The fantasy of drafting women.

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced today that all combat roles will be opened to women, with no exceptions.  This has lead to a reply from many conservatives that women should have been careful what they wished for, as now there is no longer any reason to exclude them from the draft.

I pointed out the delusion of the idea in the comments at Instapundit.  The idea that women will ever be drafted into combat against their will is pure fantasy. All women who want to avoid being drafted need to do is fail the physical test. When they do, everyone will point out that women and men are different after all. Men in theory could also fail the physical tests, but in practice this will come with a stigma for men that women will never face.

Two other commenters at Instapundit described how this worked for men in the past.  Comanche Voter explained:

Dalrock points out that all the woman has to do is fail the physical test. I have a friend whose granddaughter was in basic training at Ft. Sill. Came the end of basic, she failed the physical test. And was promptly given an honorable discharge. And she had volunteered and wanted to be a soldier.

Back in my basic training days (1969–I want to be an airborn ranger and live a life of danger in Viet Nam and all that) if you flunked the physical, they put you in a special training company until you could pass the physical. For guys who were seriously out of shape that might take some time–and in some cases the only way out was to get a truly disabling injury.

These days with an all volunteer army (sorry libtards but the current military’s education achievements and intellectual level is above the national average) if you can’t cut the physical requirements/PT test at the end of basic, they simply discharge you. I suspect a lot of women are going to get discharged—unless they lower the standards.

MTByrne followed up with a more recent example of the mechanism used to ensure that men had strong incentives to not fail out:

When I went through Marine Corps Recruit Training in 1998, they weren’t discharging physically unfit recruits if they failed the PFT (which was about 8 weeks into boot camp.) Those recruits were recycled into a platoon just starting the training cycle. Same with the “unks” on the rifle range. It was a good incentive to make sure you passed or hey guess what, you get to do it all over again.

We may see selective service changed to include women as well as men. We may even see a situation where women are drafted alongside of men.  What we won’t see, ever, is a situation where women have high or even significant pressure applied to motivate them to pass physical requirements if they don’t personally want to be there.

What this is about, and what this always has been about, is envy of men.  It is about eradicating the idea of masculine virtues, and more importantly, erasing all sentiment of gratitude for what the men in the military do.  To a feminist feeling gratitude to men is unbearable.  This is why every unit, especially elite forces and combat infantry, must include women.  When Seal Team Six took out Bin Ladin feminists were forced to bear the unbearable;  public officials expressed gratitude for the “men who risked their lives to accomplish the mission”, and feminists couldn’t chime in with “and women too!”

Never again.

Since the goal is to erase the concept of masculine virtues, the new bargain the introduction of women into combat represents isn’t to have women join equally or even seriously in the fighting and dying.  The new bargain is that men will continue to be the ones who fight and die, but they must not feel a sense of masculine pride in either doing this or having this obligation.  Registering women for selective service alongside men serves this goal, as does drafting women and letting those who don’t want to be there fail out.  The imagined downside for feminists is only a fantasy.

This entry was posted in Envy, Fantasy vs Reality, Feminist Territory Marking, Instapundit, Manliness, Military, Miserliness, Social Justice Warriors, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

136 Responses to The fantasy of drafting women.

  1. Dave says:

    I think the feminists have bitten off more than they can chew this time. If they keep failing the physicals in order to get discharged, it will soon become apparent that women are inferior to men. Whereas, if they pass these tests, they are likely to be sent to combat, where their poor performances will become even more glaring. Either way, they will be forced to advertise their inferiority to men. They have backed themselves into that narrow passage between the rock and a hard place. Glorious feminist progress indeed.

  2. Pingback: The fantasy of drafting women. | Neoreactive

  3. greginaurora says:

    No one will stop them from being incorporated into combat units. No one will stop them from being deployed into combat. The end result of this is not going to be women refusing to fight. They’ve been taught their entire lives that women are equal-if-not-better-than men. the end result of this will be higher casualty rates, among both men AND women, as there will be fewer men in each unit capable of fighting and defending his buddy’s back. More men will be killed in combat because women are ineffective in combat.

    The end result of this will be making our combat units unable to win fights. The Feminists, of course, don’t care about that. There will be a few women who WILL be able to fight, and they’ll be lauded as OH MY GOD SHE’S A HERO. That’s their goal. It doesn’t matter how many men and women die, so long as they’re able to find those very few combat-effective women and declare them heroes. Because women can be heroes too.

  4. Military guys can correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the basic physical requirements for combat demand a woman be able to do at least 4 full pull ups?

    I’m 47. I did 12 this morning.

  5. greginaurora says:

    Whatever the current requirements are, they’ll change them to allow for women. They’re already operating under two different sets of requirements. The precedent has already been set: “It’s sexist to expect women to meet a standard that was established for men”. There will be women in combat, regardless of physical fitness, because that’s what the politicians want.

  6. ar10308 says:

    Rollo,

    Marines require pull-ups for PT.
    Army only requires pull-ups if you are Airborne or Ranger.

    If you are going regular Army Infantry, no pull-ups are required.

  7. Pingback: The fantasy of drafting women. | Manosphere.com

  8. enrique says:

    I’ve wondered the last nearly 30 years (since I went down to the post office for selective service, and then ultimately joined the following year), why men who are not inclined to even want to serve–which I respect, have not sued already. But now that THIS has passed, there is absolutely no reason why men would be held to a different standard. Women already should have been draftable for any position they (at the time) could fill…and now with this, it should have been part of the Pentagon (or Congress) decision.

    I could JUST SEE if someone tried to get this passed or via Exec Order…white knights, on COMMAND (as always)would come out to defend the feminist position–no matter how non-nonsensical. (perhaps we’d get the, “Ya, but those women who are signing up for ranger school WANT to be there…these OTHER women, want to be moms…how can we deny them that…it’s not like we are talking about FATHERS here…that’s different, they are disposable”)

  9. Ras al Ghul says:

    All they have to do is what theyve always done: get pregnant. Its done to avoid deployment now so nothing new.

    Since there is a good probability that the military is going to be used on the citizens of the u.s. in the near to middle future this is a good thing.

    As for this somehow becoming a problem for feminists it never will

    Lots of women failing the physical = structural sexism.

  10. Dalrock says:

    @Ras al Ghul

    As for this somehow becoming a problem for feminists it never will

    Lots of women failing the physical = structural sexism.

    Exactly. At other times the retort will be that men fail out too. At this point everyone will suddenly remember that women are different than men, so of course more of them fail out.

    These arguments will alternate without any sense of irony, just like the doublethink on child support (everyone knows we need child support because fathers wont commit, and the threat to men to keep their wives happy because everyone knows women are the ones who leave).

  11. Stacy0311 says:

    When combat jobs were closed to women they weren’t required to register with Selective Service. Now that’s changed they should be required to register. Registration is a requirement for receiving certain federal benefits such as financial aid for college. Title IX. Equality’s a bitch.

  12. What about Fathers with daughters? You can only draft my daughter over my dead body.

  13. Neguy says:

    From what I’ve seen, female entry into a male space reduces its prestige and leads to male abandonment. It will be interesting to see what happens to male recruitment over time.

  14. Chris says:

    Women should’ve been automatically “draftable” at the age of 18 for quite some time now. And if they don’t serve in some capacity, then they get thrown in jail. That simple.

  15. feeriker says:

    Since there is a good probability that the military is going to be used on the citizens of the u.s. in the near to middle future this is a good thing.

    Yup. That and global inperial adventures having f***-all to do with either legitimate national defense or protecting the rights and property of the American citizen.

    At my farewell gathering when I left active duty, I said something to the effect of “you slobs who think this is all about honor, courage, patriotism, and defending the nation are just fooling yourselves, although I don’t think any of you are really that f***ing stupid. You know damned good and well that you’re really all just mercenaries, in it for either the pay, the bennies, or the ego. You don’t seriously think you can successfully win a fight against someone who can fight back, do you?”

    Of course that didn’t go over well, but I knew I was right. Now there’s not only no doubt in my mind that I was right, but with this latest move in capital stupidity (which was of course perfectly predictable) it’s been irrefutably proven.

    Does anybody else want to see our feminized joke of an army go up against Russia’s Spetsnaz? I’d pay for the privilege of watching that event.

  16. Gunner Q says:

    “The idea that women will ever be drafted into combat against their will is pure fantasy.”

    Are you sure? Mandatory military service is an excellent indoctrination tool. Not all women go to college, you know.

    You don’t think the government would use selective Selective Service-based drafting to remove young homeschooling mothers from their kids..?

    In other news, there are some great comments in that link. My favorite:
    ““It’s about damn time,” [Rep. Martha McSally (R.-Ariz.)] said in the statement. “Women have been fighting and dying for our country since its earliest wars.”

    In retaliation to Carter’s announcement, the cuckservatives of Congress threaten to streamline the process:

    “Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) and Rep. Mac Thornberry (R.-Texas), chairmen of the Senate and House armed services committees, said in a statement released jointly on Thursday that they intend to “carefully and thoroughly review all relevant documentation related to today’s decision… We expect the Department to send over its implementation plans as quickly as possible to ensure our Committees have all the information necessary to conduct proper and rigorous oversight.”

    enrique @ 6:10 pm:
    “I’ve wondered the last nearly 30 years… why men who are not inclined to even want to serve–which I respect, have not sued already.”

    Because winning that lawsuit would have forced the government to conscript women into the military. No way the government would have given up the power to raise an army instead.

  17. 2084GO says:

    “Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced today that all combat roles will be opened to women, with no exceptions. ”

    So few women show interest in military service that it will make no difference.

    “All women who want to avoid being drafted need to do is fail the physical test. When they do, everyone will point out that women and men are different after all. Men in theory could also fail the physical tests, but in practice this will come with a stigma for men that women will never face”

    Stigma for men? Ha! Like millennials give two flying fcuks. MGTOW!

  18. JDG says:

    Lots of women failing the physical = structural sexism.

    Well that’s because of Patriarchy and sammiches. We need more changes that favor women because women are strong and independent and can do anything men can do.

  19. greyghost says:

    The social logistics are going to be interesting. Just the female hygiene aspects from tampons and shitting and pissing in the field. I have read stories of tankers in the second world using a bucket as a bathroom inside the tank. None of this this should be an issue but with women at all levels of society claiming some kind of sexual victimhood this is going to be a real hassle. Over all This is good news Ras al Ghul has it right with the military being used on us it is a good thing to have as many, gays ,women ,lesbians, and trannies, along with as much racial diversity competing and blaming for victim status as possible.
    Terrence Popp is here to show what it looks like.

  20. retrophoebia says:

    I’m not entirely sold that the PT-failure is a dummy-proof method for getting out of a draft conscript situation. Presumably, if we’re drafting people, we have a war to fight, and I’m hard-pressed to believe that even the Army would allow such an egregious loophole. Anyone know what happened during Vietnam? People didn’t just show up and fail their tests to get out of Ia Drang, I assume.

  21. LeeLee says:

    That’s an interesting way of looking at it. It does take away from men and women at the same time. It takes the honor from men and masculinity as you’ve pointed out, and it also defeminizes the female population as a whole by placing on them the psychic burden of having been assigned the male role of defender and protector. That’s going to have the affect of changing female identity period, even if there’s never an actual draft.

  22. MarcusD says:

    Another great comment from the link:

    New Department of the Army now requires all commanders to provide time and private location for breastfeeding mothers to express milk – even when in the field.

  23. greyghost says:

    JDG
    That is an old school picture. Check out the chrome bumpers in the background and the old school woodland cammies.

  24. JDG says:

    GG – Yep! Let me update that. Here we go:

  25. JDG says:

    Now we’re talking:

  26. JDG says:

    Isn’t it nice knowing that we have this strong masculine women protecting us?

  27. JDG says:

    this = these
    lack of sleep yet again.

  28. greyghost says:

    JDG
    Those look like proper Christian wives there. All submissive and committed to wedding vows. I see a couple fine cooks in there too.

  29. JDG says:

    GG – I was going to say that if women are joining the military looking for gratitude they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble and just made me a sammich, but I just couldn’t find the right words.

  30. JDG says:

    Somehow I’m not impressed with the whole “look like a man” thing that women have going on these days. Neither am I impressed when they boast about their “accomplishments” that in a sane society would be something a man would do. Neither am I interested in how much education indoctrination they have, or money they make. All are red flags and bad news in my book.

  31. RobJ says:

    What I want to know is, will feminists discover new reasons to complain about everything, or will they finally be haaaaaappy?

  32. ray says:

    “What this is about, and what this always has been about, is envy of men. It is about eradicating the idea of masculine virtues, and more importantly, erasing all sentiment of gratitude for what the men in the military do.”

    Exactly. The resentment of the Privileged that already conquered the other elements of American culture. Females coddled and privileged by parents, government, churches, etc. Millions of females who now — seeing themselves as superior to base, oppressor man-things — can only resent whatever sacrifices males make. To acknowledge male virtue or generosity is to cede power to the Other, and modern females, feminist or otherwise, rarely do that. They are under God’s curse of heightened rebelliousness.

    Ultimately, the masculine virtues are eradicated not merely to fatten the purses and empower the delusions of various favored groups, but in order to destroy fatherhood, sonship, and our connection to Father and Son in heaven.

    BTW speaking of not-heaven, when I was in Basic, during latter years of Vietnam, if you washed-out you got a General or Dishonorable. That was for those who just broke down in the chow line or whatever. Started shaking and such. The TIs took them away and the Flight never saw them again. Every few days the TIs would tell us stuff like “We will keep you here just as long as it takes. Just as long as we want to.” lol

    They had ‘re-training’ flights for those failing the physical requirements or etc. I think they probably sent some guys back to Day One in new Flights, too. Either way, no special rules for princesses.

  33. feeriker says:

    New Department of the Army now requires all commanders to provide time and private location for breastfeeding mothers to express milk – even when in the field.

    I can just picture it now.

    The scene: a bombed out suburb of Aleppo, Syria, the middle of a ISIS stronghold. PFC Mindy Cupcakes, dressed in full combat gear with a nine-month-old son suckling at a breast exposed through a hole in her flak vest – which has been extended to accommodate the bulge in her belly that is another “bun in the oven,” is pinned down with the rest of her platoon against an ISIS machinegun nest, which is raking the American platoon with heavy fire.

    A barrage from an AK-47 rakes the pile of debris behind which PFC Mindy and her infantry platoon are positioned, preparing to storm the ISIS machinegun nest. Annoyed, Mindy screams “Hey, Abdul, knock it the f*** off! Can’t you see I’m breastfeeding my kid?”

    Before the last letter of “kid” leaves her mouth, PFC Cupcakes is torn in half by a shell, along with her nursing son.

    The headlines the next day: “Male Soldiers Fail to Protect Nursing Mom Comrade and Child From Lethal Enemy Fire; Dereliction of Duty Charges to be Filed Against Surviving Platoon Members”

  34. Jim says:

    “From what I’ve seen, female entry into a male space reduces its prestige and leads to male abandonment. It will be interesting to see what happens to male recruitment over time.”

    Fine by me. Just make sure the women are in all female units so the pathetic white knights won’t kill themselves trying to protect the little ladies during battle. They can come home psychologically scared for life. They can come home without limbs or a burned face or even brain damage. Who cares? About time they earned the “equality” for once that has just been handed to them for free.

  35. 2084GO says:

    “The scene: a bombed out suburb of Aleppo, Syria, the middle of a ISIS stronghold. PFC Mindy Cupcakes, dressed in full combat gear with a nine-month-old son suckling at a breast exposed through a hole in her flak vest”

    Nothing new. I googled “women warriors throughout history” and there were quite a few. Appearently India has erected statues of this woman all across the country, with her toddler son strapped to her back.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rani_of_Jhansi

  36. Tom C says:

    They are going to need some new awards and decorations. Obviously the “Mother’s Cross” from Germany and France (given to mothers for conceiving and raising certain numbers of children) is too misogynistic. I was thinking more along the lines of:

    Women’s Outstanding Achievement Medal – for multiple consecutive pull-ups
    Women’s Armor Corps Duty Medal – for using the bucket latrine in a tank
    Women’s Readiness Medal – for expressing milk in the field
    Women’s Recognition Ribbon – for having a v*****
    Women’s Overseas Short Term Service Ribbon – for having an Oops! Preggers!

  37. infowarrior1 says:

    @Jim

    The YPG in Syria(Kurdish leftists) are already putting women into combat on the frontlines.

  38. Hoots says:

    DoD is just applying forward thinking for the day when the military will be turned on uppity US citizens. What sort of soldier is more likely to obey an order to fire live ammo at civilians, a man with a wife and kids at home, or a childless lesbian trying to prove her “equality” to the society she resents?

  39. 2084GO says:

    “When combat jobs were closed to women they weren’t required to register with Selective Service. Now that’s changed they should be required to register. Registration is a requirement for receiving certain federal benefits such as financial aid for college.”

    In which country is draft registration required to get financial aid?

  40. JDG says:

    New Department of the Army now requires all commanders to provide time and private location for breastfeeding mothers to express milk

    Private locations? These girls didn’t need private locations.

    Perhaps they could designate a special breast feeding unit just behind the front lines:

  41. Axismundi says:

    Starship Troopers, anyone?

  42. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock

    As Ras al Ghul pointed out, they’ll chalk it up to sexism when too many women drop out and create spots specifically for them with separate standards, saying it’s needed to combat male privilege. I’ll bet that many of the woman will have “front line” roles in title only but in reality given noncombat duties because the male soldiers will protest how it endangers them. The thing is, women passing the fitness test is a side issue for feminists; whether they meet the same standards or not is a moot point. The goal isn’t to make the military more balanced in terms of gender. It isn’t to see women pass the same fitness tests as men. Their objective is to make sure there are no male-exclusive groups, areas, or institutions. It’s to have at least one woman there, regardless of how she gets there or stays there. All means to the end, including compromises that indicate women’s “inferiority” to men physically, are fine as long as the end result is achieved.

  43. “To a feminist feeling gratitude to men is unbearable.”

    And other women who feel gratitude for men must be corrected.
    This is the reaction I get from other women sometimes when I try to express praise of my husband in public.

  44. infowarrior1 says:

    @Axismundi

    The movie was a mockery of the book which of course featured an all-male military. Plus the movie is great but bullshit in regards to the sexes.

  45. They Call Me Tom says:

    The USA. Not just financial aid, but to simply take out a loan you have to register.

  46. Axismundi says:

    I’m of the belief that the sexes are actually changing due to, probably, chemicals in the food and water supply.

    So you all may be in for a bit of surprise. Military culture is only going to grow. Women are going to be in it and selected for it, they will be warriors, and they will have super-warrior children.

    Starship Troopers for anyone!

  47. Pingback: The fantasy of drafting women. | Reaction Times

  48. JF says:

    Come on, man. Although I would totally expect it of most of the commenters here, I really thought ol’ Dal was less automatically gullible than this. You really believe “Seal Team Six took out Bin Laden”?
    You believe everything you see on the Prince of the Air(waves) major corporation media conglomerates? Really?
    Hey, but even if our media lies, well at least our government doesn’t lie.
    Oh. Wait.
    Oh, buy hey, even if our media and our government doesn’t lie, at least our military leaders don’t lie.
    Oh. Wait.
    Nevermind.

  49. JF says:

    Bin Laden died of kidney failure in 2001. Stop glomming on to whatever the mainstream corporate lying media spoonfeeds you for “news”.
    And Bin Laden was CIA.
    And Bin Laden was a good buddy of GW “Skull and Bones Luciferian Secret Society” Bush, that’s why Bush Jr. made sure to airlift Bin Laden’s family out of the U.S. after 9/11, during the period when no planes were even supposed to be flying.
    Wake up, you people. You’ve been propagandized to believe that you can’t be propagandized.
    Well, so were the Germans, circa 1933.
    Reichstag Fire = 911.
    Patriot Act = Enabling Acts.
    Etc.
    Etc.

  50. MarcusD says:

    so the pathetic white knights won’t kill themselves trying to protect the little ladies during battle

    I fail to see the issue with them doing that.

  51. Robin Munn says:

    JF –

    Got any evidence for those assertions of yours? E.g., that Bush Jr. airlifted bin Laden’s family out of the US during the period when no planes were even supposed to be flying? (Which is even MORE unbelievable than that bin Laden died of kidney failure in 2001, when YEARS after that point he was still appearing in videos mentioning current events…)

    Nope, didn’t think so.

    You have ONE good point: that you shouldn’t believe everything you hear in the media. But it’s a LONG way from there to “EVERYTHING about 9/11 reported by multiple sources, who vehemently disagree with each other on just about every other point, is completely falsified.” Those multiple sources, by the way, include MANY milbloggers with no connection to media corporations. There’s such a think as intelligent skepticism, but there’s also such a thing as blinding yourself to the truth, and buying into theories with NO good evidence for them.

  52. 2084GO says:

    OK Munn but Sandy Hook was a hoax. That one was obvious.

  53. @Rob; “What I want to know is, will feminists discover new reasons to complain about everything, or will they finally be haaaaaappy?”

    Your manosphere card is revoked. Come on, it is not even feminists. Women are never happy and will always discover new things to complain about. Feminists are the same except they screech instead of bitch and whine.

  54. @JF: Your sanity card is revoked. Knock off the Truther bullshit. Let me guess. The towers fell in an obvious controlled demolition with charges wrapped around the supporting pylons by Mossod Jewish agent provecuetors working with the CIA and Bin Laden to justify the attack on Afghanistan in order to seize the trillions of dollars in rare Earth metals in the Hindu-Kush mountains.

    Right, and Nibaru is the death star that approaches Earth ever few million years and ancient aliens visited Egypt, and aliens landed at Roswell.

  55. But let’s not confuse fact and fiction:

    “Bush Jr. airlifted bin Laden’s family out of the US during the period ”

    This is well known. It is a HUGE family with hundreds of people doing business around the world. The Royal Family had been trying to kill OBL for almost 10 years by then and asked Bush to fly out the family in the U.S. They did and the Saudis were our close allies until you know who took over.

    Hey, if you want to spew conspiracy, why not investigate the Obama is a Muslim theory? Must be of the Shia persuasion…Hey! It is more plausible than Nibaru.

  56. Panzer101 says:

    I was in the Marines from 2004-2015 (early this year I got out). @Dave’s comment, men in the military already know how useless women are. They get pregnant and become nondeployable, they fall out of runs, they get emotional and cry over silly workplace drama that they create, they claim their menstruation will prevent them from going on a field exercise (this actually happened in my presence a few years ago to another platoon sergeant in my company), they get injured from routine PT at an astronomic rate and have more light/limited duty time than men, they become barracks whores and spread STDs around…I could go on forever.

    My point is that the evidence is already there that women hurt the military, and we have now responded by handing over more duties to them with zero negative consequences (for the women, not the military). As a POG in the Marines, the grunts or other combat arms like armor or artillery were seen as the last bastion of the “real” Marine Corps, mainly because they had no women and so could afford to be much less PC than we had to be. Make no mistake, PC is not simply a fear that telling a sexist joke will land you in trouble, but the entire way the unit goes about their business from sunup to sundown.

    This decision effectively ends the U.S. Marine Corps as we know it. God help us.

  57. jg says:

    @Darlock
    Feminists did get to tag on to the Bin Laden kill via the chick they said orchestrated the whole thing.

  58. Panzer101 says:

    @JF You need to take off your tinfoil hat with that 9/11 truther BS. You’re a sick twisted f*** if you actually believe all that BS. You are also no doubt a cowardly, America-hating lunatic who finds refuge in your pathetic lies to cover up the fact that you are a failure in every aspect of your life. Probably still live in Mom’s basement playing WoW all day. Degenerate scum.

    How many other 9/11 truther f***tards are in this community?

  59. embracingreality says:

    “the goal is to erase the concept of masculine virtues” Then the goal men need to adapt is to erase the concept of masculine generosity to women, it was never appreciated anyway.

  60. Frost says:

    Panzer101
    Longtime reader of Dalrock. Never commented. But, wow, What a little temper tamptrum you threw there big guy. Bush was close to the Bin Laden family and Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Neither did Libya or Syria. It’s not manly to kill innocents and its not cowardly to seek the truth.
    Also, I don’t live with my mom and dad, but did until I was 22 to save money. So what? It helped. I have no debt and live on my own now. There is a lot of hatred in your heart to just go off on someone for having an opinion that our Government resembles a fascist police state with acts of Congress that circumvent the constitution. Because that’s exactly what we have.

    No the towers weren’t destroyed in a controlled demolition, but the terrorists did come from Saudi Arabia, and they are the worst human rights abusers in the region, and we have no beef with them? Give me a break.

    The government sees white Americans as the enemy even though we are the most productive and least criminal group of Americans in the nation.

    The world is hard, and attacking another commentator personally because he has the COURAGE to point out the corrupt nature of our government and their anti-American attitudes and suspicious actions with regards to a brutally oppressive state like Saudi Arabia, which, continue today under Obama where we “accidentially” drop weapons too ISIS and refuse to bomb them based on “environmental” concerns (this is true, I’m not making this up) and where most Iraqi’s believe we are helping the genocidal ISIS freak show, simply demonstrate to me, the average, informed, and discerning reader that it is YOU, PANZER101, that has serious mental deficiencies and some sort of anger complex against those whose balls are still descended and able to call out our political class for the traitorous assholes they are who are contemptuous of America and want to see it destroyed.

    The whole Bin Laden story is so weird who knows what the truth is, but the fact is the government is taking our liberties while opening the gates to invaders who hate the native population and our religion. That’s just a fact. So, go on tough guy, be mad at “conspiracy theorists” who oppose the traitors while your government calls for your disarmament at the same time letting in hundreds of thousands of radical Jihadis.

  61. It seems to me that the draft is redundant given the automation of the weaponry today. Smart bombs and drones. I can not see an event when the inactive draft will ever be activated.

  62. Cane Caldo says:

    From the article:

    “As Commander in Chief, I know that this change, like others before it, will again make our military even stronger. Our armed forces will draw on an even wider pool of talent,” Obama said. “Women who can meet the high standards required will have new opportunities to serve. I know that, under the leadership of Secretary Carter and Chairman Dunford, our men and women in uniform will implement this transition — as they have others — in a responsible manner that maintains military readiness and the unparalleled professionalism and strength of our armed forces.”

    Apparently, the pool wasn’t wide enough, e.g., the men weren’t getting the job done.

    Carter said the important factor in him opening all jobs to women was to give the military access to every American who can add strength to it. Studies carried out by the services since 2013 found that some of the standards the military previously used to determine whether a service member was fit for a job were outdated or didn’t reflect the actual tasks required in combat, he said.

    LOL!

  63. BradA says:

    The rot is very deep on this one. We had our roof recently relaid and the guy in charge of the company doing it is a relatively young (late 30s I would guess) disabled vet. He said he had no trouble with women in combat (nor the fire department for that matter). He seemed to be blind to the physical differences and I believe he claimed women had made it into many places (rangers?) already. I am mixing this in my head now with my son who is good at times and wacky at others. (He is also a disabled very, but got injured in basic training, not combat.)

    The fact the roof company owner was misled makes me quite concerned that even many former military people are quite confused on this issue.

  64. ray says:

    “The towers fell in an obvious controlled demolition with charges wrapped around the supporting pylons by Mossod Jewish agent provecuetors working with the CIA and Bin Laden to justify the attack on Afghanistan in order to seize the trillions of dollars in rare Earth metals in the Hindu-Kush mountains. Right, and Nibaru is the death star that approaches Earth ever few million years and ancient aliens visited Egypt, and aliens landed at Roswell.”

    I love the Nibiru stuff too. Zap! Zam!

    Ancient aliens however did visit Egypt i.e., were there waiting for the dynasties. The Bible discusses the ‘celestial’ influences upon nations, past and present. It was the Egyptians who were visiting.

    Pls. keep us up-to-date on Nibiru. Thanks.

  65. There is a bright side to having women drafted. We can use the draft as a means to get rid of the following:

    1)The fuglies
    2) the ones that have a propensity to be future cat ladies
    3) the ones that get a degree in women’s victim studies
    4) the psychos
    5) the full blown whackazoids
    6) the ones that lie about being rape
    7) those whose self-esteem is through the roof
    8) the ones that have 8 children by 7 different men
    9) those that have BPD, NPD, APD, etc.
    10) those that abuse their children
    11) the 900 lb landwhale

    Listen, if we market this jussssst right and encourage the right ones to go on the front line and let war remove these fine women from our ranks, we can have a much better society. So those of you out there that have marketing and graphic design skills, here’s your chance to put your skills to use and help clean up society.

  66. MarcusD says:

    Whenever I read bin Laden’s name, I always think of this image (something about hindsight):

  67. MV says:

    My two cents from Republic of Slovenia in (what’s left of) European Union

    Two month’s ago migrant crisis happened and cca. 10.000 middle-eastern men crossed the southern border every day, hellbent on reaching German welfare offices. Slovenian govt send half of its police and military forces to process them peacefully, including policewomen and few (token) soldierettes. Refujihadis and gimmegrants were very pleased to see them and went out of their way to taunt them with their alpha male posturing. To prevent incidents, police and army quickly and quietly pulled all their womenfolk back from the frontline. Strangely enough, when this became a public knowlege (in a small country news spread in spite of media blackout), local academic feminist garrison didn’t utter a squeak in protest.

  68. Spacetraveller says:

    @ Seriouslyserving,

    “And other women who feel gratitude for men must be corrected.
    This is the reaction I get from other women sometimes when I try to express praise of my husband in public.”

    Hahahaha, Oh yes, I concur, Seriouslyserving!
    But I have turned this once-painful observation into a guilty pleasure of mine:
    I go out of my way to taunt them with my ‘husband praise’ and watch them seethe.

    But, I notice all is not lost. I always get someone (usually an older woman) who encourages me in my ‘husband praise’ and joins in with me, adding her own ‘husband praise’ into the mix, even if her husband has been dead for years.

    Once, one of these ladies even fed back to my husband. I only found out when he said to me, ‘So you’ve been saying things about me all over town’, but with a smile.

    Sometimes, ‘gossips’ (the good kind, of course) are a godsend!

  69. john03063 says:

    I wonder how feminists (and all the mangina politicians) are going to react once the first female combat soldier comes home after being raped in captivity. It’s probably okay if they get killed, because KIA makes you a hero. But rape? Feminists are always telling us that rape recipients are victims. How can you be a victim and a hero in battle?

    So DOD will now send women into direct conflict in places like Syria and Iraq? Places where men rape and kill their own women on a regular basis? Places where rape is regularly used as a weapon of war? Not likely. Lots of problems arise once we have our first female soldier rape “victim”.

    I foresee a policy that directs women into combat roles – but not in that country, or not in that region. Or maybe women’s “combat roles” will be concentrated behind the front lines, out of harm’s way. Men will still be doing the real work, but then women can take credit for the successes in the battlefield too. Credit with no real responsibility. A feminist’s panacea ….

  70. Not a grunt says:

    Wait. I thought the whole purpose of feminism, according to Rush, was to give access to mainstream society (and high quality Alpha C**k) to ugly women.

    Therefore, this whole push is so that those man-jawed broads can get deployed with and work around teh sexy. I expect it also allows some lesbians to Alpha-Up.

    What they need is a ‘combat infantry’ MOS with lower physical requirements for them to drift into. The struture of the MOS should allow for deployments with the grunts and infantry cache…without any of the actual risk.. Then add this to the TOE. It should be mostly assigned to hang out with the staff officers; like ‘personal protection specialist; perhaps ‘counter sniper’.

  71. Roger says:

    This decision is wrong-headed on many fronts. Of course, there is the question of different standards (as Terrence Popp’s youtube clip convincingly argues, thank you Greyghost), but I can’t help wondering about the workability of women in combat units even when they do pass the standards. For better or worse, when a man sees a woman in distress, his gut-level reaction is to help her, even if it means putting himself in harm’s way. This gut-level reaction is reinforced culturally; if a man turns his back on a woman in distress, he knows he’ll be shamed–and maybe shunned–by society. If a woman sees a man in distress, she MIGHT help him if it’s no inconvenience, but she neither feels a gut-level obligation to do so, nor would she face shaming if she did not. She would only need to say “I was afraid,” and all would be forgiven. Men have ALWAYS played the protective role. If a woman in a combat unit is, say, captured or in danger, you’ll see the men in her unit taking all kinds of unwise and strategically foolish measures to save her, measures they would probably calculate as being counter-productive if a male comrade were in the same situation. Societies have always reacted to the sacrifice of their males on the battlefield with memorials and–we hope–some gratitude, but they will react to the sacrifice of their females with doubled horror, and will eventually seek to limit that, in spite of the howls of feminists. Unfair, but that’s the way it has always been.

  72. enrique says:

    I imagine, as with everything else, women will find a loophole, en mass (if things get serious), whether pregnancy, or suddenly appearing “new” studies showing that women who MIGHT want to get pregnant in the future may suffer some type of irreversible stress…I can see the WaPo article already: “Studies cast doubt on forcing future moms into combat”.

    What always remains when women “break into” such areas, as we’ve seen with female “journalists” in mens’ locker rooms (but not the reverse), they get to craft what winning looks like, even if it is not actually equal treatment. Just think of your average TradCons and Fembullies wining about female genital mutilation–who happily mutilate their sons’ at birth. Cognitive/dissonance is constantly present.

  73. theasdgamer says:

    “What this is about, and what this always has been about, is envy of men. It is about eradicating the idea of masculine virtues, and more importantly, erasing all sentiment of gratitude for what the men in the military do.”

    Even more, the purpose is to reduce the status of men relative to women. Equality. It increases the number of betas and reduces the number of alphas. It fits in with a policy of anti-natalism along with the current strategy to increase the number of fatties.

  74. Spacetraveller says:

    @ Enrique,

    “I imagine, as with everything else, women will find a loophole, en mass (if things get serious), whether pregnancy, or suddenly appearing “new” studies showing that women who MIGHT want to get pregnant in the future may suffer some type of irreversible stress…”

    Good point!

    Even in a normal-ish job, there is always the risk that the stress involved may delay pregnancy, even if the woman is otherwise fertile and healthy and is actively trying to get pregnant.

    A friend of mine was telling me the other day that it took her years to realise that her very stressful investment banking job in Zürich was what was making her ‘infertile’ (she is a highly-strung personality type anyway, I hasten to add!) so she did a little experiment…she quit her job.
    The next month..she was pregnant!
    Now her child is 2, she is thinking of going back…

    The physical stress of being in combat would of course have the same effect on a woman who may wish to have children in the near or far future. With this in mind, I would conclude that this is therefore not a good idea.

    Nothing wrong with a woman in the military. But the combat roles? Why not leave it to men who are anyway more physically suited to it?

    It’s like the Catholic Church – women have so many roles within it. They don’t need to become priests as well!

    Somewhat related – for reasons that remain unexplained to me, I have always liked the following video:

    British Pop star Jamelia does look believable as a military woman in this video, I have to say (she looks physically very fit). I showed this video to a military friend of mine (male, American), and he said, ‘but they don’t look like this where I am!’, so I guess this video does not reflect reality, lol.

  75. enrique says:

    Maybe women in actual combat, or if captures, could be too easily seduced by the enemy, if they can’t handle the “advances” of 16 and 17 year olds:

    http://news.yahoo.com/judge-tosses-lawsuit-against-school-teacher-sex-case-192807213.html

    “At her sentencing, she said she was emotionally damaged and made mistakes by giving into her teenage students’ advances.”

  76. Pinelero says:

    I was in the military in a combat unit, and it was a great time. If a woman had been alongside me, then I wouldn’t unduly risk my life for hers, after all chivalry is dead.

    The thing with women will be a new type or female variant of Catch-22.
    Catch 22; Any sane woman or man doesn’t want to fight, so not wanting to fight means that you are sane. Therefore you stay on the battlefield.

    This is a stretch, but a possibility in a protracted conflict.
    New 22; Pregnancy would be a legitimate impairment excuse (2-3 trimester) to leave the battlefield (female). As a female would have a legit excuse to leave the battlefield, any female that is not pregnant or trying to get pregnant must be insane, because sane women will try to avoid combat. So the pregnant leave and the non-pregnant are viewed with suspicion of insanity and removal from the battlefield. If females are in sex-segregated units, then there would be “no” chance of pregnancy, so no Catch-22.

  77. Locard says:

    Oh come on, if ISIS or whomever takes a woman hostage we always can deploy the Unit. Heroes like this warrior Catherine Lhamon, who fights against prohibiting a man with a penis walking around a girls locker room, and in response to the state saying he needs a privacy curtain,, “That’s a mischaracterization,” Education Department Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon told The Associated Press on Thursday. Lhamon will parachute in with a k-bar in her teeth and achieve social justice.

  78. cynthia says:

    @enrique

    Anecdotally, I’ve heard it said that downrange pregnancies were so common for a while that it resulted in around 10% of deployed women coming home early. That’s quite the burden on any unit, much less a combat unit. It’s certainly a tactic used by some. The only fix for it is either mandatory court martials of women who conceive downrange (you aren’t supposed to be having sex under General Order 1) or mandatory birth control, preferably administered at the med clinic by a doctor.

    In general, I always notice that it’s the feminists who have never served who are demanding these things. The vast majority of women in the military have signed up with the understanding that they won’t be allowed in combat, and they’re at peace with it. I knew I probably wasn’t going to be allowed to fly the airframe I really wanted, and my second choice, counter-intel, can’t use women in the part of the world where we’re currently operating. I held a support position instead, and I’m grateful that I could at least do that.

    Having women in the military requires a double standard, in terms of physical fitness. Keeping us out of combat jobs used to be the way that balanced. Staying out of combat is what allowed us to serve at all. But feminists care nothing for balance; they’re consumed by hatred, both for men and for the women who succeed without their help, and this is their way of seizing control of a situation where they are not wanted. They’ve never stopped to consider that generations of men who have died for our country are worthy of respect, much less deserving of it.

  79. mark in orlando says:

    The 8th Plank of the Communist Manifesto:
    Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

    President Obama: We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

  80. Locard says:

    Being a former infantryman, my first experience with female soldiers was at jump school. First issue was one wouldn’t jump out of the 30 foot tower and giggled and laughed. The black hat didn’t think it was funny, not sure what happened to him. The next was on our first jump when a female couldn’t get far enough away from the aircraft on exiting (or maybe a last minute change of heart)and caught her helmet on the door frame. Said helmet was removed, despite it being reefed down with a four point harness, along with a chunk of her neck.

  81. 2084GO says:

    “Hey, if you want to spew conspiracy, why not investigate the Obama is a Muslim theory? ”

    As an American who holds religious liberty as a high value I don’t care what religion a politician chooses or if he or she chooses none at all. What would be worrying is if he or she hid it. So are you saying he’s a Muslim pretending to be what, exactly? Secular? Christian? He openly eats pork and drinks alcohol so that alone disqualifies him from being any sort of serious, practicing Muslim, regardless.

  82. feeriker says:

    I wonder how feminists (and all the mangina politicians) are going to react once the first female combat soldier comes home after being raped in captivity.

    There won’t be any reaction because either 1) she’ll simply be murdered after being gang raped in captivity, or 2) in the unlikely event that she survives captivity and makes it back home, the USG will intimidate her into never uttering a word publically about her ordeal.

    Much as it sickens me to say this, if such a hideous thing has to happen to any female soldier, let it be the daughter of some loudmouthed, warmongering evangelical churchian who worships all things military and who is no doubt praising to the heavens this latest decision to push women into all combat roles.

  83. 2084GO says:

    ” What would be worrying is if he or she hid it”

    I meant lied about it. I’m ok with don’t ask don’t tell, since religion is a highly personal thing anyway.

  84. 2084GO says:

    “I wonder how feminists (and all the mangina politicians) are going to react once the first female combat soldier comes home after being raped in captivity.”

    Didn’t that already happen some years back and they totally covered it up?

  85. Dalrock says:

    @retrophoebia

    I’m not entirely sold that the PT-failure is a dummy-proof method for getting out of a draft conscript situation. Presumably, if we’re drafting people, we have a war to fight, and I’m hard-pressed to believe that even the Army would allow such an egregious loophole. Anyone know what happened during Vietnam? People didn’t just show up and fail their tests to get out of Ia Drang, I assume.

    You are overlooking the fact that they aren’t doing this because it actually improves the military to put women in combat. That is just the lie they have to tell for the conservatives to sign on and to keep the feminists happy. We have no more need for women in combat than we need trannies, yet they opened the military to transgendered as well under the same claim. If we are in a war where there is a real need, they will force men to repeat until they pass (just as the commenters I quoted explained). Then they will fail out the women, because everyone knows only a small percentage of women can meet the standard. Feminists, conservatives, and the military will be in violent agreement here.

  86. 2084GO says:

    “We have no more need for women in combat than we need trannies, yet they opened the military to transgendered as well under the same claim. ”

    So would the transmen or the transwomen be required to register for SS in order to get student loans or college financial aid? Both will claim its an injustice either way and maybe that will get rid of that horrible rule once and or all.

  87. Ras al Ghul says:

    Regarding the draft, it bears pointing out that its a nonstarter.

    They might require women to register, but they will never institute a draft in this country again absent a real threat to this country’s existence: an actual armed violent invasion or a civil war.

    It was too politically unpopular and caused open rebellion the last time it was used.

    So the idea of women being drafted is a nonstarter

  88. 2084GO says:

    Right Ras al Ghul but men still have to register for it in order to get financial aid. So what about transmen? Or transwomen who were born male?

  89. Panzer101 says:

    @Frost

    Another 9/11 truther who never commented before but was drawn out by my juvenile taunt (thanks for proving my hypothesis). This community has no credibility if it is filled with such ignorance. I kind of expected more of a reaction to the original 9/11 truther comment, but the lack of a response to such wild conspiracy theories is disturbing.

  90. PokeSalad says:

    The answer to a troll is not to answer. Are you new to the Internet, by chance?

  91. theasdgamer says:

    “the lack of a response to such wild conspiracy theories is disturbing.”

    trollololol

  92. Jim says:

    “The YPG in Syria(Kurdish leftists) are already putting women into combat on the frontlines.”

    That’s nice but I don’t care about that. I want them to put US females on the front lines in women-only combat units. Let them do become prisoners, come back in a body bag or come back with real PTSD or permanent injury.

  93. Joe says:

    Feeriker, I’ve known some Spetznaz and more than a couple of our operators (Yay, UN and New World Order!). I think you’re an uninformed dope. And I think that if you believe everybody who serves is just a half assed mercenary, then I think you’re doubly stupid and uninformed.

    Yep, plenty of beta boys in the military. They’re pretty damn good fighting beta boys though, with a reasonable percentage of straight alpha predators, albeit pretty sheep doggy alphas, most of them. (A few exceptions…). And once you get into the airborne and anybody else associated with JSOC they’re to a man very hard men, and a hell of a lot less drunk and stupid than their Russian counterparts. Don’t get me wrong, the Russians are pretty good soldiers but they are ham handed as shit. The only thing that’d slow our guys down in a fight with them would be more restrictive rules of engagement.

  94. Joe says:

    As for women in combat arms roles… this is going to be an unmitigated disaster when it comes to real fighting. Anybody can pull a trigger or call for fire in a pinch, but infantry, armor and artillery jobs at the <LTC level are physical competitions, and trigger pulling is the least of the concerns. The most physically talented women alive, the top half of one percent, are maxed out doing the stuff a reasonably fit US light infantryman does daily, forget the extreme physical duress of actual combat patrols and fighting. Never mind what the protein powder munching gym rats in the mech infantry and armor units have to do in the way of Moving Very Heavy Pieces around to keep the beasts running.

  95. Gunner Q says:

    etmalthusianism @ 12:30 am:
    “It seems to me that the draft is redundant given the automation of the weaponry today. Smart bombs and drones. I can not see an event when the inactive draft will ever be activated.”

    The limitations of drones are already becoming obvious. They’re like airpower: great way to project force but useless for holding ground. Not to mention how goatherders and jihadists apparently look the same on infrared. Standard infantry will never be obsolete.

    Frankly, the only benefit I see to weaponized drones is that they let the Global Elites play God. They decide who they want to win a conflict, throw politically convenient air strikes at the other side’s infrastructure and celebrate the inevitable result, like Obama did in Libya. Hmm… that explains why the Elites are letting flood of jihadists and other violent groups into their own backyards. If we the people are constantly at each other’s throat then the Elites can use technology to “guide” society without getting their hands dirty or facing organized resistance.

    I might just have solved the riddle of Daniel’s statue.

    2084GO @ 10:12 am:
    ““I wonder how feminists (and all the mangina politicians) are going to react once the first female combat soldier comes home after being raped in captivity.”

    Didn’t that already happen some years back and they totally covered it up?”

    No cover-up but it did happen in one of the Bush-Gulf Wars. A female helicopter pilot was shot down, captured, raped and eventually repatriated. She was celebrated briefly and quietly and then went off the radar.

  96. Stella d'Oro says:

    The women in combat nursing thing: The press release mentioned being able to “express” breast milk, not actually nurse a baby. That would allude to “pumping” breast milk for a baby to eat later while safe in instutional day care. Another goal of liberals/feminists is to separate Mother and child.

    As someone who has had lots of breastfeeding experience, the only thing more laughable than a woman in combat is a lactating woman in combat. It will never, ever happen. She will wean that baby so fast if she truly went to combat.

    The hidden message is that the Mother/baby bond through breastfeeding will need to be broken in order to get back to combat. The better nourishment will be sacrficed. Just like every other social engineering project, the children bear the worst burden.

  97. BradA says:

    Obama is a Muslim

    It is highly likely he is. He was also not born in the US or they would not have had to forge a birth certificate (poorly at that).

    It doesn’t matter though. Core principles have long since gone out the window.

    One factor I think those pushing these things fail to account for is that more and more of this kind of idiocy is going to push away far more support than they realize. Our system relies on that support, or at least grudging compliance. That is almost certainly changing.

  98. Will S. says:

    Reblogged this on Patriactionary and commented:
    The silver lining is that less men may end up wishing to kill and die overseas pointlessly for the Empire. But if ever any foreign army actually invades, men can still follow in the tradition of the jayhawkers and bushwhackers, pick up a rifle, and organize themselves without any government involvement.

  99. feeriker says:

    Feeriker, I’ve known some Spetznaz and more than a couple of our operators (Yay, UN and New World Order!). I think you’re an uninformed dope. And I think that if you believe everybody who serves is just a half assed mercenary, then I think you’re doubly stupid and uninformed.

    Apparently my comment struck a raw nerve with one of the half-assed mercenaries.

  100. 2084GO says:

    “No cover-up but it did happen in one of the Bush-Gulf Wars. A female helicopter pilot was shot down, captured, raped and eventually repatriated. She was celebrated briefly and quietly and then went off the radar.”

    That’s the one. People asked if she was raped and the question was evaded, never answered, no commented. She went off the radar. Everyone was left to speculate no? What was her name? Was there ever a definitive answer?

    In our country where religious liberty is paramount, we are not supposed to discriminate on religion so who cares what religion Obama is? But how can he be Muslim if he is eating pork and drinking Budweiser openly?

  101. Gunner Q says:

    2084GO @ 4:04 pm:
    “That’s the one. People asked if she was raped and the question was evaded, never answered, no commented. She went off the radar. Everyone was left to speculate no? What was her name?”

    I first read the story in Reader’s Digest so there was no cover-up worth mentioning. RD didn’t mention rape but with its core audience, the censorship would have been appropriate there.

    It would have been mentioned if her captors had NOT raped her, I’m sure.

  102. 2084GO says:

    “It would have been mentioned if her captors had NOT raped her, I’m sure.”

    Well wasn’t that what she eventually said?
    What’s the core demographic of RD?

  103. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    2084GO [December 4, 2015 at 4:04 pm] says:

    “[…] But how can [Obama] be Muslim if he is eating pork and drinking Budweiser openly?”

    2084GO, I’d love to answer this question for you in detail, but I’m busy right now.

    Taqiyya to ya later. ;^)

    Pax Christi Vobiscum. (ツ)

  104. 2084GO says:

    ““I imagine, as with everything else, women will find a loophole, en mass (if things get serious), whether pregnancy, or suddenly appearing “new” studies showing that women who MIGHT want to get pregnant in the future may suffer some type of irreversible stress…”

    There was already a big write up in a major publication about this very thing a few years ago. Written by a female soldier who was rendered infertile during her time serving and she advised women to not take sure a risk, unless they were absolutely sure they’d never want kids.

  105. Isa says:

    @cynthia

    For the navy men I know, the women on the ship tend to be mattresses unless they are officers. By all accounts they are quite happy with the job and perhaps it helps to alleviate some of the criminal activities near base having free prostitutes on board… Very few pregnancies though, as the father testing roulette would be rather… long.

  106. 2084GO says:

    “Very few pregnancies though” What do they do when they run out of condoms or other bc?

  107. Isa says:

    @2084GO More of, testing the whole ship for child support wasn’t going to happen and none of the guys had a really sweet pay package except high ranking so very little incentive to get knocked up. Most women used IUDs for longterm. More reliable, lasts a couple years.

  108. BradA says:

    how can he be Muslim if he is eating pork and drinking Budweiser openly?

    Islam allows for such deception in the name of the greater good. He can even enjoy it.

    Not proof he is, but doing so doesn’t eliminate him as an option.

  109. 2084GO says:

    ” Most women used IUDs for longterm. ”

    Ouch. Especially at sea.

    “how can he be Muslim if he is eating pork and drinking Budweiser openly?”

    “Islam allows for such deception in the name of the greater good. He can even enjoy it.”

    Do you have a hadith to back that up?

  110. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    2084GO [December 4, 2015 at 8:23 pm] says (to BradA [December 4, 2015 at 8:16 pm]):
    Do you have a hadith to back that up?

    Well, 2084GO, I can’t speak for BradA, of course, but I can draw your attention to this:

    What is Taqiyya? [Saturday, 28 May 2011].

    […] The Anti-Muslim demagogues love to talk about this weird, so called, rule that permits Muslims to lie to spread Islam. I had never even heard of it until I was accused of it by someone in a discussion once. The basic idea, according to them, is that if any Muslim ever denies being a blood thirsty lunatic engaged in perpetual war against the West, they must be lying. Muslims are simply presumed guilty, and if we profess innocence that is only further evidence of our guilt.

    […] One may ask, what type of “disguise” is allowed under takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya)?

    […] Let’s be clear about takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya); “The principle of dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs in order to avoid persecution or imminent harm, where no useful purpose would be served by publicly affirming them.”

    […] It is simply a form of concealment used to avoid persecution!

    […] ““Abu Ubaydah bin Muhammad bin Ammar bin Yasir said: The polytheists seized Ammar and they did not let him off until he was forced to insult the Messenger of Allah and say good things about their deities” [3]

    Ammar bin Yasir told Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) of what he was forced to say.

    “The Prophet (ppbuh) said: “Say it again if they ask (i.e. force) you to do so”.” [3]

    So, in order to avoid such torture the Prophet allowed Ammar bin Yasir to use “taqiyya”

    That “[3]” there, is a reference to this cited source: [3]: – Men and Women around the Messenger, Sa’d Yusuf Abu ‘Aziz, Translated by Suleman Fulani, Darussalam, 2009, p. 286-287

    Anyway, there’s a first Hadith for you (not that you’ll like any of this once you see where it is actually heading). From the same source, a little further on:

    Islamophobes, in an attempt to obtain an unchecked platform, do suggest Muslims misinform (“use taqiyya”) about the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). This is an utter absurdity as it is a grave sin for a Muslim to misinform about the Prophet Muhammad as the Prophet stated:

    “Whoever lies about me intentionally shall take a place for himself in hell” (al-Adhkar (y102), 510-12) [4]

    So, there’s a second Hadith for you.

    The “[4]” of course is also a citation from that website (not that you wrote that website entry, and so I can’t, in fairness, “hold you to it” — but bear with me here …) [4]: – Reliance of the Traveller, Translated by Nuh Hamim Keller – Amana Publications, 2008, r8.0, p 747.

    I will skip over discussing the rhetorical dishonesty of the words (as above, but of course in use more generally) “anti-Muslim demagogues” and “islamophobes”, because off-topic.

    Topic: taqiyya (and kitman, I guess): “dissimulation” and “disguise”. BradA‘s narrower point seems to have been refuted. I’ll leave it to him to address that aspect. Because I’m here to defend what I understand to be his broader point: taqiyya (and kitman) undercut Islam’s claim to be moral.

    Because, I skipped over part of what the author of the Muslim apologetics I am quoting had to say, in defence of taqiyya (go look at the

    web-page again, for context, etc.):

    If Jesus (pbuh) had done the same, our Christian friends would have lauded it as an act of piety and mercy. Instead we see Islamophobes exaggerating this form of concealment in order to demonise Muslims. It’s a crazy old world!”

    Except, here’s what Jesus actually had to say about this very topic:

    […] So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. [Matthew 10: 32-33, English Standard Version]

    So, you see, there is a reason why in Christianity, a “martyr” (from the Greek word for “witness”) is someone who will die for his or her religion, whereas, or so I judge from the endless bloody newspaper headlines, in Islam, a “martyr” is someone who will kill for his or her religion.

    But wait, it gets worse (for Islam). Here’s Jesus again — the scene is called “The Woman Caught in Adultery” in Christian exegesis, and Jesus is rebuking some religious leaders for reasons I’ll get to on the B-side:

    […] “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” [John 8:44, English Standard Version]

    So, there’s Jesus telling us that Iblis (to use his Islamic name) is The Father Of All Lies. You know, “dissimulation”, that sort of thing?

    Anyway, what had happened there was that some “Scribes and Pharisees” (experts in the Jewish Halakakhic Law, etc.) were trying to trap Jesus. Judea was under Roman occupation at the time. The Roman authorities had passed laws forbidding the Jews from exercising capital punishment; but Jewish Law said that a woman caught in adultery should be executed by stoning.

    So, what the “Scribes and Pharisees” were trying to do was to trap Jesus: if he said, “stone her”, then he was in rebellion against Rome (the sort of thing they crucified you for), but if he said “set her free”, then he was in rebellion against Jewish Law (discrediting him among Jews). Seeing what they were up to, he rebuked them as above, and then challenged whoever among them was without sin, to “cast the first stone”.

    And, one by one, they all slunk away. There’s an odd bit in the story, about Jesus repeatedly scribbling in the dust as this was all happening. An explanation I heard in a (Christian) sermon once, was that probably what he was doing was staring each one of them in the eye, and scribbling exactly the sins of each in that dust. This would certainly explain the slinking away.

    Be that as it may, this is a comment about your request that condemnation of taqiyya be substantiated (with Hadith to back it up).

    Well, either BradA is right, and Islam sanctions lying in whatever way whatsoever will advance The Cause, or he is wrong, and taqiyya has only the narrower meaning suggested in the Islamic blog I cite above.

    If BradA is right, Islam stands condemned, but let’s suppose he’s wrong, that he’s misrepresenting taqiyya, which is to be resorted to “only” by Muslims who are under persecution.

    Well, you’ve already read what Jesus had to say about that.

    Now, Muslim’s make much of how Christian Gospels have been “corrupted” (e.g., they argue for the primacy of the Gospel of Barnabas, and other such 1000-years-too-old trash), but answer me this: is it more likely that a Divine Order to feel free to lie about one’s religious beliefs would be corrupted into a false “Divine Order” to tell the truth about it, or that a Divine Order to always tell the truth about it, would be corrupted into a false “Divine Order” to lie?

    Hint: who’s The Father of All Lies again?

    Or, did Jesus and/or his biographers get that wrong, too, and Iblis (the Devil) is actually a Nicer Guy Than Had Previously Been Advertised™??

    In other words, if BradA is wrong, and taqiyya is “only” about dissimulating to avoid persecution, well, Islam stands condemned anyway.

    Oh, well.

    Hadith enough yet?

    Pax Christi Vobiscum. (ツ)

  111. cynthia says:

    @Isa

    The choice as a woman in uniform is either be a whore… or don’t. Don’t know how it is in the Navy, but in the Air Force, it’s a pretty small percentage of women that go that route. For those that do, it’s all about her, so of course they’re going to be good about the birth control. “Accidental” pregnancies, especially among women with sluttish tendencies, is a myth. If you get pregnant these days, it’s either because you’re a total moron or you wanted it to happen.

  112. Isa says:

    @cynthia
    Complete agreement about having to be a moron to get “accidentally” pregnant. Given that, it should be required for women to be on some sort of birth control while deployed. If becoming pregnant means going home, well they should be controlled not to. Or possibly be fined and dishonorably discharged unless it could be proven to be a failure of birth control on leave.

    I think the navy may have a larger whore problem if they are asea for months. Lots of testosterone and opportunity in tight quarters. Subs would be worse of course, I suspect almost all of the women would get knocked up on them.

  113. JDG says:

    … it should be required for women to be on some sort of birth control while deployed.

    Better to require them to be barefoot and pregnant then allowed in the military. Even better, remove them from all traditionally male spaces, restore default male custody, and repeal the right for females to vote. That would go a long way towards a sane society.

  114. Jeff says:

    Someone probably mentioned this, but they should have contriceptive implants during basic training, period. If they want to spread their legs they should be forced not to be able to conceive. They force vaccinations. Why not contriception? It would only be a womans brain that thinks,”I volunteer, I have to do everything they say, BUT I reserve the right to get pregnant.”

    If for some reason they claim implant is against religion, medical or philisphical… They are not fit to serve our country.

  115. Gunner Q says:

    “Someone probably mentioned this, but they should have contraceptive implants during basic training, period.”

    Thus far, I understand women are segregated during Basic which is good enough. Also, “equal treatment under the law” would then require men to accept contraception, too… and the most cost-effective male contraception is the snip. Goodbye, all-volunteer military!

  116. JDG says:

    Equal treatment under the law really means special treatment for women. Everyone would be better off without “equality” for women.

  117. BradA says:

    They just need the human equivalent to a shut of valve! Turn it on and off as needed. Nothing could go wrong with that, right?

    YAC,

    Lots of words, but I don’t buy it all. The founder of Islam lied to the first city he conquered, getting them to let him in under false pretenses. It is built on lies and allows lies. Love it if you wish, but it proves nothing.

    It is also possible Obama is a Muslim but just doesn’t take some parts as seriously. Look at how Nancy Pelosi claims to be Roman Catholic. What is written is also irrelevant in cases like those.

    Anyone is free to think Islam is wonderful or that Obama is really a faithful Christian, just like his former “Christian” mentor, but I remain skeptical.

  118. Babalola says:

    It is highly likely he is. He was also not born in the US or they would not have had to forge a birth certificate (poorly at that).

    There is a great chance that Obama is indeed a Muslim. As a matter of fact, “Barack” is a Muslim name, and unless he later converted, he was born and raised Muslim.
    But that part about Obama not being in the US? That is bunkum. Every presidential candidate undergoes rigorous scrutiny to ensure that they meet the minimum required standards. It is highly unlikely that Obama would have gotten away with being foreign born.

  119. Dave says:

    In general, I always notice that it’s the feminists who have never served who are demanding these things. The vast majority of women in the military have signed up with the understanding that they won’t be allowed in combat, and they’re at peace with it.

    I once worked among soldiers for a period of 3.5 years and I was pleasantly surprised that the military women were far more feminine than most women I had ever met. I thought a bit about this, and I felt that their femininity came about because of the hypermasculinity to which they were regularly exposed among the male soldiers.

  120. 2084GO says:

    “Also, “equal treatment under the law” would then require men to accept contraception, too… and the most cost-effective male contraception is the snip. Goodbye, all-volunteer military!”

    They can get reverse vasectomies and their fertility will not be hampered. Also, condoms.

    Dave, the femininity you perceived in the military was probably just good manners and decorum. Today’s civilian life is filled with crass language, a lack of order and respect and general low class chaos. Military people, with their order, discipline, and respect come off as classy and old fashioned, which is refreshing and attractive.

  121. Slack says:

    Not to sure about this one.
    What if we reduse to let them fail like men.
    What if men take the military to court over letting women fail and not men.

    What if men shove equality down their throats?
    How can that be sexist?

    As you said: be carefull what you wish for…

  122. Dave says:

    What I want to know is, will feminists discover new reasons to complain about everything, or will they finally be haaaaaappy?

    The fundamental mistake of any man or society is to think they can make a woman happy. You might as well entertain the idea of freezing hell over. Happiness is a personal choice. Each person chooses to be happy in spite of their external circumstances. It is a fool’s errand to go on a mission to make a person happy, when they have decided to be miserable.

    The horse leach has two daughters, crying, Give, give……
    There are three things that are never satisfied, yes, four things say not, It is enough:
    The grave; and the barren womb; the earth that is not filled with water; and the fire that said not, It is enough.
    Proverbs 30:15,16

  123. BradA says:

    Babalola,

    It is highly unlikely that Obama would have gotten away with being foreign born.

    Just like they have scrutiny to prevent private email servers for high government officials, right?

    I won’t argue the birth stuff, but I see not reason to release a poor scan, with a different layer with the changes they needed, if they weren’t hiding something. Get to know a bit about scans, layers and such. This points to fraud.

    Just look our very possible future president. TPTB cover what they want to cover and ignore what they want to ignore.

    That is painfully obvious with the current system where we are shoving women into the military with no real thought of the implications. Welcome to Wonderland.

  124. Joe says:

    @feeriker

    No, you didn’t strike a nerve. But bogus assertions of fact are a bit like a rock that sticks up on a dirt road. Kinda fun just to kick it because it’s there. Troll. We’re done.

  125. Heresolong says:

    For the record, if you wash out of boot camp (basic) you don’t get an honorable discharge, you get an administrative discharge. Nothing to do with the discussion about women in the military, but just wanted to make that clear. An honorable discharge is for people who have actually served in the military. Basic training doesn’t count.

  126. craig says:

    BradA says: “I won’t argue the birth stuff, but I see not reason to release a poor scan, with a different layer with the changes they needed, if they weren’t hiding something.”

    Obama hides everything because his whole life has been one con after another. Obama is a citizen by birth because of his mother, so there’s no reason for his political machine to fake a birth in Hawaii. On the other hand, whoever filled out his real, original birth certificate back then might have thought they were doing him a favor and listed him as “White” on account of his mother; that claim would have been irrelevant to his eligibility but highly embarrassing to his campaign. It is a simple, Occam’s Razor explanation for the deceit. Likewise, nobody cares about his college records per se, but I would put money that they would show him as having registered either as an Indonesian foreign student, or else as a Moslem. Everything will come out someday, either quietly as historians uncover the various scams or else noisily as future rulers boast of how his taqqiyah duped and enervated the infidels to pave the way for conquest.

  127. Original Laura says:

    In addition to the issues surrounding his birth certificate, Obama was caught using a dead man’s social security number. If you can’t get a social security number issued to you, it is because you cannot prove your citizenship to the satisfaction of the local social security office.

    Eventually, long after Obama has left office, the truth will come out. But so far the media has covered up Obama’s entire life story.

  128. Pingback: Cowering in front of women. | Dalrock

  129. cptnemo2013 says:

    Reblogged this on MGTOW 2.0.

  130. Pingback: Draft those women! | Retrophoebia

  131. Pingback: Drafting Women | Free Northerner

  132. Pingback: Crossdressing and the military. | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s