but a good chunk of them can't. [editline]22nd August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=draugur;45763174] True, I'd wager this is similar to how the U.S. allowed Black recruits in WWII because of the total-war scenario, right down to the segregated units. It's sad that it takes the threat of total annihilation to make a civilization re-think backwards policies such as these.[/QUOTE] Jim Crow laws and other segregation laws didn't really disappear after WWI though. Segregation and other fucked up shit like that didn't go away until the Vietnam war rolled around, and the military then was still rampant with racism. Total war scenarios don't really make us rethink shit in the long term. It's more like "Shits all fucked, let the minorities fight we don't have a choice." And after the war it's "Thanks minorities, go back to your poverty stricken lives cause we don't need you anymore".

If it was up to me, I would choose only the most exceptional of women fighters. Basically men with boobs&vag. No mercy. And this is probably the point where 75% of the women would be combed out due to not reaching the required standard. [B]edit[/B] on a later notice, this is kinda bad post

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;45765861]If it was up to me, I would choose only the most exceptional of women fighters. Basically men with boobs&vag. No mercy. And this is probably the point where 75% of the women would be combed out due to not reaching the required standard.[/QUOTE] phew! if you're quoting statistics you must be right! Or have a colourful imagination. [quote]If it was up to me, I would choose only the most exceptional of women fighters. Basically men with boobs&vag. No mercy. [/quote] Am I misreading this? are you suggesting that only "the most exceptional of women fighters" are on par with the average military male? If a woman trained and ate the same as a guy did they would be roughly the same strength and endurance I don't see how that is exceptional. If they meet the standard let them fight and have equal opportunities, I can't see why you would want it any other way.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;45766024]If they meet the standard let them fight and have equal opportunities, I can't see why you would want it any other way.[/QUOTE] Yes, if they meet the standard. That is how I'd want it as well. However they may have a harder time meeting that standard than men.. on average.. maybe.. Which would bring about some inequality, wouldn't it? And for a sensible reason. (Assuming that there is any truth to males being physically slightly superior to women on average, I believe there is?)

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;45766957]Yes, if they meet the standard. That is how I'd want it as well. However they may have a harder time meeting that standard than men.. on average.. maybe.. Which would bring about some inequality, wouldn't it? And for a sensible reason. (Assuming that there is any truth to males being physically slightly superior to women on average, I believe there is?)[/QUOTE] You take the average woman and average man. Let them train properly for a year and both will get into the army. Both are equally capable of meeting the mark with preparation. I don't know about another other countries but in the UK people train up before joining the army. Since they would both train up first they would, presumably based purely on their merits, both meet the mark and have an equal opportunity of joining.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;45767005]You take the average woman and average man. Let them train properly for a year and both will get into the army. Both are equally capable of meeting the mark with preparation. I don't know about another other countries but in the UK people train up before joining the army. Since they would both train up first they would, presumably based purely on their merits, both meet the mark and have an equal opportunity of joining.[/QUOTE] Yes, so if there is any advantage that men may have, even with [i]same[/i] training, it is slight and therefor not an issue.. Good.

i don't even know why people are debating the effectiveness of female soldiers/fighters. just ask the Turkish government or Iran's Revolutionary Guard, the PKK and it's offshoots have been wrecking their shit for decades and women make about ~40% of their ranks

[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;45756638]how about you realize women in combat isn't about sexism it's about the fact that they'll never be equal to men in combat situations[/QUOTE] I think you should look into what the female Peshmerga has been doing for years. They are pretty good at it..

[QUOTE=FreakyMe;45755353]If they are forced against their will to consume or come in contact with anything pork related, the Koran explicitly states that it does not affect their eligibility for a seat in paradise.[/QUOTE] But since it's their will to fight and die for their jihad, wouldn't that mean it isn't "forced" into them? Checkmate illogical islamic fundamentalist thinking!

[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;45758463]norway does [editline]21st August 2014[/editline][/QUOTE] Indeed. I know ABC Foreign Correspondent ran a story about the Norwegian Military already incorporating women into every role that previously was male-only. I heard that they're also about to allow full conscription for women. It's available from it's page on abc [URL="http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2014/s4061340.htm"]http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2014/s4061340.htm[/URL] [QUOTE]When the young women of the Norwegian Border Guard turn in after a long day patrolling along a stretch of their nation's northern border with Russia, chances are there will be men in the room. They're the fellow soldiers they've been working with, training with and sometimes ordering around in the field. Despite the seamless sleeping arrangements, the conflicting habits of males and females, it all seems to work. Harassment and sexual assault, already comparatively low in Norway's armed forces, is on the wane. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=draugur;45754825]Kurds have less sexist military than first world countries now. U.S doesn't let women into combat.[/QUOTE] Not true, the marines have started accepting female riflemen.

I think the USA should have it like the Kurds have it where there are separate units for the different genders for a multitude of reasons.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;45756110]The PYD, PKK, PJAK, and such are kicking ass. I especially support the [B]PKK[/B] and PYD. Also, have this pic of a PYD female militia unit. [thumb]http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/294/6/5/ypg_sryia_kurdish_gerilla_by_ariarzen-d6rbuuo.jpg[/thumb][/QUOTE] GO fuck yourself seriously.

[QUOTE=efecanefe;45778580]GO fuck yourself seriously.[/QUOTE] Whats up with Turks and their dislike of Kurds? I know that the PKK is trying to carve out an independent Kurdistan (or at least give more autonomy to Kurds) in Turkey, but everywhere else I always see Turks bashing Kurds for no reason.

[QUOTE=rewkasu;45754844]Feels like the old viking belief that if you didn't get killed by a warrior you didn't go to valhalla[/QUOTE] The conditions for going to Valhalla are simply "die with sword in hand" or you can offer yourself to Odin personally by hanging yourself. You could potentially rules lawyer yourself into going to valhalla if you die of TB with a shortsword in your grasp. [editline]23rd August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=PrusseLusken;45756638]how about you realize women in combat isn't about sexism it's about the fact that they'll never be equal to men in combat situations[/QUOTE] Ok no. The actual reason is so that medics don't give preferential treatment.

[QUOTE=RockmanYoshi;45778927]Whats up with Turks and their dislike of Kurds? I know that the PKK is trying to carve out an independent Kurdistan (or at least give more autonomy to Kurds) in Turkey, but everywhere else I always see Turks bashing Kurds for no reason.[/QUOTE] the PPK are an internationally condemned terror group.

[QUOTE=RockmanYoshi;45778927]Whats up with Turks and their dislike of Kurds? I know that the PKK is trying to carve out an independent Kurdistan (or at least give more autonomy to Kurds) in Turkey, but everywhere else I always see Turks bashing Kurds for no reason.[/QUOTE] Yeah it's not like the PKK has a history of bombings and cop killings against Turkey or anything. I get that the internet has a massive boner for the Kurds right now, but--independent of whether or not you think their political goals are justified--it's absolutely disingenuous to say that it's just "Turks bashing Kurds for no reason", all because it doesn't fit with our image of the Kurds as honorable warriors with easily digestible western values.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;45757927]3 things. Source? Your point? Everything I said was true unless there is some Olympic athelete lurking round facepunch.[/QUOTE] Can't find a source at the moment, but it was from a close friend in the German military in an infantry role. The point? Even governments aren't exactly optimistic about women's ability to meet combat standards required in the best units. im fine with the way Norway does it, and women even have advantages in some areas (their generally higher voices are easier to hear over the low bass rumble of explosions and such, compared to men) but it not every country is you know... Doing it right.

[quote]fight ISIS - think they will go to Hell if killed by a woman.[/quote] for those wondering this is a myth, the only source this goes to is a Kurdish fighter saying it. Generally you don't take what someone say about their hated enemy as fact.

[QUOTE=Hamaflavian;45781848]Yeah it's not like the PKK has a history of bombings and cop killings against Turkey or anything. I get that the internet has a massive boner for the Kurds right now, but--independent of whether or not you think their political goals are justified--it's absolutely disingenuous to say that it's just "Turks bashing Kurds for no reason", all because it doesn't fit with our image of the Kurds as honorable warriors with easily digestible western values.[/QUOTE] Yeah I did oversimplify the PKK, but a lot of the Turks I talk to hate all Kurds (and Armenians, but that's not a subject for now) I should say that the PKK are trying to carve out an independent Kurdistan with some pretty barbaric methods.

In this thread I have been arguing for the inclusion of women based on them meeting the standards of fitness and performance, but I was talking to a friend of mine in the army and he said the reason women aren't allowed in some of regiments is that some men will feel the need to "protect women" and might macho to try and impress them.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;45785583]In this thread I have been arguing for the inclusion of women based on them meeting the standards of fitness and performance, but I was talking to a friend of mine in the army and he said the reason women aren't allowed in some of regiments is that some men will feel the need to "protect women" and might macho to try and impress them.[/QUOTE] Like they might need to protect their best mates watching their back? No different really. Being macho is simply a stupid argument.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;45785583]In this thread I have been arguing for the inclusion of women based on them meeting the standards of fitness and performance, but I was talking to a friend of mine in the army and he said the reason women aren't allowed in some of regiments is that some men will feel the need to "protect women" and might macho to try and impress them.[/QUOTE] I've heard this argument before. Another, similar one, is that given a "who would you rather save" scenario, male soldiers would always go for the woman. Which is still dumb because 1) it's a presumptuous, infrequent scenario, 2) it assumes men are unable to think logically when women are present and 3) it puts the blame on the women for something the men supposedly do. I mean come on, what makes more sense, effectively barring half the population of your country from serving in combat roles, even when your country's military would largely benefit from the added numbers, or teaching men that women can take care of themselves just fine and don't need their protection?

It also implies that the first argument, where the women present will be innately weaker, is true.