Pepper your angus ISIS, we're coming to get you

Sure dear, whatever you say.



That isn't much of a surprise to be honest. I doubt that would make much of a difference.



Hiding from the enemy in various terrains (and in plain sight) isn't exactly the same as hiding from this boy you really fancy when you're down the shops with your mates. Men are perfectly capable at that.



Education levels aren't necessarily relevant. Some of the greatest special forces operators our country (The UK) has had have been from working class backgrounds. Despite this they have had common sense and a natural gift at fitness, soldiering, and leadership. So your education argument is rubbish.
And as for the opponents fighting women, unless the women were really well trained it wouldn't make much of a difference. In fact they would have an advantage.



Err so are men believe it or not.

Well firstly I do agree with the idea that men tend to do better in collective fighting than women, like World Wars. Men have more strength potential and have faster reactions. But terrorists play a different game that requires a different fighting tactic.

First of all there is the element of surprise. Not many people would expect a woman to be fighting them. The confusion of this might suddenly slow their reactions, or tug at their morals (if they have any). So I would immediately have the edge over my enemy in the short term.

A lot of conflict with terrorists takes place in built-up areas, women tend to perform better than men at situational thinking. Our size also helps us move around faster and helps to hide.

Women also have better communication skills and do not tend to have risk-taking behaviour like men do. While taking risks is important in life, in a scenario where your life is endangered, it isn't always appropriate.

Nowadays, women are more educated than most men. More of us go to university giving us decision-making skills and co-operative social skills. Also, training in a male-led environment would encourage us to think outside of the box. We have been trained to fight men, but our opponents haven't been trained to fight women.

Admittedly it's just an opinion, but I think women could do a lot to fight terrorism, especially since a lot of them are willing to do what it takes.

Wat

It won't happen though, seeing a man die and seeing a woman die are two different things. Call it sexist and I would but its definitely true. No country would send their women in harms way unless they are desperate.

Other thing is that in real life people have no qualms about shooting the enemy man or woman. Most of the time you don't even see the face of the person you are targeting because people die mostly from explosives rather than bullets and even bullets are often sprayed from a distance rather than aiming and or fast reflexes.

No, the correct spelling is 'what?'. Not wat.

Unless you're trying to speak Thai. If so, you're merely saying 'temple'.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/sas-special-forces-forming-hunter-4097083

SAS and US Navy SEAL/Delta Force forming a special "hunter killer unit" to go deliver some express freedom to ISIS leaders



May their 72 virgins await them

Okay, ignore what I said. Instead, I say:

I don't like cats.

I was considering doing that, but they don't allow women. Shame since I think women would be much better at fighting terrorists than men.

I think the IDF is a good example of army that will send women to war. Over 90% of all roles are being filled by women, and it's set to rise.

I think the IDF is a good example of army that will send women to war. Over 90% of all roles are being filled by women, and it's set to rise. And no, the roles aren't just medical or for transportation, quite a few of them are active combat roles.

Futhermore:
"Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Romania, Spain, and Sweden all permit women in all combat units" - BBC

Doesn't that mean though that gender is regardless? If you say we are fighting at a distance, and women tend to be better shooters, isn't it a good idea to have them fight (if they want to of course)?

.

Ok sorry about the long post coming up I will try and respond to as many of your points as I can.

Women are involved in Special Forces/Intelligence roles the Special Recconisance Regiment has quite a few women attached to it and they play undercover roles behind enemy lines, there isn't a hope in hell any female could pass full Special Forces Selection but they certainly can and do play a role with the likes of the SRR, Joint Intelligence Group, 299 Signal Regiment, Royal Artillery's Forward Observation Officers perhaps a few more. They are a great asset to have in our armed forces as you say it's 'thinking outside the box' but these are the select few hardly any women are even upto that standard and the role they do play is a very narrow one.

In terms of the actual fighting there is not a hope in hell women would be able to cope with the demands of selection or life in the SAS, SBS, Full SRR Selection, Special Forces Communicators heck women can't even pass P Company or the All Arms Commando Course never mind SF. The tests aren't as you put 'made by men, for men' the training and selection focuses on the skills that SF operators need to be able to survive it's not some male macho thing all the things they do and teach serve a purpose.

There are many women in the army and 99% of them are miles behind the men in terms of fitness, I can think of 1 or 2 female soldiers who are equal (but still nowhere near SF fitness) and every single one of them struggles massively with tabbing (marching with weight) their body's just can't seem to handle it and tabbing with enormous weight is vital to the role of an SF operator it's not a case of 'making the equipment lighter' it doesn't work like that if they could they would, the SF operators don't lug around this really heavy kit to show how macho they are if they could get lighter kit that's just as good they would but it doesn't exist. Sure women can be extremely fit in certian aspects women Olympic distance runners could outrun most male SF blokes in a race but to be in SF your fitness needs to cover a broad range you need to be able to run distances, to Tab huge distances (hundreds of miles) carrying Bergens that could weigh 100+ Kilos, have the ability to move extremely fast over short distances SF guys are as agile and fast as you get trying to find women with all of the physical aspect needed is searching for a needle in a haystack.

As for the stuff you said about women being better decision makers, better shots etc... None of this is proven both men and women have strengths and weaknesses but in terms of mental abilities men and women are pretty much equal you can't say women are better mentally because there is no real proof one or two articles by some random scientist proves nothing, mentallity just isn't an issue. And you said women are 'better decision makers and they don't take risks' well if you had any idea about SF then you would know it's all about taking risks and hopefully the training/experience they have got gets them through it, after all the SAS's motto is "Who Dares Wins".

Being 'educated' means nothing, the SF world don't follow the traditional ranks like the Field Army: if you have a staff sergeant who has been in the SAS for years he could end up being in charge of a Lieutenant or a Captain on a mission. All they require is that you have intelligence and common sense and you don't need to be educated to have those things.

It's a FACT that women just aren't a match physically, in a fight it doesn't matter if she is extremely well trained against somebody else who is well trained she will loose technique only gets you so far and in real life fights and the type of hand to hand combat you see on the front lines those techniques you learnt from some
Martial art means nothing in the heat of battle it's all about speed, power & aggression.

You say you want to join the army, and you spoke of being well educated so I assume that means you have a degree and would want to join as an officer go ahead if you want to give it a try then no ones stopping you. but no disrespect you are a civvi you know nothing about army life even being a normal soldier is tough, it's not an easy thing. So if I were you I would just concentrate on passing out of Sandhurst before you set your sights on Special Forces remember only the Elite are good enough for SF no matter how much effort you put in the fact remains the vast majority of people both male and female just aren't upto standard and there's no shame in that if you go to Sandhurst (or even the recruiting office) and start making noises about Special Forces they will tear you a new one if your male or female this isn't a PlayStation game.