The female of the species is more deadly than the male

Cahal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2014
Messages
881
Perhaps the definition has been changed?

My understanding is that irregulars were originally recruited ad hoc by the state apparatus. The distinction between irregulars and regulars is blindingly obvious (not being smart btw).

Terrorists/Insurgents use irregular tactics, but they fight to undermine the state, and target non combatants within, although not restricted to, the state they are attempting to undermine. Urban terrorism is a purely modern thing, invented in Russia in the late 19th century. I can't think of any systematic urban terrorism that existed before it. Can you?

I believe that an irregular unit fighting for the state is subject to the same rules and punishment as regular units.

There is of course the argument that the State behaves like a terrorist. So, in Uruguay, and Argentina during the 70s, the state apparatus used terrorist tactics to counter insurgencies.

Uncle Sam/Ivan both have histories of using proxy tactics to fight one another. Proxy tactics often involve the use of terrorist organisations.

I guess the lines of battle are blurred today. As Breaker Morant said,

" It's a new kind of war, George. A new war for a new century. I suppose this is the first time the enemy hasn't been in uniform. They're farmers. They come from small villages, and they shoot at from behind walls and from farmhouses. Some of them are women, some of them are children, and some of them... are missionaries, George."

Interestingly the Selous Scouts, whom I mentioned earlier struck terror into the hearts of Mugabe's insurgents. Yet they rarely if ever engaged the enemy. Their objective? To disseminate misinformation amongst ZANLA (or ZAPU, whatever the feck it was called).
Perhaps you could define what a terrorist is.
 


GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,741
Perhaps the definition has been changed?

My understanding is that irregulars were originally recruited ad hoc by the state apparatus. The distinction between irregulars and regulars is blindingly obvious (not being smart btw).
Okay I was using the term irregular fighters to refer to non-state (at least officially) sponsored combatants.

Have you ever come across this essay by Carl Schmitt?

http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/spaceshotsairheads/carlschmitttheoryofthepartisan.pdf
 

Banjo Baker

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2012
Messages
457
Far superior at psychological warfare. They way they can manipulate situations to their own advantage has always intrigued me.
 

Dedogs

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
6,278
Far superior at psychological warfare. They way they can manipulate situations to their own advantage has always intrigued me.
theres 2 things about women fightin mate,,,, number 1 is they never forget anything and number 2 is when they get thick they have no off button you just have to ride it out till they run down.... we havent a chance in fairness.... ;););)
 

man-in-street

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
Messages
567
Twitter
n/a
Broadly speaking, women can be much more ruthless and vicious than men, and I say that as a ruthless vicious woman. :) While most women don't have the physical strength as a man many women will make the hard unpalatable decisions that men would balk at.
Is this because, to a woman, everything is personal??.
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,703
Regardless of how good at multitasking an infantry soldier might be if she has a broken wrist or a sprained ankle she is useless in the field.
 

JohnD66

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
3,337
Opinion: Women have shown time and time again that they are a more deadly species than the male

I found this Tom Clonan article enlightening. It overturned my previous opinion that single-sex military units are more effective and should therefore be immune from token equality measures. Seems I underestimated women's propensity for (military) conflict.

Odd that Clonan didn't reference the most contemporary example of female fighting prowess - Kurdish YPG units fighting in Syria. But I'm starting to agree with him:
The female YPG units, the YPJ, are actually single sex, women only formations. The PKK movement (of which the YPG is part) also has a strict ban on sexual relationships of any type between fighters in its military units.

Clonan has kind of an agenda here, in that he fell out for years with the the Irish Army over a study he did of sexual harassment and bullying of female soldiers in the Army, so he is invested in the idea of gender equality in the military.

I would be very surprised if he is citing that research accurately, though as neither the US nor Israel uses women in front line combat formations.
 
Last edited:

Karloff

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
6,952

Sexual Harassment Panda

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
4,891
Opinion: Women have shown time and time again that they are a more deadly species than the male



I found this Tom Clonan article enlightening. It overturned my previous opinion that single-sex military units are more effective and should therefore be immune from token equality measures. Seems I underestimated women's propensity for (military) conflict.

Odd that Clonan didn't reference the most contemporary example of female fighting prowess - Kurdish YPG units fighting in Syria. But I'm starting to agree with him:
Haven't read but what I have heard previously is not only that women lack the physical capacity to do the work (seriously lacking in stamina compared to men) but that they influence their male counterparts toward less rational decision making.

I've also heard it argued that it could cause PR problems at war time, sending home thousands of dead women from the battlefield. Case in point, haram bokom (whatever) regularly killed men and boys. People only gave a **** what they were doing when they kidnapped a bunch of girls.

Forgiving them their clear physical inferiority, if multi-sex units work best in real combat, they work best and should be facilitated. Whatever strategy wins the war is that which should be employed.

I believe women must now join the draft in the US, so, interesting times ahead..
 

madmullah

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
612
His references are very selective. He is also wrong to compare the Df with the US and other armies. The DF , are primarily a infantry unit with a few other units stuck on. In others there is a much longer suuply chains, more technology and less line troops proportionally.
Yes women can fight but they do not have a place in combat roles in line units. I have served in the DF and also in other forces. I have been involved in serious COIN operations. Women were used in undercover work and they did it well, however the grunt, mind numbing physical type of work was beyond them as it would be beyond most men who were not trained and conditioned for it. women would not have even passed, graduated.
But if you lower standards, have mofdified press ups , standards for loads and speed marches then everything will do, Just who will have to compensate in a unit when they cant keep up. or who is going to fireman carry me when I am wounded.Not Nuala or mary,, . and BTW I have been wounded and had to be fireman carried..
 

JohnD66

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
3,337
Haven't read but what I have heard previously is not only that women lack the physical capacity to do the work (seriously lacking in stamina compared to men) but that they influence their male counterparts toward less rational decision making.

I've also heard it argued that it could cause PR problems at war time, sending home thousands of dead women from the battlefield. Case in point, haram bokom (whatever) regularly killed men and boys. People only gave a **** what they were doing when they kidnapped a bunch of girls.

Forgiving them their clear physical inferiority, if multi-sex units work best in real combat, they work best and should be facilitated. Whatever strategy wins the war is that which should be employed.

I believe women must now join the draft in the US, so, interesting times ahead..
The draft in the US was abolished back in the 1970s after the Vietnam war.
 

Sexual Harassment Panda

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
4,891

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
18,826
The draft in the US was abolished back in the 1970s after the Vietnam war.
for a man in the US being on the electoral register makes you eligible for conscription, women don't have this male privilege , share the love I say, muh equality and all that
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
The draft in the US was abolished back in the 1970s after the Vietnam war.
Virtually all male U.S. citizens and male immigrant non-citizens between the ages of 18 and 25 are required by law to have registered within 30 days of their 18th birthdays[2][3] and must notify Selective Service within ten days of any changes to any of the information they provided on their registration cards, like a change of address.[4]
 

Karloff

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
6,952
Armed forces are supposed to fight according to rules and conventions.

That isn't always the case.

Terrorists never abide by rules of war.
They still 'use violence to achieve political objectives'. The main difference between the two is that non state actors and groups do not have the press power that nations do - so they tend to be called terrorists and when nations undertake terrorist actions they call it war or 'operations' or some other term. The term itself is loaded.

Rather than terrorist being a designation (which is what warmongering nations want to do) it should refer to a kind of behaviour - eg blowing up a bus full of civilians, bombing a school or hospital or bridge. A siege against a civilian population. Detention without trial used against a civilian population to quell political dissent. A coup. Anything where people's legitimate aspirations are curtailed through violence or fear of it.

I am not happy with mercenaries or foreign fighters either, neither have any legitimacy - there is no justification for foreign fighters in Syria for example. A special designation of evil (not currently invented) needs to be produced for people who fight in other people's wars - prolonging them.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom