Indian Woman for Combat Duties

Status
Not open for further replies.

srevster

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
266
Likes
205
Country flag
It was always an unequal battle. Anyway Tigers got wiped out coz they faced a determined professional army unfettered by niceties like geneva convention and human rights. They would have lost even if ltte had only men fighters. They were a very good guerrila force not an army by any stretch of imagination.

now coming to my personal opinion, women have no place in a battlefield. Sure in a support/logistical roles they will be as good as any man, but they just dont belong in the trenches.
India has always been accepting of women’s role in combat, especially in the south. Maybe IDF should study that first before commenting

this explains it

1615037336203.png
 

Killbot

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
1,824
Likes
3,738
Country flag
you don’t understand logic and contradict yourself @ArgonPrime

@Heat argon is a basket case
You
Calm down your titties man. It's past 6'o clock.
War for today is over.

We will find something else to fight some other day.
That is exactly what we thought after 1948, '62, '65, '67, '84, '86,'71, '99, 2008, 2013, 2016, 2019. Now, we're beginning to see war for what it is and has always been: brutal and sophisticated.


As to @srevster's original analogy about how women fought in medieval times, they fought in armies of thousands back then. For each female fighter, there were probably 100,000 male fighters. And dozens covering the woman's back. And they didn't carry the kind of battle load that is carried today. Women were figureheads. Meant to inspire and goad men. They were still weak links when it came to the actual slugging, but one weak link in a 100,000 is not even a dent.

Now, each section is required to be able to operate on its own. That means each soldier carries his 40kg battle load and needs to be in top condition. Read up on the assault of Tiger hill and imagine the fitness level required. And a woman is physically not as capable as a man with the same training and fitness regimen, and size. That makes one weak link out of 10. This is all not to mention that women need to sleep, piss and shit with men. Women have periods on top of this. And get treated by men in case of an injury. We can't have women and men in an infantry squad. We sure as hell can't have all women squads, army's capabilities would be hampered badly.

Let's stop this meaningless bullshit. Women are physiologically weaker than men and that is that. They.Are.Not.Suited.For.Frontline.Combat. Period.
 

Aspirant847

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
461
Likes
603
Country flag
You

That is exactly what we thought after 1948, '62, '65, '67, '84, '86,'71, '99, 2008, 2013, 2016, 2019. Now, we're beginning to see war for what it is and has always been: brutal and sophisticated.


As to @srevster's original analogy about how women fought in medieval times, they fought in armies of thousands back then. For each female fighter, there were probably 100,000 male fighters. And dozens covering the woman's back. And they didn't carry the kind of battle load that is carried today. Women were figureheads. Meant to inspire and goad men. They were still weak links when it came to the actual slugging, but one weak link in a 100,000 is not even a dent.

Now, each section is required to be able to operate on its own. That means each soldier carries his 40kg battle load and needs to be in top condition. Read up on the assault of Tiger hill and imagine the fitness level required. And a woman is physically not as capable as a man with the same training and fitness regimen, and size. That makes one weak link out of 10. This is all not to mention that women need to sleep, piss and shit with men. Women have periods on top of this. And get treated by men in case of an injury. We can't have women and men in an infantry squad. We sure as hell can't have all women squads, army's capabilities would be hampered badly.

Let's stop this meaningless bullshit. Women are physiologically weaker than men and that is that. They.Are.Not.Suited.For.Frontline.Combat. Period.
Even studies prove it yet these dumb simps don't get it, feminism in men is truly a poison, especially in today's definition of feminism
 

Aspirant847

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
461
Likes
603
Country flag
What matters is how you raise your daughters. Lots of members have families of members have family members that clearly suppress the female.
That has a historical reason and it's being sorted out. we had a jump of 15 or something in average sex ratio for females
 

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
19,376
Likes
71,178
Country flag
India has always been accepting of women’s role in combat, especially in the south. Maybe IDF should study that first before commenting

this explains it

View attachment 80555
You are deliberately misinterpreting the nuance here, we are not talking about royalty here we are talking about foot soldiers (jawans), women in combat debate is about foot soldiers not royalty.

Kitturu chennamma, rudrama devi, Jhansi Lakshmi bai are all royalty, they didn’t grow up the ranks in their armies.
 

Aspirant847

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
461
Likes
603
Country flag
Why resort to ad hominems and insults bro? He is screwing himself over by ignoring logical arguments and flamebaiting the rest. Just don't respond to his insults.
I got carried away bro, deleted it right away though
 

srevster

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
266
Likes
205
Country flag
Look who decided to crawl back from his hidey-hole. Kyaa uncle ji, aunty ne mana kar dia kya??
@Heat argon is a basket case
Says the male feminazi.
If you consider allowing people to participate, nazism; you are a basket case
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Global Defence

Articles

Top