January 5, 2017

"The BBC really made a satirical show called ‘The Real Housewives of ISIS’..."

"... while the real housewives of ISIS are being raped and abused daily."

78 comments:

mockturtle said...

Actually, I love it. Anything can be funny. And should be.

mccullough said...

Why is ISIS raping their wives? Is Islam misogynistic?

Quaestor said...

Many critics said they could not countenance any effort to draw laughs out of — or even at the expense of — a group that has enslaved women and girls for sex, compelling them to use birth control; recruited other women, under false pretenses, to become wives and sex slaves for its fighters; enshrined a theology of rape in its teachings; and shot and tortured women who resisted.

I'd like to know the sex of those critics. Ten to one the majority are women. Too many women, particularly those on the left (exclusively?), have difficulty with humor. They tend to internalize emotionally to a degree that prevents them from establishing the emotional distance needed to appreciate comedy.

I'll come back to this later. Dinner date.

FleetUSA said...

Actually this is a good ad for young women not to join ISIS. Parody has its place in advertising.

Mountain Maven said...

Just gave my son a lecture about how some things are not ever appropriate to joke about. This was after I was in a meeting where fools without children joked about child abuse.
But then I'm a humorless Scold who never watches any 3 letter news outlet.

Earnest Prole said...

It's a satire of our institutions more than theirs.

Jake said...

More speech!

mockturtle said...

Muslim women I have known do not see themselves as abused or oppressed. Most of them work, many in managerial or professional positions. They defer to their husbands because they believe Allah commands it. I'm no apologist for Islam--quite the contrary. But we should never try to project our values on another culture. Remember the revolution in Iran, where women overwhelmingly supported the Ayatollah Khomeini and began wearing coverings, which the Shah had outlawed.

mockturtle said...

I believe Rhett Butler, in the novel Gone with the Wind, made the observation, "How tightly women clutch the very chains that bind them."

madAsHell said...

Matching suicide vests!! Hilarious!

AprilApple said...

Great. + Obama is releasing most of the most heinous criminals/terrorists left at Gitmo.

n.n said...

Rape-rape? Masochism is a stable orientation. No Judgment.

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

Those gals know how to give a good blow-up job.

Bay Area Guy said...

Very funny -- nearly John Cleese-esque!

Jon Ericson said...

https://youtu.be/DOB6UDC-67w

AprilApple said...

"The comedy sketch opens with a hijab-wearing British woman named Afsana fretting over how to impress the Islamic State militants who recruited her. “It’s only three days to the beheading, and I’ve got no idea what I’m going to wear!” she laments.

Another woman models her new suicide vest for her fellow jihadist wives. “What do you think?” she asks. “Ahmed surprised me with it yesterday.”

A third woman reacts admiringly, typing into her phone and saying: “Hashtag OMG. Hashtag Jihadi Jane. Hashtag death to the West, ISIS emojis.” ..."



Good gravy that's bad.
Not funny. bad Mel Brooks or something + yeah - there isn't any way to make Islamic terror funny. So - don't try.
Be-headings - not funny. Lighting people on fire - not funny. Holding women against their will and raping them for Allah - not funny.

Big Mike said...

I saw it. Not as good as a really good SNL skit, but much better than a poor SNL skit. I don't see why Muslim women should be off limits for mockery.

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

April,

Drawing Mohammed cartoons isn't funny. But, it's good to boldly, emphatically resist silencing. Presumably, this stuff is some version of the cartoons because it probably pisses off the right folks, rather than kowtowing.

So, it's not w/o some merit.

AprilApple said...

I'm not silencing anyone. I'm stating my opinion that it's not funny.

Big Mike said...

Obama must think that Muslim terrorists are not a real threat, based on his announced plans to release 22 of the worst of them. Anyone killed by any of them after they've been turned loose is has to be on Obama's conscience.

If he has one.

buwaya said...

Monty Python would have done it.
They would have done it in drag with those screechy English accents.
I can see Terry Jones delivering all those lines, as a sweet old rat-bag homebody.
There would be explosions of course.
And it would have been funny.

Mike said...

Honestly, this felt more like it was mocking reality TV than mocking the plight of ISIS victims. The satire was much more biting of the trivialities of the Real Housewives garbage. And yeah, I found it funny. I'm known to have a high offense threshold though.

veni vidi vici said...

"But, it's good to bodily, emphatically resist silencing."

A well-placed trumpeter's flourish of flatus usually accomplishes this rather well.

AprilApple said...

I'm all for mocking radical Islam. This is just bad writing lameness.

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

"I'm all for mocking radical Islam. This is just bad writing lameness."

I wasn't suggesting that you're into silencing, I meant that the folks going after Charlie Hebdo et. al. are into silencing.

The cartoons that get these folks homicidal aren't funny or great writing. These are provocations that clarify that we won't bend our society to the will of Allah, which I'm in favor of. From that POV, this "bad writing lameness" is a good thing.

AprilApple said...

Islam won't be offended by this - it's too lame. Housewives in tights.

Sebastian said...

What made it funny was the predictable outcry that it wasn't funny. The matching suicide vests bit was actually good. Of course, we should use ridicule as a weapon more often.

Bruce Hayden said...

@April - you missed when the second woman shows up wearing a matching suicide vest. One of the others, I think, said "Awkward" in the background. Something like that. The way that women would if a second one showed up with the same dress as another one.

And, yes, I thought that it was funny. Poking fun at both reality shows and Muzzies at the same time.

mockturtle said...

Drawing Mohammed cartoons isn't funny.

It's not??

Lem said...

CK could make that work in a bit.

traditionalguy said...

His first 7 wives died. That is funny almost Henry VIII funny.

Jupiter said...

April, did you watch it? Or just read about it? I thought it was hilarious.

rhhardin said...

while the real housewives of ISIS are being raped and abused daily.

They're not being raped, they're being assaulted.

rhhardin said...

How many ISIS wives does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

THAT'S NOT AKBAR!

Jon Ericson said...

ICYMI

Guildofcannonballs said...

Can a Satire of ISIS Possibly Be Funny? BBC Viewers Are Split
By DAN BILEFSKYJAN. 5, 2017

Son of a bitch even if none of the viewers were, are, or will be split it would still be possible. Fucking headline self-refuting.

Anchor effect.

I say: Could any and every satire of ISIS not be riotous laughter factories?

Any fuck up in here thinks ISIS is sacred won't meet Chris Kyle in Heaven, tell you that much.

Fen said...

funny or not, its forced the Left to admit that ISIS abuses women. They've been rather silent on the subject till now. That counts for something.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Yes, I agree that Monty Python would have made it funny.

Jason said...

THAT'S NOT FUNNY, DAMMIT!!!

Jason said...

Just gave my son a lecture about how some things are not ever appropriate to joke about. This was after I was in a meeting where fools without children joked about child abuse.

So parents are entitled to special dispensation to define subjects off limits for humor?

Do other groups have this privilege, too? Or just parents?

You can feck right on off with that.

Guildofcannonballs said...

"Blogger Mountain Maven said...
Just gave my son a lecture about how some things are not ever appropriate to joke about. This was after I was in a meeting where fools without children joked about child abuse.
But then I'm a humorless Scold who never watches any 3 letter news outlet.

1/5/17, 5:39 PM"

Good thing you weren't around for the King Jackie telling his audience "one of these days, one of these days, POW, right in the kisser."

HE WAS NORMALIZING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!

I'm not convinced God sees all of humanity without humor as one big joke.

Oh and Reagan. Can you believe that son of a bitch told Nancy "Honey, I forgot to duck" at a time when she wasn't in a joking mood? WHAT A BOORISH LOUT THAT REAGAN!

Now that I think about it, Reagan and his "joke" were what probably caused all the attempted assassinations since 1981. Gipper my ass.

Guildofcannonballs said...

Goodfellas know when a joke is just (and infinitely) a joke, or whether you're about to get whacked for bad timing.

Guildofcannonballs said...

As a red head, but not, as far as I know, a stepchild, I take all jokes about child abuse more seriously than any of you plebes could possibly imagine.

The seriousness level increases with the amount of funny.

Comedy is business.

Outrage too.

Shame, alas, though having its place, can be used by Satan for evil ends.

Jon Ericson said...

Boom Boom

John Lee Hooker

Boom boom boom boom
I'm gonna shoot you right down,
Right offa your feet
Take you home with me,
Put you in my house
Boom boom boom boom
A-haw haw haw haw
Hmm hmm hmm hmm
Hmm hmm hmm hmm
I love to see you strut,
Up and down the floor
When you talking to me,
That baby talk
I like it like that
Whoa, yeah!
Talk that talk, walk that walk
When she walk that walk,
And talk that talk,
And whisper in my ear,
Tell me that you love me
I love that talk
When you talk like that,
You knocks me out,
Right off of my feet
Hoo hoo hoo
Talk that talk, and walk that walk

Songwriters: JOHN BARNER

© BMG RIGHTS MANAGEMENT US, LLC

Jon Ericson said...

A suicide bomber was killed after his suicide attack vest went off prematurely in southern Zabul province of Afghanistan.
According to the local government officials, the incident took place in a mosque in Shahjoi district.
The district administrative Chief Wazir Mohammad Jawadi said only the suicide bomber was killed in the incident and no one else was hurt.
He said the suicide bomber was apparently spending the night in the mosque and was looking to target a gathering today when his explosives vest went off.

Jupiter said...

"Just gave my son a lecture about how some things are not ever appropriate to joke about. This was after I was in a meeting where fools without children joked about child abuse."

I have to admit, there are times Laszlo's humor doesn't seem all that funny to me. Not that it's dull, rather the opposite. He pushes my buttons. Is that the point? I remember reading Lolita, when I was about twelve. I kept waiting for the hero to show up and fuck that bastard up. Was that the point? If I ever meet Nabakov, I'll spill a drink on him. Probably dead already. Overrated poseur.

Guildofcannonballs said...

"But we should never try to project our values on another culture."

Why not? Can you define (not for me this is rhetorical as am I) "our values" or "our culture" or "another culture?" And could we even successfully *not* project our values if we were agreed we ought not? I posit any attempt made by "our" "culture" to project "our" values in and of itself projects our values, to an extent.

Our values may not be theirs, and yet they too may be.

Why not figure out which is which to the extent we can?

How does this fit in with, precisely strategy-wise in negotiation with those whose values we hypothetically wish not to affect by projection of ours onto them, what the guy who said "oh yeah, go ahead, burn the widows, and we are gonna hang you sons a bitches then"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_James_Napier

I say loudly project and assume compliance.

Jon Ericson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lem said...

Thanks Obama.

Jon Ericson said...

He left some of us alive.

Jon Ericson said...

Racial healin' an' all, ya know.
Extra coastline.
what else...

Fyooz said...



iwatw.com/2010/09/29/there-is-no-humor-in-islam-there-is-no-fun-in-islam/

the feministe have gone full Khomeini. never go full Khomeini.

Fen said...

Yah I'm with Napier. Follow your custom of raping women and blowing up innocents and we'll follow ours of sending Warthogs to blow you back to hell

Woody Pfister said...

Humor at the expense of your enemy is a great weapon,!and Militant Islamism is the enemy of all humanity.

J. Farmer said...

SNL did a skit sometime ago about ISIS appearing on the ABC show Shark Tank. It might be fodder for the perennially offended but otherwise who gives a shit.

traditionalguy said...

Send Mad Dog Mattis in with carte blanche. The ISIL guys will suddenly rediscover that they are poor Arab peasants without a god.

J. Farmer said...

@traditionalguy:

Send Mad Dog Mattis in with carte blanche. The ISIL guys will suddenly rediscover that they are poor Arab peasants without a god.

Facepalm. Fifteen years into our stupid middle east military adventurism, and some people still refuse to learn the lessons staring them in the face. ISIS thrives when state power weakens (e.g. Iraq, Syria, and Libya). With the destruction of the Baathists in Iraq and the empowerment of the Shia majority, western Sunni Iraq was sure to spin off, exactly as Dick Cheney had predicted 20 years ago when defending the wise decision not to take the Gulf War to Baghdad. ISIS has thrived in Syria thanks to very foolish decisions by the US and the Arab gulf states to support and egg on an insurgency they believed would topple the Assad regime. The bumbling in Libya and its anarchic results are well documented.

Between Bush and Obama, we've dropped bombs on seven countries in the last decade and a half. If anything, this activity has squandered US resources while simultaneously increasing security risks and instability in the middle east. The notion that if we just "get tougher" or "carpet bomb" or give "carte blanche" that the problem will be solved is delusional folly. The purpose of destructive bombing against Dresden or Tokyo in the 1940s as part of a total war ethos was meant to compel surrender by the central government waging the war. But in this case, there is no coherent central government that could surrender even if it wanted to.

Robert Cook said...

"Obama is releasing most of the most heinous criminals/terrorists left at Gitmo."

How do you know those being released are "heinous criminals/terrorists"? Most of the people kidnapped and imprisoned at Gitmo were never terrorists or combatants of any kind, but were victims of dragnets sweeping up masses of people, or were sold to the US for the bounty rewards by those who wanted the money, or who had personal grudges against them. The military has long admitted that most of those in Gitmo had no connections to terrorism. Perhaps those being release now are the cohort of prisoners who were cleared for release several years ago but who have never been released.

Unknown said...

J. Farmer: Sending in Mad Dog with carte blanch means Curtis LeMay.

Maybe we aren't compelling a central government to stop waging war. Maybe we just are killing people who need killing. Islam has always needed a periodic brutal cleansing in order to pacify them. If we reduce the population of the afflicted area by 90% or so, the problem diminishes. Right now, we've been trying to avoid "civilian" casualties.

Why? Right now, we are dealing with late stage Japan, full of kamikazes and ideological freaks. We won because we demonstrated that we could end the existence of the Japanese people, and that finally got through to them.

In this case, Islam is the problem. Perhaps Raqqa and ISIS held areas are the Hiroshima's that need to be erased so the rest of the Islamic world can remember that ultimately, their existence is at the sufferance of the West, and that we can erase Islam from the world if they piss us off enough.

--Vance

Robert Cook said...

"Maybe we aren't compelling a central government to stop waging war. Maybe we just are killing people who need killing. Islam has always needed a periodic brutal cleansing in order to pacify them. If we reduce the population of the afflicted area by 90% or so, the problem diminishes. Right now, we've been trying to avoid 'civilian' casualties."

Yes, that is to wimpy, to try to avoid civilian casualties, (though your quotes around "civilian" suggests you think all persons in the countries where we're killing people are terrorists, or, at least, being Muslims, "need killing."

Sounds like you're making an argument for genocide. No wonder you withhold your name.

Robert Cook said...

Oh, I see your name at the bottom of your post, "Vance."

J. Farmer said...

@Vance:

There is so much incoherence in your comment one hardly knows where to begin.

Maybe we just are killing people who need killing.

Distinguishing between the people "who need killing" and the people who don't need killing is part of the conundrum of trying to fight a counterinsurgency. Hence the trouble with trying to train and arm the so called "moderate" forces in Syria. The combined population of Iraq and Syria is 60,000,000. ISIS has about 25,000 fighters, or about .05% of the population.

Right now, we are dealing with late stage Japan, full of kamikazes and ideological freaks.

Except Japan was a large, wealthy industrialized imperial power that by the 1940s had conquered the Korean peninsula, Manchuria, Formosa, Philippines, Indonesia, and much of southeast Asia. Not to mention Japan had a strong central government and organized military structure and hierarchy.

Perhaps Raqqa and ISIS held areas are the Hiroshima's that need to be erased so the rest of the Islamic world can remember that ultimately, their existence is at the sufferance of the West, and that we can erase Islam from the world if they piss us off enough.

The notion of the "Islamic world" as a cohesive unit with a hive mind that can make group decisions is absurd. Plus, the "Islamic world" includes nuclear-powered Pakistan, which could easily transfer its welcome to its friends in the gulf. Also, such a strategy of belligerence would likely be opposed by Russia and China, also nuclear-powered states.

The 9/11 attacks, which spurred are insane overreaction, were primarily planned in Germany and executed on US soil by people who arrived in the country legally. How does turning Iraq and Syria into failed states protect us from such an attack? Especially from people willing to die in the process.

Unknown said...

Russia and China both have Islamic insurgencies and terrorist problems. Think they really would mind a epic slap down of Islam?

Both Robert and J Farmer seem to be under the delusion that Islam as currently constituted is another sect, like the Shintos or Buddhists or heck, the Sikhs. Odd but peaceful, fundamentally.

But 1400 years of history demonstrates otherwise. Islam is peaceful when the adherents realize they are completely outclassed and being their usual militant selves will not be wise or effective.

Sir General Napier had the best solution to dealing with these savages.

Look, you call it "genocide." Did we commit genocide on the Germans and Japanese in WWII? No, for we did not exterminate them. I dearly hope we don't have to exterminate Islam. But you know what? Right now, they want to exterminate us.

Until Islamists of all stripes recognize that they are not going to be able to convert or kill the rest of the world, then we need to teach them.

Look, there's lots of good ideas in Islam, there really are. But it's all overshadowed by the "convert or die" they espouse. So I say, let us do the same to them. Convert to a peaceful Islam.... or die. Their choice. And prove we mean it when we offer them death.

Right now, Islam is functionally the same as the Aztecs, with the same murdering, barbarous outlook towards others and demand to rule. Was Cortez wrong to destroy that civilization and put them to the sword? I say no. That civilization and religious system was barbaric and evil. The Maya are still around, though. Why shouldn't Islam be treated like the Aztecs?

--Vance

J. Farmer said...

@Vance:

Russia and China both have Islamic insurgencies and terrorist problems. Think they really would mind a epic slap down of Islam?

Well, Russia and China opposed our war against Iraq and have tried to hamper our destabilization of Syria. They were also quite miffed that we used the UN security council resolution to pursue regime change in Libya. So, yes, you could expect significant push back from Russia and China if we attempted the indiscriminate murdering of people who did nothing to us, particularly when such murder could destabilize countries on Russia and China's borders and create refugee crises, violence, and any number of headaches for those countries.

Your sense of the problem is so stretched beyond reality it's hard to fathom. If the problem were as pervasive as you say, why is it that out of 60,000,000 Iraqis and Syrians, ISIS has 25,000, which is about one-twentieth of one percent of the population? In the last 20 years, the total number of Americans killed worldwide by Islamic terrorism is on the order of about 3500, or about one-third of the number of Americans killed by other Americans each year. The notion that we face some civilization-level threat from Islamic terrorism or that we need to murder tens of millions of people who have never done anything to us in order to protect ourselves from this is psychotic.

And again, you've completely misunderstood the bombing campaigns in places like Dresden or Tokyo. They were not campaigns of attrition but rather efforts to compel surrender. Nothing comparable is available against Islam, writ large.

Robert Cook said...

Vance has completely fallen for the propaganda that is meant to reduce us to unthinking, fearful dependents on the might of the the USA to lay waste to the world to "protect us." Don't forget, Vance, the same brutal force the USA applies against those outside our borders can be, and will, and is already beginning to be applied to we within its borders.

J. Farmer said...

@Robert Cook:

It's the global cop phenomenon. Once the Soviet Union ceased to exist, American planners were busily searching for new dragons to slay. Threats to the US homeland are incessantly exaggerated and distorted in order to justify America's global hegemonic military posture.

Martin said...

Well... as a kid, I liked Hogan's Heroes and McHale's Navy and F-Troop. As a senior citizen, I like Real Housewives of ISIS.

Just an old incorrigible (and deplorable?), I guess.

mockturtle said...

t's the global cop phenomenon. Once the Soviet Union ceased to exist, American planners were busily searching for new dragons to slay. Threats to the US homeland are incessantly exaggerated and distorted in order to justify America's global hegemonic military posture.

To a large extent, I would agree. It's not just hegemony but defense contractors who depend on our military policies. But in the process of policing the world we have left our own borders poorly guarded. Not only do the drug cartels operate freely across our borders but Syrian and other ME 'refugees' are entering via Central America. Not that we [specifically Obama] haven't let in ridiculous numbers of 'refugees' anyway.

We need to be more concerned about our immediate security and less about the security of the Middle East--except for Israel, whom I believe we should support and share intelligence with. If Europe should suddenly wake up to the reality that they are circling the drain, we may be able to assist them, even though they put themselves in this situation with their idiotic immigration policies.



J. Farmer said...

@Martin:

Haha. Saw all three in reruns (I was born in the early 80s) but only ever took a shining to F Troop, perhaps because I was already watching Ken Berry on Mama's Family.

But I digress....why aren't you, like Vance, terrified of the Islamic hoard soon to be descending on your neighborhood?

Lydia said...

Hogan's Heroes, McHale's Navy, and F-Troop were aired after the enemy was defeated. ISIS is right now torturing and killing in the most ghastly manner possible.

Also, laughing at them makes them seem not that big a deal, which is the storyline lefties are pushing.

J. Farmer said...

@mockturtle:

I hate to strike a tone of discord when there is obviously a great deal that we agree on, but you had me until Israel and Europe. Largely staying out of European and Middle Eastern affairs served our nation quite well in the 19th century. The Progressive march towards imperialism and internationalism from McKinley to Roosevelt to Wilson led us down a path to disaster from which we have yet to extricate ourselves.

J. Farmer said...

@Lydia:

Frankly, ISIS is "not that big a deal" in the grand scheme of things. The tactics they use are a sign of how weak they are. Portraying them as some kind of powerful global threat is exactly the kind of propaganda that plays into their hands. ISIS has next to no ability to seriously challenge American security, and it's waste of resources to make "destroying" them our goal. A much saner policy would be to help strengthen the governments in Iraq and Syria, but that's kind of hard to achieve when we are simultaneously trying to bring down the latter government, which only makes the ISIS problem worse.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Martin said...
Well... as a kid, I liked Hogan's Heroes and McHale's Navy and F-Troop. As a senior citizen, I like Real Housewives of ISIS.

Just an old incorrigible (and deplorable?), I guess.


Your incorrigibleness is deplorable..possibly your deplorableness is incorrigible. Hard to say.

mockturtle said...

J. Farmer: Don't say 'hoard' when you mean 'horde'.

J. Farmer said...

@mockturtle:

J. Farmer: Don't say 'hoard' when you mean 'horde'.

It's called a typo, and I typically make about seven per comment. I type fast and rarely reread what I write before clicking "Publish...". But if pedantry makes you feel a little bit better about yourself, more power to you, sweetheart.

Abdul Abulbul Amir said...

@mockturtle

"we should never try to project our values on another culture."

So are u
You OK with Iran hanging gays from building cranes since that's their culture?

J. Farmer said...

Abdul Abulbul Amir:

"You OK with Iran hanging gays from building cranes since that's their culture?"

So what should we do about it? I say nothing. Do you have an alternative approach? And should we do the same thing to client states like Saudi Arabia, where homosexuality is also punishable by death?

mockturtle said...

J. Farmer, I totally agree. We have always given the Saudis a pass because, well...oil.

Abdul: No, I'm not OK with it. But there are a lot of features of the ME and Europe, for that matter, that I'm not OK with. Gays in Iran or Saudi Arabia should be given refugee status, provided, of course, they aren't affiliated with terrorism. You can't assume they are not, because, well...Orlando.