Too Cruel For Combat?

The thread on here about the hot-ass girl sergeant brought back a memory from high school. A social studies class I was enrolled in was for some reason engaged in a discussion about which gender is the kindest (most humane, most nurturing, however you want to put it). One kid raised his hand and brought up the example of a culture from world history where women were barred from serving as soldiers on the unusual ground that the fairer sex is simply too sadistic for the gentlemanly art of war. The (female) teacher acknowledged his contribution with a nod--then made haste to move the conversation in a different direction. Could any of our learned board-members tell me which society my classmate might have been talking about?

The thread on here about the hot-ass girl sergeant brought back a memory from high school. A social studies class I was enrolled in was for some reason engaged in a discussion about which gender is the kindest (most humane, most nurturing, however you want to put it). One kid raised his hand and brought up the example of a culture from world history where women were barred from serving as soldiers on the unusual ground that the fairer sex is simply too sadistic for the gentlemanly art of war. The (female) teacher acknowledged his contribution with a nod--then made haste to move the conversation in a different direction. Could any of our learned board-members tell me which society my classmate might have been talking about? Originally Posted by roaringfork

Golda Myer' and Margaret Thatcher sure didn't have any qualms about popping a cap on somebodies ass.

The thread on here about the hot-ass girl sergeant brought back a memory from high school. A social studies class I was enrolled in was for some reason engaged in a discussion about which gender is the kindest (most humane, most nurturing, however you want to put it). One kid raised his hand and brought up the example of a culture from world history where women were barred from serving as soldiers on the unusual ground that the fairer sex is simply too sadistic for the gentlemanly art of war. The (female) teacher acknowledged his contribution with a nod--then made haste to move the conversation in a different direction. Could any of our learned board-members tell me which society my classmate might have been talking about? Originally Posted by roaringfork

Troglodytes?

troglodytes???? Is that supposed to funny or a real guess? I think you had better do some research before you go making a fool of yourself... again.

We don't have to go to Golda Meir or Maggie Thatcher. We can go to our own Native Americans. Some of them actually lead troops into combat. Yep, they did some wet work. One woman named "Moving Robe" fought against Custer on that fateful day.

The Young British Soldier
by Rudyard Kipling

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!

Native American, e.g., Abenaki, Lakota, Wyandotte, Shawnee, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca, etc., women commonly mutilated bodies of dead and wounded enemy after battles. They were also known to assist with ritual torture of enemy, but they didn't do anything the men wouldn't have done in their absence. BTW, white autrocities were equally as bad.

The description of the burning of Colonel David Crawford by Wilshire Consul Butterfield relates the story told by Dr. John Knight who witnessed and reported the torturing of the former.
After describing the tying of Crawford with a rope “long enough for him to sit down or walk around the post once or twice and return the same way” and stating that Captain Pipe made a speech to the Indians to which “they all yelled a hideous and hearty assent” Butterfield thus describes what followed:
So soon as Captain Pipe had finished his speech to the assembled savages-men, squaws and children-the Indian men took up their guns and shot powder into Crawford’s naked body from his feet as far up as his neck. it was the opinion of Knight that not less than seventy loads were discharged upon him! They then crowded about him, and, to the best of Knight’s observation, cut off both his ears; for, when the throng dispersed, he saw the blood running from both sides of his head!

The fire was about six or seven yards from the post to which Crawford was tied. It was made of small hickory poles burnt quite through the middle, each end of the poles remaining about six feet in length. Three or four Indians by turns would take up, individually, one of these burning pieces of wood and apply it to his naked body, already burnt black with powder.

These tormentors presented themselves on every side of him, so that, whichever way he ran round the post, they met him with the burning faggots. Some of the squaws took broad boards, upon which they would carry a quantity of burning coals and hot embers, and throw on him; so that, in a short time, he had nothing but coals of fire and hot ashes to walk on!
In the midst of these extreme tortures, Crawford called to Girty and begged of him to shoot him; but the cruel renegade making no answer, he called again. Girty then, by way of derision, told Crawford he had no gun; at the same time, turning about to an Indian who was behind him, he laughed heartily and , by all his gestures, seemed delighted at the horrid scene!
Crawford, at this period of his suffering, besought the Almighty to have mercy on his soul, spoke very low, and bore his torments with the most manly fortitude. He continued, in all the extremities of pain, for an hour and three-quarters or two hours longer, when, at last, being unable to stand, he lay down upon his stomach. The savages then scalped him, and repeatedly threw the scalp into the face of Knight, telling him that was his “great captain.”

That this description of the tragedy is essentially true there is little room to doubt. It is an all-sufficient exhibition of the vengeance of the “noble red man” and the depravity of Simon Girty.

It is equally true that the murder of the Moravian converts, which Butterfield passes over rather lightly, presents a picture equally black and revolting.

In his The Histories, Herodotus wrote of female Scythian warriors and the legendary female society of warrior women known as Amazons.

What's your point, IBTrog?

After the Battle of the Little Bighorn, Native American women mutilated the bodies of the dead soldiers. The women did not mutilate LTC George A. Custer's body; they only cut off the tip of a finger. Since Custer had once promised never to fight the Cheyenne, the women purportedly jabbed sewing awls into his ears, so he could hear better in the next world.

Two Sioux "women then pushed the point of a sewing awl into each of his ears, into his head. This was done to improve his hearing, as it seemed he had not heard what our chiefs in the South had said when they had smoked the pipe with him. They told him then that if ever afterward he should break that peace promise and should fight the Cheyenne the Everywhere Spirit surely would cause him to be killed." Kate Bighead (Cheyenne) (p. 193, Cavalier in Buckskin (1988), Robert Utley).

Why don't we settle the issue. Let's get an army of one million feminists, equally outfit an army of one million liberal men, and see who wins the battle?? The we will know how to proceed with women in combat, or not..

Why don't we settle the issue. Let's get an army of one million feminists, equally outfit an army of one million liberal men, and see who wins the battle?? The we will know how to proceed with women in combat, or not.. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Stick to your AMP'S you do better there.

I thought a feminist could also be a man.

I thought a feminist could also be a man. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You are correct. They, however, shouldn't fight for the all-woman feminist army for this experiment. The feminist men would have to join the liberal men and the faggots on the other side.

Why don't we settle the issue. Let's get an army of one million feminists, equally outfit an army of one million liberal men, and see who wins the battle?? The we will know how to proceed with women in combat, or not.. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

The best men ("best" = physical strength, endurance, agility, dexterity, intelligence, emotional well being) will always prove superior to the best women in combat. But the best women will always be superior to the least competent men; especially now that Odumbo is openly letting the likes of "Chelsea" Manning to serve in the U.S. military.

One relevant question here would be that of which sex makes for the best berserker ("crazy motherfucker," ebonically speaking), and then, that of whether the berserk, crazy motherfucker state of mind is the most effective one for fighting--and for whom. I've seen women go berserk far more often than men, but it's the men who seem to make the news by actually posting a body count. Kind of like the well-known gender disparities in suicide attempts and rates of success.

The best men ("best" = physical strength, endurance, agility, dexterity, intelligence, emotional well being) will always prove superior to the best women in combat. But the best women will always be superior to the least competent men; especially now that Odumbo is openly letting the likes of "Chelsea" Manning to serve in the U.S. military. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Jesus. another brilliant quote from a flaming american retard!

Links, asshole!

(Like that'll EVER happen)

IBLyingandCrying!

One relevant question here would be that of which sex makes for the best berserker ("crazy motherfucker," ebonically speaking), and then, that of whether the berserk, crazy motherfucker state of mind is the most effective one for fighting--and for whom. I've seen women go berserk far more often than men, but it's the men who seem to make the news by actually posting a body count. Kind of like the well-known gender disparities in suicide attempts and rates of success. Originally Posted by roaringfork

beserker = a rampaging individual: no thought.

cruel = a 'thinking' sadist.