...female British slaves?

If You Catch One, You Can Keep Her

…and for those who don’t feel like clicking the link: An aide of this Al-Sadr guy in Iraq remarked during a sermon today that any female British soldiers captured could be kept as slaves by the Faithful.

I was originally gonna post this in Great Debates, but after some thought, I decided to save the moderators the trouble, and just went to the Pit.

The part that confused me was this: why not male Britons, as well? Or female Americans? There sure seem to be enough American women over there. More than I would have sent, at any rate. Why female Britons in particular? Is there some weird Iraqi fetish for hot English chicks, or am I missing something, here?

Oh, and anyone who just wants to fire off on the topic in general, do feel free.

Well British women are much better than American women :wink:

Everytime I feel we should leave Iraq, something like this comes allong and I realise there is a ned to remove such people from positons of power and put them into the insane asylums where they belong.

Britain was the colonial power. Maybe there’s a sentimental attachment there.

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

That Al-Sadr cleric is a nutbar…

I feel the same way

If I could figure out a way to have a British slave woman, then yeah, I might check it out.

God willing, of course.

I got dibs on Elizabeth Hurley.

Perhaps this is exactly why CNN’s website, in its article about Al-Sadr’s speech, makes no mention of it.

This is an example of what people are talking about when they speak of “media bias.” Liberal CNN makes no mention of it…conservative Fox does.

Why British women in particular? Probably it’s eye for an eye, as this quote from the linked site suggests:

This story may have gotten play on Fox but not CNN not so much for political reasons, but because Fox has more of a tilt toward sensationalism than CNN. Or it might be that other news media have gotten the story but been unable to confirm it sufficiently to feel comfortable publishing something so inflammatory.

The more intelligent parts of the resistance are specifically targeting non-US countries to decrease international support for the war in Iraq. Basic divide and conquer. This is probably a good tactic when the motive for war and the force holding the “Coalition of the Willing” together is shaky. The thing keeping most international troops there is loyalty to the US. Increase the cost of the occupation for these countries and it may soon outweigh loyalty to the US. Bin Laden and his ilk flourish in failed nation-states like Taleban Afghanistan. Nothing breeds resentment like a bunch of foreigners coming into your nation, blowing everything up, then tucking tail and leaving you to clean up the mess. The Soviets did it to Afghanistan and this led to the Taleban and radicalized militants like Bin Laden. Now the US is in Iraq and if the Iraqi equivelant of the Mujhadeen can make the US pull out, then the probable collapse of Iraqi society is a boon for terrorist recruiters.

Nothing special about the British women, nothing special about the Japanese troops, or Spanish troops. The reason they’re being targeted first is because they may be seen as being more willing to split from the war or Coalition if the cost of their participation(lives, money, time, etc) goes up. The US has invested so much that we really have no choice but to stay at this point so killing US troops will just result in more US troops coming over. Especially if there is no leadership change in November.


Ah. Excellent point. Peeling the British out of the coalition would be a real coup, too – there would go the United States’ major backer.

So whether the alleged rape of Iraqi women by British soldiers is true or false is irrelevant; whether any British women actually are enslaved is irrelevant; at least to the cleric waving his evidence of atrocities before the furious mob. It’s the inflaming of passions, on both sides, that’s the goal. This should do the trick nicely, eh?

What, you mean CNN wants to make some random aide look good? :confused:

More likely, CNN figures this was a stupid remark by a no-name nobody, and didn’t decide it was newsworthy. Fox News, always eager to paint non-Americans in a bad light, leaped on it like a starving rottweiler on a T-bone.

I think Mtg and eddy nailed it perfectly

Well, I’d heard about the video of British soldiers raping Iraqi women, and I’d very much wondered about that, too.

How do we know they’re British soldiers? Were they wearing their uniforms, or did they just go “Unh! Unh! Unh!” with cute British accents? And I don’t like this theory, because it implies that British troops are as dumb as or dumber than American troops. After all, the Americans were stupid enough to take pictures of themselves abusing nude male Iraqis. I really, really, really would like to think that British soldiers are smarter than that, much less dumb enough to videotape themselves merrily raping Iraqi women, cheerio and all that.

Various internet sources cite Al-Sadr’s rape video as a porn film featuring light skinned males and Arabic-looking women with the sound removed. I have no evidence one way or the other, and have not seen the tape.

Wouldn’t mind, though.

Strictly for reasons of political curiosity.

Makes me wonder who Al-Sadr is showing it to…

One of the links in one of the Pit Iraqi-prisoner-torture threads had stills from the gang rape video. The men pictured were wearing uniforms; the woman was in a black chador. Fake or real, the images were disturbing to say the least.

No, I’m not going to go hunt up the link for you, Master Wang-Ka. Seeing them once was enough.

My thoughts exactly. I’ve been ambivalent about our involvment in the Middle East for a long time now. This recent scandal regarding the prisoners’ treatment has been a difficult thing for all of us over here, for it is something that we have to live down vis-a-vis the rest of the world. But if anyone could top it, it’s OBL and all the like-minded fascist fundamentalist zealots, making such bizarre offers as to enslave a British female soldier for somebody. Somebody’s got to keep those guys in their place, but I fear very much it’s going to turn into another Cold War.

Not long ago I heard someone mention the U.S. as the “leader of the Free World”. I’m old enough to remember the original Cold War, when the Free World was the world outside the Communist bloc. Now it seems that the Free World is the world outside the Islamic countries–in most countries of this Free World, at least the pretense is made of respecting the dignity of the individual and of equal treatment under the law in a pluralistic society. On the other hand, some–not all-- of the Islamic countries seem to be repressive in a way that late XXth century Soviet Russia could never match.

Very good points! This is why I love the Dope.

And, it’s refreshing to see these very good points pointed out in such a way that the message isn’t lost in a barrage of vitriol. (I suspect ETF’s reasoned responses are somewhat the reason for this. :slight_smile: ) But anyway, it’s good to see these valid considerations discussed rationally.

Kudos to us all. :cool:

I don’t think they want to inflame both sides. I think they are hoping the British, having seen the core motives for the war crumble, will decide that sticking with Bush and the US isn’t worth having their people specifically targeted for enslavement or being killed. They’re trying to inflame the Iraqi side for certain though. This has been a consistent theme with the targeting of non-US members of the Coalition(presumably because Bush wouln’t pull out no matter what), attacks on Spain and the UN, and offers of truces in return for leaving the Coalition. Split the coalition.

Personally I think they’ve got a pretty good chance of succeeding. Not because I think that naieve psychological models like Bin Laden’s “Strong Horse” nonsense are correct, but because I believe the Coalition of the Willing is a house of cards to begin with. Bin Laden and others who want to destabilize the area to further their own goals aren’t anything like a “Strong Horse”. They are a minor irritant to a modern nation-state, let alone a superpower. They can only succeed if they can make the house of cards crumble. With the WMD still undiscovered, costs rising, and the security situation deteriorating the Coalition is going to need some Krazy Glue™ ASAP.


Would that be Mrs. Emma Peel?

And is bin Laden’s “Strong Horse” then Steed?

I call Kate Winslet!

(oh, this is SO WRONG, but it feels SO RIGHT!)