You realize that instead of actually addressing anything that mattered in my statement you focused exclusively on an example that would not function from presentation?

Why do you think volunteer armies are superior to conscripted armies?

Can you read through what I wrote please.

Women can take any role in any NATO military. The reality is that very few women who can pass the entrance qualifications wants to continue service when they can get more money and respect from any other job.

This isn’t a ‘women get disrespected in the military’ note, this is an objective review that anyone who does service in the military is a number and is intentionally approached with minimal appreciation of their human rights and dignity because that can cause problems in the field (not to mention in most militaries, if not all, you sign away your rights as a person for training as a weapon). If the officer says ‘take the hill and die’ it’s expected that you are to take the hill and die. It does NOT matter whether or not you do paperwork, drone work, or are a combat arms trade, your superiors have to keep you at arms length so they can sacrifice you easily should the need arise.

Any woman who can do even remotely well in the military can do any other job for vastly superior pay and far more control of their lives.

Unless you’re going to push a neutral requirement for service of both sexes, no amount of bitching or complaining will ever increase the number of women in the military because they don’t have to sacrifice their health and welfare for a paycheque anywhere near as hard, it’s an option to them and not one they would willingly take when any other job that requires the same performance standard can pay more with better time and more respect than the military.

Pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest or the position of someone who has never performed military service and likely never will.

It’s not a male dominated occupation because men inherently prefer destroying their bodies and minds with overexposure to violence and extreme physical labour with one of the highest rates of injury and death just from the training alone, it’s because it’s a job easily accessible to middle or lower educated individuals that can provide an effective specialization and education that could be applied in a civilian setting.

A male and female with the same education and physical fitness standard have drastically different occupation opportunities at the mid to low end of the education spectrum, and women tend to have higher level opportunities across the board, specifically ones which do not destroy them.

This is the educated opinion of a woman who’s done close to a decade of grunt service in the military and another decade in the military industrial complex.

The comment by 520 is pretty much spot on. In the event our office areas are attacked every single person in uniform is considered a rifleman, regardless of age gender or creed it is expected that you are to pick up a rifle and return fire as needed or assist with moving injured personnel to a safer location.

An example of medical qualification is wisdom teeth. A fun fact about the military I served with, every single person has their wisdom teeth pulled and gets a shop lecture on proper dental hygiene. The reason for this is so that we don’t have to send a team of 8-10 to return a person from the front due to wisdom teeth issues or hygiene issues causing health problems.

deleted by creator

This article brought to you by someone who doesn’t understand current era military technology and training and fundamentally doesn’t understand warfare.

Former military here and if I get a 70 year old willing to do paperwork for the army so I can move one more person to labour intensive operations, you bet your ass that old man is getting a pay cheque (assuming he passes the medical quals)

You realize that people need money to actually fucking feed themselves and put a roof over their head, right?

Here’s a wide variety of sources/dates to get you started since this is something that, much like the oil industry and climate change, has been massively lied about in the media in order to prevent any action from forming against the associated companies because that would actually negatively impact them. (Maybe, I personally doubt it since all ‘off brand’ and ‘no name brand’ shit is just name brand with shittier packaging now days, there’s zero competition in this market and zero incentive for these corporations to improve when all they have to do is cause a controversy to offend an active group on twitter to have any serious discourse of their court cases disappear in a jumble of brainless arguments over superficial garbage).

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57522186 https://cocoarunners.com/chocopedia/the-dark-history-of-chocolate-slavery/ https://foodispower.org/human-labor-slavery/slavery-chocolate/ https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/12/mars-nestle-and-hershey-to-face-landmark-child-slavery-lawsuit-in-us

Additionally an honors thesis with all the associated references inside: https://scholarsarchive.library.albany.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=honorscollege_ehc

There’s only extremely small farms that are not run by slavery and that chocolate does not make it to north american or european markets, regardless of what the stickers say.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-nestle-in-child-slavery-case.html https://www.courthousenews.com/candy-giants-sued-over-failure-to-end-child-labor-on-chocolate-plantations-in-ghana/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-416_i4dj.pdf https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2022/06/28/backed-by-big-law-hershey-nestle-dodge-second-child-slavery-case/

The sugar industry and all related industries are industries of death, they only profit by stealing tax incentives after bribing politicians and using slavery, they don’t need or want to make money they’re just in it for the mergers and acquisitions which can suppress competition, hide losses, and increase their own power over the markets they work in, at the expense of everyone’s health (with the amount of sugar in food these days) and at the expense of peoples freedom.

Here’s an investigation by cbs that was released yesterday which has child slaves (as young as five years old) active as late as last week: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/candy-company-uses-cocoa-harvested-by-child-labor-cbs-news-investigation/ar-AA1kKztT

And here’s basically the same findings from 20 years ago https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cocoa-and-slavery/ which, of course, all the associated companies said they ‘fixed the problem with our third party suppliers that were using slavery without telling us’ and then they get off by buying the judge.

Slavery never stopped we just exported it to get people to stop bitching.

I absolutely detest these incompetent trash journalists pretending like this is JUST a mars problem.

If you’ve ever eaten chocolate or seen chocolate on a shelf a child slave was used to acquire it.

There is not a single large-scale chocolate operation that does not utilize child slavery in the supply chain and pretending like this is ‘only a mars issue’ is fucking disgusting

Ah, another keyboard warrior that would prefer to push an agenda rather than acknowledge facts of the matter.

Well if you ever decide to pick up a history textbook or actually read up on the history of the area and the groups we’re talking about feel free to hit me up again.

Does no one know how to conduct even the simplest act of research? You know there’s several entire websites dedicated to keeping people informed and you come over here like “but the Muslim brotherhood is an Egyptian group” completely fucking ignoring the entire history of the groups origins and their interactions and cooperation with al queda and hezbollah. Let me guess you think hezbollah isn’t a terrorist organization because they have a few farms?

What the fuck is with the amount of people talking out their ass on these sites? Not even a simple Google search to reveal your opinion is full of ignorance.

I’m simply taking the conversation as seriously as you are.

Fuck em both.

Neither of them are being honest about the situation and both are committing war crimes. I’m not about to side with terrorists, least of all any group even remotely associated with the muslim brotherhood. And both deserve heavy criticizing given the state both have placed the international community into

OH, did the law stop that attack on isreal? Is the law doing anything to prevent isreal committing genocide? Great, now that we’re both on the same page where the law doesn’t matter until after a conflict is resolved, then I guess we’re stuck back at the muslim brotherhood continuing to commit acts of terror non stop.

Blatantly ignoring the creed with which thousands of people commit atrocities every year as if the law would stop these people who don’t recognize the law as just nor applicable to themselves, how exactly is ‘the law’ doing literally anything to prevent any of this?

If they had any intent to follow up on that they would’ve taken the peace agreement offered by netenyahu the day before they attacked the peace gathering. (Keep in mind lying to people not of the faith in order to trick them is literally part of the mandate as well, both the original AND updated as well as literal verses in the quran. (See below)

Just because they wrote down something not retarded you’re going to pretend like the behaviour hamas has exhibited is just, what, a fucking accident?

Hamas ACCIDENTALLY flew into a concert of people celebrating peace in the middle east and killed a bunch of people because their gun told them to?

Or maybe the gun itself was secretly controlling these hamas people and hamas isn’t to blame for any of the acts of terror they’ve committed?

Can you please clarify your position here because it seems borderline insane.

Quran

Quran (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.

Quran (3:28) - This verse instructs believers not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves” against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim may appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel friendly.

Quran (9:3) - “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths is with pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway. (The next verse refers only to those who have a personal agreement with Muhammad as individuals - see Ibn Kathir vol 4, p 49)

Quran (66:2) - “Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths…” For today’s reader, the circumstances for betraying your word are not specified, leaving this verse open to interpretation. According to Yusuf Ali in his commentary: “if your vows prevent you from doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons, you should expiate the vow.” (Presumably, whatever advances the cause of Islam would qualify as ‘doing good’).

Quran (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to “hide his faith” among those who are not believers.

Quran (2:225) - “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts” (see also 5:89)

Quran (3:54) - “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.” The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which means ‘cunning,’ ‘guile’ and ‘deceit’. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

Hadith and Sira

Sahih Bukhari (52:269) - “The Prophet said, ‘War is deceit.’” The context is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed companions by Muhammad’s men after they were “guaranteed” safe passage (see Additional Notes below).

Sahih Bukhari (49:857) - “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” In other words, lying is permissible when the end justifies the means.

Sahih Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permitted in order to deceive an “enemy.” The Quran defines the ‘enemy’ as “disbelievers” (4:101).

Sahih Muslim (32:6303) - “…he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them).”

Sahih Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad’s insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka’b’s trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered.

From Islamic Law:

Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory… it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression… (See the Permissible Lying section on the Sharia page for more)

“One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.”

notes: Taqiyya - Saying something that isn’t true as it relates to Muslim identity (i.e whether one is a Muslim or what that means). This is a Shiite term: the Sunni counterpart is Muda’rat.

Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills “it shall be as if he had killed all mankind”) while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of “corruption” and “mischief.”

Tawriya - Intentionally creating a false impression by saying something that is technically true, when knowing that the listener will interpret it in a different way. This practice has a broader application than taqiyya.

Muruna - ‘Blending in’ by setting aside some practices of Islam or Sharia in order to advance others.

This is one of the most well known facts about palestine known the world over.

The palestinian authority answers to hamas and the muslim brotherhood. So, yea, hamas, the people that actually got voted in, do run the show.

Right. And your continued pushing to avoid the topic of the matter and instead focus on your race is what I was explicitly noting.

No one cares what race you are so why did you bring it up? If you had anything of effect to present here, you would’ve presented an actual statement that included any type of serious and realistic opinion instead of just going “I know best, I’m arabic”.

Instead you are trying to bait out some type of ‘gotcha’ to change the conversation further into your incompetent identity politcking. Instead of participating in a discussion about options, you choose to make the conversation about you.

I claimed you weren’t arab because your opinions are either nonsensical or completely detached from reality. Every Arab I’ve met has had a distinct respect for the empirical method and facts, neither of which you’ve shown any evidence of respecting, thus, more likely, you’re pretending to be arabic in order to ‘win’ the discussion using your alleged personal experience for pity points from the public.

The criticism was your integrity, not your alleged race.

Great google translate bro.

If you have to pull out a “trust me bro” instead of present facts of the matter that can be verified via search engines, you’ve already failed at the purpose of the discussion. I noted specialty along with direct information that can be directly corroborated with online reputable sources.

You backed your words up with ‘trust me bro’.

Tell me who, in that conversation, would you more likely listen to, the person who provided a detailed overview and perspective along with their noted background or the person who just says ‘i know everything about the middle east because I’m x race born in y town’?

You’ve only said I’m wrong without any substance to back that or presentations of understanding or experience, especially since you flopped entirely on the history aspect (especially if you are arabic, then you’d know the background of the USA is light in comparison). Either you’re too emotionally involved in the information you’ve been shown IRL or, as I suspect, you’re pushing an agenda rather than an opinion.