Michelle Obama is worth a whole lot more than one pack of cigarettes - probably as much as the whole truckload in "Beverly Hills Cop". Given a chose between her and cancer for lots of people, I'd call it a toss up.
Posted on 06/09/2015 2:21:56 AM PDT by markomalley
Girls abducted as slaves by Islamic State (Isis) fighters in Syria and Iraq are being sold "for as little as a pack of cigarettes," UN envoy Zainab Bangura said on 8 June.
The UN envoy on sexual violence visited the war-torn countries in the Middle East has been working on a plan to address the ongoing sexual violence to women, The Guardian reported. "This is a war that is being fought on the bodies of women," Bangura said.
According to The Guardian, Bangura spoke to women and girls who had escaped captivity from Isis fighters, visited refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, and met with local political and religious leaders.
Isis has been known to kidnap girls and women during attacks and then sell them in barbaric slave markets. "They kidnap and abduct women when they take areas so they have — I don't want to call it a fresh supply — but they have new girls," she said.
The girls are then sold for "as little as a pack of cigarettes" or up to several thousand dollars, according to Bangura. Several reports of Isis kidnapping teenage girls, many among the Yazidi minority, have come to light.
"Some were taken, locked up in a room — over 100 of them in a small house — stripped naked and washed," the UN envoy said. The girls are then made to stand in front of men who get to decide "what you are worth".
In a May report by the Mirror, Bangura said girls were "categorised and shipped naked off to Dohuk or Mosul or other locations to be distributed among Isil [Isis] leadership and fighters."
She added that children born of rapes conducted by Isis fighters to the girls would become "a generation of stateless children" that could become a rich source of recruits.
Bangura told The Guardian that the abduction of girls has become a selling point for Isis in the recruitment of foreign fighters. "This is how they attract young men: we have women waiting for you, virgins that you can marry," she said. "The foreign fighters are the backbone of the fighting."
A UN report cited by The Guardian claims that nearly 25,000 foreign fighters from over 100 nations are involved in conflicts worldwide, with the largest portion heading into Syria and Iraq.
The terrorist organisation has also used the systematic kidnapping, selling and raping of women to displace those living in conquered areas, humiliate them or torture them.
Bangura cited the story of a 15-year-old girl who was sold to a 50-something-year-old Isis leader who gave her the option to pick between a gun and a stick. "She said 'the gun' and he replied: 'I didn't buy you so that you could kill yourself'," before he raped her, she said.
Many years ago their was an article on what a life was worth. Anywhere from millions to pennies. IIRC, in materials (chemicals) about 58 cents. China charges the family of the executed a quarter, as I recall. Auschwitz brought the price of killing down to pennies. On the other end millions were spent by Ted Williams and Walt Disney. So what IS life worth?
The cost of the elements in a human body is about $160.00.
http://www.datagenetics.com/blog/april12011/
Looking at the actual components, such as bone marrow and hormones, you could theoretically get up to $46M.
But I don't buy that Auschwitz cost so little. Possibly the cost of the act of killing itself was minimal, but the cost of the system behind it had to have been enormous.
Shipping people all over Europe to kill them secretly, at a time when transport was desperately needed for military purposes, had to have an immense financial and military cost.
At its peak, the German armies, leaving out allies, numbered something around 10M. To kill all 6M Jews that died in the Holocaust, 3 of 5 soldiers would have to fire once.
Yet the Nazis spent immense sums to set up the camps, ship people to them, etc.
There is a common notion that the industrialization of killing in the camps was somehow more efficient than older methods. The opposite is true.
If I remember correctly, the maximum "output" of Auschwitz was around 25,000 in 24 hours.
The Mongols routinely massacred 50,000 or 100,000 or more in an hour or two. Some claims of 500k to 1M, but they may be exaggerated. No ammunition expended, except possibly some arrows. Mostly they just used edged steel.
The Rwanda massacres also demonstrate that to kill a lot of people quickly you don't need an elaborate infrastructure. You just need a whole bunch of willing killers.
A pack of cigs?
Must be some serious uglies to only go for a few smokes
We have been watching that Texas miniseries and last night watched the bit with the battle. In the era of muzzleloaders it would appear that firearms were not all that helpful. It looked more like a giant gang fight than anything else. I guess Fairbairn was right about a tomahawk being the most effective weapon for combat. It doesn’t need to be reloaded and works even better if a bit dull.
During the time of Pol Pot in Cambodia, human life was worth less than the lives of farm animals. That was one of Pol Pot’s principles.
By modern standards muzzleloaders weren’t very effective.
Compared to earlier weapons they were. There’s a reason everybody switched to guns as quickly as they got access to them. If your enemies had guns and you didn’t, you were seriously screwed.
The last big guns vs. bows battle was probably Lepanto. The Christians mostly used firearms. The Turks had firearms too, but relied mainly on their highly skilled compound bow archers.
The Turks lost. They replaced their fleet by the next year, but the loss of all those archers was never made up.
Volley firing by disciplined men was where firearms became utterly devastating. See Rorke’s Drift, though they were using early breechloaders.
You know, reading your Bible and reflecting on what we learn from other historical sources our generation has truly been blessed. As I am thinking how fortunate I am to have been able to live my life and never having seen combat that is true for most of us. We may be the first group of people in human history that can say that. Yet this was the goal folks purportedly were trying to achieve yet that wasn’t good enough, we have to “fundamentally transform” things.
Rorke’s drift was depicted in the movie Zulu. Great movie. I was wondering about that watching the battle scene last night in Texas. They said 700 killed 700 captured vs. 9 killed 34 wounded in what appeared to have been an undisciplined melee. Outside of the grace of God I just don’t see that outcome as having been highly probable. I attributed the apparent lack of discipline in the engagement to the nature of Houston’s troops and he probably knew what kind of army he had and had to deal with it. Then again, I don’t recall what battle it was near Richmond where Lee’s men flanked the Union troops and routed a large body and as I recall it was another large melee/ gang fight that had a similar outcome. Sort of a 19th century version of “shock and awe” I suppose.
I guess the old phrase, it ain’t the size of the dog in the fight applies to armies as well.
Sheesh, what are they trying to do…tick off the non-smoking Nazis?
Someone is on their High Horse, America is worse because of slavery and Jim Crow.
Pray America is waking up
Michelle Obama is worth a whole lot more than one pack of cigarettes - probably as much as the whole truckload in "Beverly Hills Cop". Given a chose between her and cancer for lots of people, I'd call it a toss up.
Haven’t seen the movie but I assume the battle is San Jacinto.
It was so one-sided because the Mexicans went into siesta, and their general was dallying with a local lass. The battle was over in minutes, but the killing went on for quite a while after the soldiers started trying to surrender. Texans wanted revenge for Goliad and the Alamo. (And probably for how scared they were while running away.)
Though technically they didn’t really have much right to complain about the massacre at the Alamo. The men in the mission were told they’d all be killed if they didn’t surrender and they chose to fight anyway.
At Goliad, OTOH, they surrendered on terms and were later massacred after Santa Ana overruled the local commander.
But “Remember Goliad” just doesn’t roll off the tongue like “Remember the Alamo!”
“Rorke’s Drift”
Love the movie but two major things in the movie are out of proportion.
The big hill was only a small rise of the river bank set well back from the river. Tall enough to offer an advantage and the defenders did receive fire from it.
The site was also set next to a 6 foot rise in the bank. A line of biscuit box’s was placed there making the wall about 10’ tall. The Zulu’s would be up against the bank and safe from British fire - of course they couldn’t do any thing from there either.
The movie didn’t show that some troops in outbuildings got over run and hid under blankets until dark and then slipped into camp.
MadMen at work, even then.
Movies have a tough time. Every scene in Texas has hills (they would be called mountains on the East Coast) on the horizon. Ask any Texan. The one thing in Texas that most certainly is not bigger. Texas (outside of the Big Bend area and the Guadalupe’s, where I grew up) is as flat as a pool table. That is why flooding gets so bad. The one 26 foot low spot for a hundred miles in any direction yields 26 feet of water after 1/2 inch of rain. West Texas ain’t part of “geographic” Texas. It is like we used to say when I was in college in Colorado. If God wanted Texans to ski BS would be white.
Yeah, perception is often more important than reality in war.
Though if perception is all you’ve got reality is eventually likely to crush you.
Along those lines, the deadliness of ISIS is almost entirely perception at this point. If an when US or other actual armies decide to, they’ll be crushed in jigtime.
Or, as some Israeli general put it when asked how to build a great army, “Fight Arabs!”
Arabs are often individually brave and efficient fighters. With rare exceptions their culture produces really poor armies.
I read a book by an American who had spent 25 years training, or trying to, Arab armies. He said a sergeant in the US Army would have more individual decision-making authority than a colonel in the Arab armies he’d worked with. This of course paralyzed them in combat.
It is interesting that with the exception of a century or so after Mohammed, ruling groups in the Arab lands have all come from outside: Turks, Kurds, Berbers, Crusaders, Mamelukes, more Turks, Europeans, etc.
I didn’t think they were allowed to smoke.
She would have used the gun on HIM, and he knew it. ISIS, HAMAS, the Tsarnevs, 9/11, Benghazi, Major Hassan...the true faces of Islam.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.