Pages

Jump to bottom

22 comments

1 William Barnett-Lewis  Mon, Sep 24, 2012 6:08:53am

As a vet who served the US Army in tanks & the infantry, I am very happy to hear this. Thank you for posting this article. My sister would probably go, "Yeah, so?" but then she was a Sgt Major and far more "Hoo-ah" than I ever was... ;)

2 Destro  Mon, Sep 24, 2012 7:06:20am

Because of modern technology (20th century technology) women have been serving in combat since WW2 on the Eastern Front in the Soviet army (air and ground combat).

It is a function or offshoot of technology. The same technology that allows children to also carry arms (light weight weapons).

3 CriticalDragon1177  Mon, Sep 24, 2012 8:30:08am

re: #2 Destro

Destro,

I'd still imagine these women are pretty strong, not to mention tough, if they can defeat their male counterparts on the battlefield. They still don't ninety years going into combat, do they?

4 Bob Levin  Mon, Sep 24, 2012 12:11:58pm

re: #2 Destro

Knowing the history of the Russian battles with Germany during WWII, I'm sure it was the technology that pressed women into combat roles. Couldn't have been anything else.

And why the battles on the Eastern front 70 years ago have anything to do with this article, I don't know.

5 Destro  Mon, Sep 24, 2012 9:42:58pm

re: #4 Bob Levin

Or you could read a book on how Soviet arms technology (along with ideology) enabled women to fight in modern combat?

Soviet Women in Combat: A History of Violence on the Eastern Front

Soviet Women in Combat explores the unprecedented historical phenomenon of Soviet young women's en masse volunteering for World War II combat in 1941 and writes it into the twentieth-century history of women, war, and violence. The book narrates a story about a cohort of Soviet young women who came to think about themselves as "women soldiers" in Stalinist Russia in the 1930s and who shared modern combat, its machines, and commanding positions with men on the Eastern front between 1941 and 1945. The author asks how a largely patriarchal society with traditional gender values such as Stalinist Russia in the 1930s managed to merge notions of violence and womanhood into a first conceivable and then realizable agenda for the cohort of young female volunteers and for its armed forces. Pursuing the question, Krylova's approach and research reveals a more complex conception of gender identities.

[Link: www.amazon.com...]

6 Destro  Mon, Sep 24, 2012 9:47:16pm

re: #3 CriticalDragon1177

What do you mean by "They still don't ninety years going into combat, do they?"

Here are images of female Vietcong Soldiers

[Link: firebasenam.myfastforum.org...]

7 CriticalDragon1177  Mon, Sep 24, 2012 10:08:41pm

re: #6 Destro

After you get past a certain age, your body deteriorates. Senior citizens usually aren't as strong as they were when they were younger. You still don't see a lot of really old people on the front lines.

8 Bob Levin  Tue, Sep 25, 2012 2:41:36am

re: #5 Destro

Irrelevant to the topic, which is about an Israeli combat unit that repelled a deadly attack.

If you want to talk about the Soviet Army during WWII, make a separate post. But, this is another technique of your 'Revolutionary Dialectic' [copyright Destro, 2012].

As it stands, your comments are little more than sound and fury.

9 Destro  Tue, Sep 25, 2012 7:20:30am

re: #8 Bob Levin

Again, you seem to read stuff in negative ways, a problem I would bring up with your therapist.

All I said was having female soldiers like the Israelis do is nothing extra-oridnary. Maybe in the regressive USA, it's a big deal but not in many places around the world. In the USA we are still freaked out that a woman will one day become president / leader of the country when that has happened countless times all over the world.

10 Destro  Tue, Sep 25, 2012 7:21:15am

re: #7 CriticalDragon1177

I agree about age and soldiers but I don't get how that was related to what I wrote?

11 CriticalDragon1177  Tue, Sep 25, 2012 7:38:37am

re: #10 Destro

I'm saying I don't think this has as much to do with light weight weapons and armor as you think it does.

12 Destro  Tue, Sep 25, 2012 7:43:34am

re: #11 CriticalDragon1177

That is an interesting POV. Of course progressive attitudes about women's gender roles play a role but I do hold the notion that the modern weapon's system makes warfare easier for young children and women to participate as combatants.

13 Bob Levin  Tue, Sep 25, 2012 11:34:44am

re: #9 Destro

All I said was having female soldiers like the Israelis do is nothing extra-oridnary.

No one said it was extraordinary. You did. Just find the quote. Because you've got your scary brain shadows running around again.

But that's your technique--your little Revolutionary Socratic, or in context that you put it in, your parroting of certain methods [we both know whose methods] of propaganda. The meaning wasn't there, you placed it in yourself, and then you attack anyone who points out that the emperor has no clothes.

You changed the subject, and your comment was not relevant. You can't change that fact.

14 Destro  Tue, Sep 25, 2012 5:46:46pm

re: #13 Bob Levin

No one said it was extraordinary. You did.

Yea, that's implied when I wrote "All I said was having female soldiers like the Israelis do is nothing extra-oridnary." Emphasis on ALL I SAID. As in I said it.

And I posted on how having females in the military is progressive - so how is me saying so somehow wrong? Evil? What is the bad thing you don't like about that?

Let me know if you can explain - but I doubt the angry itchy spiders in your brain will let you figure that out.

15 Bob Levin  Thu, Sep 27, 2012 9:20:36am

re: #14 Destro

All I said was having female soldiers like the Israelis do is nothing extra-oridnary.

It's part of your 'Revolutionary Socratic', which is basically a dishonest technique of arguing. Which is basically another way of saying that you argue dishonestly. There's nothing to figure out. You already told us what you do.

And it's dishonest.

16 Destro  Thu, Sep 27, 2012 11:55:46am

re: #15 Bob Levin

So what is dishonest about my statement?

What are you thinking I am attempting to do here in this case? What are you claiming is my underlying motive? You keep making this sinister accusations and, I am sorry, they sound paranoid as all get out.

"Revolutionary Socratic" does not mean what you think it means and you never heard of it till I mentioned it.

17 Bob Levin  Thu, Sep 27, 2012 12:06:09pm

re: #16 Destro

Do you even understand the definition of the word 'paranoid'? I think your 'Revolutionary Socratic' is dishonest--because you said so. You defined the the term, not me. You gave brief outline of the 'technique', and besides being dishonest, the example was from of an extremely unseemly source [I'm being kind here].

I don't think it's revolutionary, or Socratic. It's just a phrase that makes the idea of constantly lying palpable to your ears.

18 Destro  Thu, Sep 27, 2012 12:49:02pm

re: #17 Bob Levin

Do you even understand the definition of the word 'paranoid'? I think your 'Revolutionary Socratic' is dishonest--because you said so. You defined the the term, not me. You gave brief outline of the 'technique', and besides being dishonest, the example was from of an extremely unseemly source [I'm being kind here].

I don't think it's revolutionary, or Socratic. It's just a phrase that makes the idea of constantly lying palpable to your ears.

Everything you said about this you made up. So add delusional to paranoid.

I ask again, what part of my statement above (#2) on this thread is troubling to you and can you elaborate on what you think I was trying to do when I wrote my statement. In other word what DO YOU THINK my agenda was in making that statement.

Because all I get from you is "Destro, you are up top something bad!" What is it you are accusing me of being up to with what I wrote here?

19 Bob Levin  Thu, Sep 27, 2012 1:12:38pm

re: #18 Destro

Again you're just lying. Your quotes are on record, I did the search. I presented your words back to you--what else could you do but own them? You did own them by calling your own words a 'Revolutionary Socratic'. This was another poor attempt at deflection.

The fact that any conversation with you requires a search of your past comments shows that you are fundamentally dishonest.

The repetition of your claims regarding my mental health is simply your own technique, number 8, where you believe you can make something true just by repetition. Completely dishonest. That you will not answer a direct question is completely dishonest, and it in no way shows that you give a rat's ass about The Socratic Method.

It's too bad that you only hear my replies to your outrageous and hate-filled statements, and you are oblivious to your dishonesty in every conversation. It's too bad that you are tone deaf to your own words.

Unless you can hack into this site and erase everything you've said, you're papered with your own bumper stickers.

20 researchok  Thu, Sep 27, 2012 1:22:25pm

re: #19 Bob Levin

Res ipsa loquitor

21 Destro  Thu, Sep 27, 2012 4:48:34pm

re: #19 Bob Levin

I am still waiting for these words that you looked up to back your charge that my 'Revolutionary Socratic' is dishonest--because I said so.

You have not done it.

And you have still not identified why my statement on female soldiers is somehow a trojan horse (I assume) for some hidden agenda your paranoid delusion states I have.

Tic-toc clock's ticking, doc. Let me know. I am calling you out.

22 Bob Levin  Thu, Sep 27, 2012 5:51:33pm

re: #21 Destro

Call me out while writing in English.

And I said that you are so dishonest that when conversing with you, one needs to do a search of your conversations--because you can't keep your lies straight. I'm not doing the search again. This time you do the search for your own words.

And you have still not identified why my statement on female soldiers is somehow a trojan horse (I assume) for some hidden agenda your paranoid delusion states I have.

Once again, a completely dishonest statement. However, I don't have to do a search. Just scroll up the page to find the words 'Trojan Horse.' Not there? Did you put words in my mouth, again?

(I assume) for some hidden agenda your paranoid delusion states I have.

That assumption would put the paranoid shoe on your foot.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 weeks ago
Views: 471 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1