Lawrence of Arabia - "You know what they'll do to him if they catch him alive"

Mar 2016
661
Antalya
#52
English language's problem: no gender on the noun ... afrasiab didn't said he's referring to women ;)
Statistically, the upper bound for homosexuality is somewhere around 10% to 15%. It is unlikely that many found Arab male attractive. And I am not sure if homosexuality was considered normal and okay back then. Being pressured to be gay could limit the number of volunteers to rape Arab prisoners...

Here is what I have to say;

I find these allegations to be utter non-sense. Not because I feel offended, but widespread male rapes are unlikely for Turkish Army.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
12,770
Europix
#53
Statistically, the upper bound for homosexuality is somewhere around 10% to 15%. It is unlikely that many found Arab male attractive. And I am not sure if homosexuality was considered normal and okay back then. Being pressured to be gay could limit the number of volunteers to rape Arab prisoners...

Here is what I have to say;

I find these allegations to be utter non-sense. Not because I feel offended, but widespread male rapes are unlikely for Turkish Army.
Thank You (I was merely pointed out that because of the English Language's characteristics one can't know if "beautiful Arab" is referring to man or woman.
 
Oct 2018
756
Adelaide south Australia
#54
From Christianity is it ? Is that a joke ? Go look up An-Nasir Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub

Saladin - Wikipedia

Indeed. Salah al din does come across as more chivalrous than the Europeans. I'm not sure if he was quite the shiny, romantic figure he came across in say "The Kingdom Of Heaven"

My understanding of chivalry is that the notion came from that of courtly love, which in turn came from Indian courts, before reaching Europe via troubadours..

In reality, chivalric behaviour occurred between peers; the putative aristocracy and nobility; them what had horses and armour, and therefore had access to some money.. The common man (and woman) received no such consideration. Eg At the time of the crusades, right through the medieval period, it was common practice for victors to go around the battlefield after the battle and kill wounded enemy. Knights, who could be recognised by their kit, decent sword and armour would not be killed , only because they could be ransomed. I think that happened, at least once, to Richard Coeur De lion.

Apologies if I'm way off on anything here , I'm a bit rusty on the Crusades.
 
Dec 2018
48
Chicago
#55
British Servicemen have been issued with "Goolie chits" since the late 18thC right up to, at least, 1976 to my personal knowledge. Perhaps, as you have such an insight into the wonderful, gentle world of Islamic PoW camps you you would like to mention JUST ONE SINGLE Muslim military that has not tortured, beaten or ill-treated its PoWs in a manner that makes the WW2 Japanese and Nazis look like Carmelite nuns. There was a 70% mortality rate among Western prisoners of the Turks in WW1 compared to 27% incarcerated by the Japanese in WW2. The mortality rate of those taken prisoner by Afghans and unransomed in the the 19thC was 100%. Even with the lessons of the 20th C in the potential value of a televised "confession" we all remember pictures of the brutalised captives of Iranians, Somalis, Iraqis--even in the Pakistani Army, where the officer class prides itself on being oh so "correct" and started off with 200 years of European instruction--they just can't help themselves ( see Saurabh Kalia - Wikipedia ).
The biggest question may be why Muslims are so obsessed with genitals and men's bottoms.
The Japanese literally ate POWs on one occasion and were very found of bioweapons-style human experimentation(Unit 731), and the Nazis’ laundry list of crimes needs no repetition.

And considering how “inventive” Europeans have been over the years when it comes to brutally murdering prisoners I wouldn’t say you’d have room to talk, especially since your claims about how the Pakistanis “couldn’t help themselves” reeks of racism.
 

Afrasiyab

Ad Honorem
Sep 2007
6,378
#56
Statistically, the upper bound for homosexuality is somewhere around 10% to 15%. It is unlikely that many found Arab male attractive. And I am not sure if homosexuality was considered normal and okay back then. Being pressured to be gay could limit the number of volunteers to rape Arab prisoners...

Here is what I have to say;

I find these allegations to be utter non-sense. Not because I feel offended, but widespread male rapes are unlikely for Turkish Army.
Raping (of men) is still practiced as a "war weapon" in Central Africa. The alleged rape of Lawrence of Arabia could have taken place not because Turks had fancied him. It could have been a punishment.
 

Similar History Discussions