“The United Nations has placed strict gender quotas on a British Army peacekeeping deployment to Mali in west Africa, demanding more females are sent under the auspices of a special bureaucratic directive….The call for more female UK soldiers to be included is part of a wider set of directives drafted by the U.N. that mandates strict quotas for female personnel in the name of equal opportunity.”
The UN is forcing the issue of more women in the British army to fight African jihadis under the disguise of gender equality. The mission has been described as “the most dangerous mission for British forces since Afghanistan.” What is the UN really up to, particularly given its alliance with the Organization Islamic Cooperation, which aims to subvert the Houses of War (infidel countries)?
Given the brutality of this war, combined with how normative Islam views infidel enemy women (inferiors and to be taken as sex slaves), of which the UN is well aware, this implies a nefarious agenda.
The UN has never attempted to impose gender equality across the board, including in Islamic states. Its “strict gender quotas on a British Army peacekeeping deployment to Mali in west Africa, demanding more females are sent under the auspices of a special bureaucratic directive” is highly questionable.
“U.N. Imposes Strict Gender Quotas on British Army for Africa Jihadi Fight,” by Simon Kent, Breitbart, December 22, 2019:
The United Nations has placed strict gender quotas on a British Army peacekeeping deployment to Mali in west Africa, demanding more females are sent under the auspices of a special bureaucratic directive.
At least 250 soldiers are expected to join the U.N. peacekeeping force helping France to contain the deadly Islamist jihadi threat in the disputed Sahel region, the Daily Express reports.
The call for more female UK soldiers to be included is part of a wider set of directives drafted by the U.N. that mandates strict quotas for female personnel in the name of equal opportunity.
Under Uniformed Gender Parity Strategy targets, 15 percent of military observers and staff officers must be women by next year, while the figure for female “boots on the ground” is 7.5 percent.
It means the British Army will have to field at least 18 female soldiers in order to comply during the Mali deployment.
Senior planners involved with preparing for the mission expressed their fury.
“The British Army embraces gender equality. We feel it’s the right thing, and a good thing,” one senior officer told the newspaper.
“But equality cuts both ways. This is about our ability, as planners, to choose the most appropriate soldiers for the task at hand, be they men or women.
“It’s true that we are joining a U.N. peacekeeping operation, and not France’s parallel mission. However, we anticipate that this will be a highly kinetic operation.”
The officer questioned whether bureaucrats sitting in their offices in the U.N. building in New York rather than being out in the field have any notion of the absurdity of the request.
“Frankly, to be forced to comply with a tick-boxing request which doesn’t address the immediate realities of the challenges we face is ludicrous.”…..
Nan says
Do Islamic countries send women on missions like this? If not, why not?
Jim says
If the British Army has Islamic women enlisted, this would be a good time for them to step up and show that they support this effort. Very risky.
Infidel says
Actually, why don’t they send those Islamic State UK ‘citizens’ right now stranded in Iraq or Syria directly to Mali to fight the Jihadists and show that their change of heart is real?
Aside from that, the only thing I’m surprised at is UK troops being in Mali, which the French ran
Westman says
Why would a Muslim husband send something he owns to be destroyed by warfare?
Sabri S. says
Because Islam values women as wife and mothers first and foremost.
We would never have women fight for real men, particularly muslim
men. Islam is a strong, patriarchal religion where Men are expected
to act and conduct themselves like men – unlike in the West….so much
for the pink hair, alphabet people and effeminate men produced by
your pop culture societies….good luck with that…At least until Islamic
rule in established in the next 30 years or so by all calculations.
Save Europe says
Because Islam values women as wife and mothers first and foremost.
We would never have women fight for real men, particularly muslim
men. Islam is a strong, patriarchal religion where Men are expected
to act and conduct themselves like men – unlike in the West….
Translation
1) they’re only good for the bed and in the kitchen.
2) they’re prohibited from sexual autonomy and free choice in any facet of their daily lives.
3) Islam is a thin-skinned patriarchal religion where men are desensualised, cannot control their urges and are frightened.
4) women do NOT fight for men – they fight ALONGSIDE.
Ironically Kurdish women DO, and last time I checked they’re Muslim.
Idiot.
Lastly – a takeover will never happen because you have no tech, as creativity is ZERO in every Muslim country.
gravenimage says
Sabri S. more:
Because Islam values women as wife and mothers first and foremost.
……………….
What crap. Many Muslim marriages are loveless polygamous affairs, forced marriages, and even child rape. Then, Muslims have the “Triple Talaq” summary divorce for men only, wife beating, marital rape, “Honor Killing”, and stoning to death for rape victims.
And Sabri S. himself has affirmed all of these horrors. The idea that such savagery “values women” is just sick. Muslims only consider women to be of value as things to rape and impregnate with the next generation of Jihadists.
More:
We would never have women fight for real men, particularly muslim
men. Islam is a strong, patriarchal religion where Men are expected
to act and conduct themselves like men – unlike in the West….so much
for the pink hair, alphabet people and effeminate men produced by
your pop culture societies….good luck with that…
……………….
Yes–Muslims consider it “manly” to rape women and children and slaughter civilians–just despicable. Real men do not target the vulnerable as Muslims do.
More:
At least until Islamic rule in established in the next 30 years or so by all calculations.
……………….
And, of course, this ends with a threat. The vicious Sabri S. has often threatened to forcibly convert or murder all Infidels and impose barbaric Shari’ah law on us–but he might find the resistance from civilized people more than he bargains for.
barbaracvm1 says
Female troops will be kidnapped and be enslaved the local Muslims. Not enough Muslim women for them to rape and enslave.
Carolyne says
I don’t think Muslim countries go on “Peacekeeping” missions. In fact I don’t think the US should either. If those barbarians wish to kill each other, who are we to interfere?
Victoria says
When us the corrupt UN going to be replaced by a world organization that is in touch with the nations it’s supposed to serve. so far it’s governed by a bunch of globalist whakoos who want to replace national governments with Soros trainees.
Fat Hubie says
The UN demands…
Carolyne says
I demand the UN leave the US. I wish the UN’s demands had the same amount of power which mine does.
Westman says
Yes, Carolyn. “United ” is the most absurd word in, “The United Nations”. It Is largely a forum to complain about the US and Israel and a central location for garnering influence and money. It’s past time to condemn the building and cancel Diplomatic Immunity for all non-US visitors. If you come to the US, you obey our laws. Depending on the severity of the offense, you are fined, deported, or jailed, no exceptions.
They can build another “UN” building, say, in Malmo which would remove many bad actors out of the US.
Battle says
Christine Douglass Williams hits nail on head. Good.
elee says
Well, there used to be some legendary women warriours who were our allies in the Middle East. They terrified the Muslims, because the Muslims believed al Lah would deny them their 70 virgins for eternity if they got killed by a woman. As to sending British Muslims of either gender, well, Brits, look what happens when the Yanks arm Muslims……..Pensacola AFB, Major Hassan Nidal, et al et al et al.
Sabri S. says
Women fighting alongside women in the military is ludicrous
and an abomination of every metric of human decency. Only
desperate weak men would want to fight alongside a woman.
And as potential prisoners of war, it is a given that they would be
raped and mistreated. Men fight wars. Women maintain the household
and support them…period! Men in the west have been emasculated and
feminized to the point where their women now are expected to fight
militarily….this says it all.
elee says
This doesnt apply to the Muslim women who blow themselves up to maintain their domestic slavery, does it Sabri? Oh and how are the Sons of the Prophet doing in their wars against the women soldiers of Israel? Last time I checked you were about zero-and-eight against the sons and daughters of apes and monkeys. So whilie I might agree with you emotionally, objective reality seems to disagree, doesnt it?
Carolyne says
If a woman wishes to join our military and fight, let her. But do not force women who don’t wish to become warriors. Personally I think all this choose your own gender stuff is ridiculous. It is a product of left wingers who want to destroy this country by getting rid of the most basic culture. And biology proves them otherwise.
gravenimage says
Sabri S. wrote:
Women fighting alongside women in the military is ludicrous and an abomination of every metric of human decency.
……………………………….
Note that Sabri S. is fine with kidnapping women and girls and using them as sex slaves or forcibly marrying them off to Muslims, with child rape, with wife beating and “Honor Killing” and stoning rape victims to death–but he considers women in the military to be “an abomination”.
Muslim “values” in action…
More:
Only desperate weak men would want to fight alongside a woman.
……………………………….
Apparently Jihadist of the Islamic State were *terrified* of being killed by a Kurdish woman. What “brave lions of Islam”…sarc/off
More:
And as potential prisoners of war, it is a given that they would be
raped and mistreated.
……………………………….
Well, pious Muslims know that raping women is Halal, so *of course* they would rape prisoners of war. Barbarian.
More:
Men fight wars. Women maintain the household
and support them…period!
……………………………….
He means that women are allowed to raise the next generation of Jihadists–and at most maybe blow themselves and some Infidels up if threatened with “Honor Killing” otherwise. That’s about it…
More:
Men in the west have been emasculated and feminized to the point where their women now are expected to fight militarily….this says it all.
……………………………….
Why is it that Muslims always get their asses handed to them when they actually fight Infidels, rather than murdering civilians in terrorist attacks? I think *that* says it all.
revereridesagain says
Because what can possibly go wrong with ignoring the facts of reality? It might cost a few female lives, but hey that doesn’t bother the Musilms and we don’t want to appear “Islamophobic” now do we?
TimothyS says
They could always send more swedish men.
Infidel says
You mean like Swedish Swedish men, or ‘Swedish’ men like Mohammed Hussein, Achmet Ali, Nur Elahi, Rizwan Zahid….?
gravenimage says
I don’t think Sweden or anywhere else wants Muslims in the military pulling Jihad terror attacks against them.
TimothyS says
Gravenimage, They’ve wormed their way into numerous political agencies, including those concerned with immigration, intelligence and the military.
Infidel, I wasn’t talking about “Swedish” men, I was joking about Swedish “men”.
gravenimage says
All too true, Timothy.
Berzrkr50 says
The U.N. requires more British women be made available for rape by Muslim troops. GFY, onw worlders…
Istvan Vogel says
I like the idea of gender equality. Of course, it also applies equally to the opposing side. Hopefully there will be a United Nations Gender Inspectorate verifying that the opposing forces are now 50/50 male/female and we could adjust accordingly.
gravenimage says
Ha ha
Save Europe says
I’m sorry…..what?????
Are they hoping they’ll get raped? (Non sarc)
Why hasn’t the UN stood up for women in Muslim countries AND
Non Muslims in Muslim countries?
Oh, I forgot…..the OIC control the UN!
gravenimage says
UN demands that British army send more women for defense against jihad in Mali
“The United Nations has placed strict gender quotas on a British Army peacekeeping deployment to Mali in west Africa, demanding more females are sent under the auspices of a special bureaucratic directive….The call for more female UK soldiers to be included is part of a wider set of directives drafted by the U.N. that mandates strict quotas for female personnel in the name of equal opportunity.”
…………………
Never mind how Jihadists treat any woman resisting Jihad who falls into their clutches. There was a female US soldier whose plane went down in Iraq. She was gang raped by the thugs who found her, all the worse because she had two broken arms.
I have the greatest respect for women who fight against Jihad–including this brave soldier, who condemned their savagery in no uncertain terms.
But to *compel* civilized Infidel nations to specifically send women into harms way among these barbarians in the name of gender equality is madness.
Christopher Watson says
The UN telling us there are rules as to who we send? Tell them to fly a kite. Send in a few of the SAS and tell them there are no rules.Then see how long the Jihad lasts.
Dapto says
Time to force the UN delegates to send their daughter to Mali, until then is a doodo
memosmusings says
If a Jihadi is killed by a woman he can’t go to heaven. The UN may accidentally be doing something right.
gravenimage says
This is not actually a part of Islamic doctrine, but is nonetheless a fear held by many Muslim men:
“Isil fanatics ‘fear being killed by a woman will deprive them of virgins in paradise'”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11110724/Isil-fanatics-fear-being-killed-by-a-woman-will-deprive-them-of-virgins-in-paradise.html
Zé Manel Tonto says
The UK should impose an ultimatum on the UN. “We send the troops we want, or you can f*** of!”
andrew mckendrick says
After the U.K. exits The European Union The U.N. should be their next exit target.
Crusades Were Right says
What’s the problem? Everyone knows that World War Two was won by hijab-wearing disabled lesbians of colour! Right? lol
Dannyboy53 says
Maybe the British Army needs to tell the U.N. to kiss their “arse” then bring their troops home.
Linda Rivera says
The corrupt, EVIL UN want our NON Muslim British women captured for sex slaves.
Why isn’t Boris telling the UN to get lost? And end UN financing?
Anjuli Pandavar says
This makes the British state handing over white girls to Muslim paedophile rape gangs look like a minor misdemeanour.
After the OIC has invested so much in the jihad takeover of Britain, it would be surprising if they were to let the UK slip out of EU jurisdiction just like that with the prize so close.(1) The OIC still has a few cards up its sleeve, one of which is the UN. It’s now a question of whether the UK Government is going to hand over white women to a UN peacekeeping force to be sitting ducks in the desert, soldiers unable to shoot, surrounded by sex-crazed Muslim fighters scrambling for their spoils, as their Qur’an entitles them and Muhammad promised them.
The jihad armies in Mali holding British female soldiers as sex-slaves/hostages would enable the OIC to retain control over the UK despite its having left the EU. It’s rougher and more blatant, but also retribution for the UK leaving the EU. The jihad against Britain will thereby be safeguarded without the EU’s dhimmifying directives, even if the UK manages to drain the swamp of Shari’a-compliant officials, judges, police, academics and schoolteachers.
This is the UN demanding Britain serve West-African jihadis white meat on a blue platter. The British authorities readily complied with young white girls for local Muslim child rapists (as does other EU countries). Will they now extend the service to include grown white women for foreign jihadis oversees? Why are the feminists not all over this thing? Far from sending more women to Mali, *all* British women, especially white women, currently serving in the UN peacekeeping forces anywhere a jihad war is underway *must be immediately withdrawn*.
The UN wants gender equality amongst peacekeepers in Mali? It’s a sick joke! Has the UN noticed any gender equality in Muslim Mali itself? And while we’re on the subject, how about the UN dealing with Mali’s rampant slavery? It is a UN-declared crime. Don’t bet on it. We’re dealing with the OIC here, the architect of the Cairo Declaration of human Rights in Islam, which is highly-ambiguous on slavery, which means it wants to reinstate it. Whether it’s white sex-slavery or good old regular Muslim black slavery, it’s Islamic, and the OIC is all about Islamic cooperation …and deceiving the infidel, when not bullying him directly.
(1) For a thorough study on the relationship between the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and its handmaiden, the European Union, see Bat Ye’or, Europe, Globalisation and the Coming Universal Caliphate, 2011, Fairleigh Dickenson University Press, Plymouth, UK.
James says
Under Sharia law, female soldiers would be in great danger of rape, enslavement, mutilation in an Islamic country. Shouldn’t the UN be sending only muslim soldiers to islamic countries? The problems The problems are great that things will work out poorly if any non-Muslim soldiers are sent to such countries.
gravenimage says
And Muslims are never going to fight pious Muslims for the ‘filthy Infidels’.