It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Britians 1st Female attack helo pilot-KILLER!!

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
www.thesun.co.uk...
^ I don't know if that's really her in the picture but if so then she's pretty hit in my book.

Do I personally approve of females in combat? If a female soldier can meet then same exact physical fitness standards and meet the other requirements as male soldiers then I am all for them serving in combat arms units. Male or female, if you can do the job then your fine with me.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
"It's kind of cool. And we're on the side of good."

Now blowing people away with rockets from your chopper is 'cool'. Cowardly, indiscriminate killing is now 'cool'.

Because we're on the 'side of good'. Whatever that means. I see no good in this.

If only she saw the mess she left behind.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I partially retract my statements. I just read a bit of the article, and I see the context that her Jack The Ripper comparison is in, and that it wasn't her that said its 'cool'. I still did not bother reading the whole thing, as I honestly couldn't care less, but perhaps she has a little more wisdom than the...prat who DID say those things.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
"It's kind of cool. And we're on the side of good."

Now blowing people away with rockets from your chopper is 'cool'. Cowardly, indiscriminate killing is now 'cool'.

Because we're on the 'side of good'. Whatever that means. I see no good in this.

If only she saw the mess she left behind.


I think you should go back and read the entire article especially this part:

"I was always so satisfied with myself when a mission went well, when I could see the gun tape of me shooting the bad guys. But now I'm not so sure. I know we're supposed to be on the right side, but that's what those guys think too. And they have mothers, and kids . . ."



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Anjin
 


Always helps to have it in context, doesn't it?

She is a warrior, not a mindless brute. She's got doubts, just like the vast majority of the soldiers, men and women, over in harms way. Will she continue to do her duty as she sees it? Undoubtedly. Will she continue to have reservations? That's also likely.

Frankly, if we've got to have a war, these are the warrior we should have fighting it. One's who know there are sons, and daughters on the other side, as well.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by anon72

Sure they can do it but do we want them to do it? Looking forward to some good discussions on this topic. Especially from the ladies and their perspective.

PS: BUT, if we are going to use woman in combat etc---I hope they all appear as the one in the article.... determined and looking good while doing it..... (personal thought there---)


Ah, sexism.

The thought that you should have a say in what someone does with their life simply because of their gender, and that "we" should consider whether or not to "allow" women to do certain jobs because it might interfere with their "maternal instincts."

Apparently, you are not aware of the great numbers of really piss poor mothers out there, not only now, but throughout history. Women are idealized as being certain things, (for sex, or motherhood) but the truth of women is that they are varied, and a fair percentage of them make pretty crappy mothers whether you "allow" them to take combat jobs or not. (or other non-traditionally female jobs)

Women are just as varied as men. Not all men make good soldiers, or fathers, for that matter. It isnt a matter of "letting" them take certain jobs. Its a matter of their individual character and interests. Forcing a woman with a fighting nature into the role of "wife and mother" is far more likely to result in poor parenting than her being able to take a job more suitable to her interests is.

And who the hell really cares what the men and women defending a country look like? I know I dont. I care that they do a good job of it. They can be ugly as sin for all I care.

I am sure there will be movies made about the subject, and they will provide you plenty of material to fantasize about. Women have "300" and others of that sort, and you guys will get some too.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
So it says in the article that they saw people running in the trees and they were confirmed as Taliban.

How exactly?

Did they have some kind of badge saying Taliban?

If we are to assume they had been firing at the troops, how do we know they were Taliban. Is it just becasue somoene resists they instantly are labelled Taliban?

I realise the woman was making the serial killer comparison in a bad way not a good way. If she was that concerned about what she'd done she would leave the armed forces and not shamefully cash in and write a book about it.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Kram09
 





So it says in the article that they saw people running in the trees and they were confirmed as Taliban. How exactly? Did they have some kind of badge saying Taliban?


Probably her ex b/fs running away from her screaming for all they were worth.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I have seen some horrific videos of Apache pilots shooting at people in bushes with anti-tank rounds. One vision of a teenager being blow to bits just haunts me. It seems so arrogant to use such expensive and powerful technology to shoot one boy. I'm sure all the videos have been taken down by my oppressive goverment. I wonder if any of them were her's? Women will suffer more than men from the guilt of being so evil in combat. Why do I have to pay for the expensive weapons used on mischevious Iraqi boys? How can a woman, who is supposed to give life, invade and kill with such enthusiasm? Why can't she get out of her machine and be more selective about who she kills? If we are going to have this kind of overkill, might as well do it in a bikini while sipping mojitos.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
If we are going to have this kind of overkill, might as well do it in a bikini while sipping mojitos.



Lol. Was that meant to be logical in any possible way?

Or was it just an excuse to throw some oddly incoherent stereotype in there?



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by earthdude
If we are going to have this kind of overkill, might as well do it in a bikini while sipping mojitos.



Lol. Was that meant to be logical in any possible way?

Or was it just an excuse to throw some oddly incoherent stereotype in there?

I'm trying to illustrate the perverted way we wage war. To many who she has shot, her jumpsuit might as well be a bikini. She kills people who will never know why she is there, and I am sure her motives are based on lies. Sure it is risky, but the enemy has no chance against her. Maybe an evil witch dress would be more appropriate for her. Why not just have a robot man the contols and she can sip a mojito grab a joystick and kill at home remotely, and naked.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by earthdude]



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 


Couldnt that argument be made the same for any pilot doing the same job she is?

Why does her gender make what she is doing any different from what males doing the same job are doing?

I dont disagree that gunning down people running on foot is a bit unfair. But none of our military technology is designed to be fair, its designed to be superior to what the enemy is using. Thats true now, and it has been true throughout human history.

I dont see how the one issue is really related to her gender. Or why she should think any differently about it than her male peers do, or be held to a different standard than her male peers. Or were you suggesting that all attack helicopter personnel, male and female, should be wearing bikinis?



posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
The "SUN" article header reads:

"I’ve killed more than Harold Shipman, Jack The Ripper and Myra Hindley put together"

Source: www.thesun.co.uk...

Now, after reading this I thought... Damm.... you go girl. Then I got to thinking.... Sad.... our childrens mothers-our societies glue...MOMS etc... I don't want them killing or in war etc.

Sure they can do it but do we want them to do it? Looking forward to some good discussions on this topic. Especially from the ladies and their perspective.

PS: BUT, if we are going to use woman in combat etc---I hope they all appear as the one in the article.... determined and looking good while doing it..... (personal thought there---)





I was reading a post the other day in another forum from an female player playing an online game, which rules were a bit unforgiving.
That female was bitching about how her life is ruined she is alone and feels lonely and how her everyday experience is ruined from the now only joy in her life, her online game etc etc and all that negativity were brought to focus from a failed online interaction between other players that ruined her whole month as she termed it and made her miserable etc etc. and even gave her thoughts about suicide. She also explained that she used to be a servicewoman and she also was in a prolonged stay in a foreign war theater.
My thoughts after reading the article you linked was that the 8,5 tonnes air-vehicle wielding lady pictured in the article might end up experiencing the same depression possibly after a 5 years period in her life. The battlefield is not for women. Support and medical is another matter.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by spacebot]


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by earthdude
 


Couldnt that argument be made the same for any pilot doing the same job she is?

Why does her gender make what she is doing any different from what males doing the same job are doing?



Go for a ride through the town/city. Find mostly women drivers that are about to be parking their vehicles. Pay close attention.
You will get your answer.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by spacebot]



posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
I have seen some horrific videos of Apache pilots shooting at people in bushes with anti-tank rounds. One vision of a teenager being blow to bits just haunts me. It seems so arrogant to use such expensive and powerful technology to shoot one boy. I'm sure all the videos have been taken down by my oppressive goverment. I wonder if any of them were her's? Women will suffer more than men from the guilt of being so evil in combat. Why do I have to pay for the expensive weapons used on mischevious Iraqi boys? How can a woman, who is supposed to give life, invade and kill with such enthusiasm? Why can't she get out of her machine and be more selective about who she kills? If we are going to have this kind of overkill, might as well do it in a bikini while sipping mojitos.


There is a fortune being spend on machinery and training testing technology against mostly enemy that can be profiled as a civilian. IMO this all is a training for a future war, where there will be no borders, no money, no religions and ultimately no hope just a huge army controlled from a global HQ herding, putting in check a largely dehumanized and desperate society. We are heading towards that future with a mathematical precision and there is no escape from this until we realize while we still have time that we are being lied to left and right and are being controlled, every single day, every minute.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by spacebot]


Originally posted by john124
reply to post by ShadowArcher
 


Just another blonde bimbo except this time with a heavy gun.

Quick! Hide!



Originally posted by spacebot
until we realize while we still have time that we are being lied to left and right and are being controlled, every single day, every minute.


How many articles or things on the internet have we seen today that have lied to us?
The package (media and article) is constructed in a way that it lies to the average reader that will spend time reading only close to the headline and around the first flashy photos, including the commentary tags.

Scroll down at the end of the article to witness the ravishing blond
that was pictured in this article. It is not the big photo on the right next to the article title. The tag reads "Top gun ... Charlotte with payload she exhausted on the mission
Charlotte also gone Winchester, out of ammo, in one of those flying ammo depots called Apache 64s in a mission with questionable success. She spend all those thousands of pounds in ammo to maybe kill 2 peasants tops armed with easily replaceable RPGs. If the mission description she recalls is accurate then she doesn't seem she has confirmed any real casualty about the enemy. It was not her fault probably.
That's what the mission probably required. Send tones of equipment. Collectively, 2 attacking units + another 2 standing by = almost 35 tones of expensive equipment and 8 pilots-copilots to extract 1 soldier and maybe kill 2 enemies. 1 Apache will have to weight around 8,5 +-metric tonnes (armed).
Taliban don't have to be actually be very clever in order to do some noticeable damage money wise, if missions are designed with such a flawed philosophy.
Taliban certainly get a bang for their buck and a boosted morale scoring kills while fighting this useless Goliath.
Idiots economies bleed and the fat cats stay puff.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by spacebot]



posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   
The Romans slaughtered civilians, and in possibly every war since, civilians have died, especially world one and two, Vietnam war, all the other 'bush wars' except, as far as I know, the Falklands 'conflict' so ashcanistan is no different.
I wonder how many countrymen Boudica slew during her uprising.



posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by pikestaff
 


Ohhhhh i see, so because the Romans did it, that makes it okay?

What on earth are you talking about?

Just because civilians died in past wars doesn't make it acceptable now.
We shouldn't just shrug our shoulders and turn a blind eye because it happened in previous wars too.



posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 06:52 AM
link   
I think the title of the article says it all. It's truly hideous that they are glorifying violence in this manner and even more so when they are bragging about killing more people than murderers like Jack the Ripper & Harold Shipman. But what do you expect from a trashy newspaper like the sun.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacebot

She also explained that she used to be a servicewoman and she also was in a prolonged stay in a foreign war theater.
My thoughts after reading the article you linked was that the 8,5 tonnes air-vehicle wielding lady pictured in the article might end up experiencing the same depression possibly after a 5 years period in her life. The battlefield is not for women. Support and medical is another matter.


Many men go through the same types of experiences after and during war. And she is one female. I know women who have served in Iraq who are not suffering from PSTD. People are individuals. One of the most traumatized people I know personally who served in Vietnam working in a "support" role. It was his job to go pick up the dead. You dont know what is going to traumatize someone. I certainly would not advocate sending EVERY female out to combat, because EVERY female does not have the physical and emotional ability to handle it. But the same can be said about men. There may be a higher percentage of men who are capable of coping with combat, but a higher percentage is not grounds for a blanket refusal to let competent women serve.



Originally posted by spacebot
Go for a ride through the town/city. Find mostly women drivers that are about to be parking their vehicles. Pay close attention.
You will get your answer.


First of all, I have no idea why you are comparing parking and combat.

Secondly, although the whole "women drivers" thing is a cherished tradition in the US, the insurance companies using actual data, not prejudice, have determined that it is young males, (of the same age as many of our servicemen and women) who are the most dangerous drivers on the road. In light of that, I dont even know what your point is.

Is it that recklessness and bad judgment make for better combat troops?



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by kindred
 


Perhaps you should have actually read the article before commenting on it.

She wasnt bragging about killing more people than those famous serial killers.

But I wont spoil your point of view with facts. If you wanted those, you would have read the article rather than just jumping to conclusions.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
"And we're on the side of good."

I think the Nazis used to rationalize murder this way too...

No, more like on the side of the eternally damned.

I wouldn't want these chick's karma for all the money in the world.

Yeah, you go girls.




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join



viewport: 1280 x 720 | document: 1280 x 12127